Even after some Democrats lose an election, they want to keep fighting as one of critics demonstrated in the comments on Scott Walker’s victory Tuesday night:
Walker’s Koch money won the day. But if that’s a victory . . . .ok. Now let’s just wait and see if he survives the criminal investigation against him.
If it’s not democracy when one candidate outspends the other to secure a 7-point victory than, well, we’d better discount the results for a certain electoral contest decided in November 2008. And if we’re going to bring it the Koch Brothers’ money (about $1 million in the Wisconsin race), let’s not forget the unions’ largesse; they spent twenty times the amount those unfairly maligned siblings doled out.
Fascinating how Democrats obsess over money when Republicans outspend them, but not when they outspend the Republicans. Their spending advantage somehow makes Democratic victories legitimate, but a Republican advantages calls his success into question.
But, then for Democrats, almost anything calls a Republican’s victory into question. Democracy, to them, is not what the people want, how they express their opinions in free and fair elections, but what they want. As former* U.S Senator Russ Feingold said, “This game is not over until we win.” (Via Glenn Reynolds.)
No wonder our reader is hoping a criminal investigation will accomplish what an election could not.
*Defeated in November 2010, garnering 314,000 fewer votes than Scott Walker did Tuesday night (108,000 fewer than Walker received on the same night two years ago when Mr. Feingold lost).
FROM THE COMMENTS: V the K offers an important observation:
Walker’s money was donated to him voluntarily by people who support what he is doing. The money the unions spent was involuntarily confiscated from union members. Big Difference.
RELATED: Howard Dean: Walker’s win is the “beginning of the undermining of American democracy”
ALSO FROM THE COMMENTS: sonicfrog shares this:
Conservatives are not supposed to fight back. We are supposed to let liberals run us over and be gentlemanly when we lose… Like John McCain.
Note: Walker’s money was donated to him voluntarily by people who support what he is doing. The money the unions spent was involuntarily confiscated from union members. Big Difference.
The Walker money, I suspect, poured in from the TEA Party crowd in far greater magnitude than contributions from the plain vanilla Republican crowd.
That presents another bitter contrast: the TEA Party is presented as vile and unwashed. The unions are noble and necessary to a safe workplace, progressive thinking and social justice.
Whenever the Koch brothers are mentioned, you may be certain there will be no hint of Soros in the thunderbolt. That is because, in Progressive thinking, one side deserves to win and the other side does not deserve to exist.
For all those Rinos and Progressives out there, the TEA Party is hale and hearty and just waiting for November. Don’t discount the power of a generally taciturn people who have had enough.
In other nations, when a particular side feels entitled to permanent power and goes out of its way to de-legitimize elections that it lost, accepting only the results of elections that it wins, it’s called “dictatorship”.
The opposite of democracy.
Watching some Democrats is akin to viewing 3 and 4 year olds in a classroom. One of them seizes a toy and when asked to share, he cries, saying “It’s mine, it’s mine.” I guess some of these Dems grew up in households where every desire of theirs was met, where delayed gratification was non existent, and where they were told how precious and great they were, no matter what the result of the child.
“The money” (i.e. _Citizens United_), plus the RAAAAAAAYsism!, are going to be how Democrats explain it to themselves when Obama loses this November.
Even if both explanations are false. It won’t matter. They’ll need something.
This is not a light statement, Dan.
We already know that the Barack Obama Party and its supporters will make up flat-out lies about Scott Walker.
And as we have seen from the George Zimmerman case, the Barack Obama Party and its supporters will manipulate evidence.
And as we saw with Rathergate, the Barack Obama Party and its supporters will forge anything and everything.
I have zero doubt at this point that the desperate Obama Party, filled with amoral bigots like Another_Jeremy, will try this. As we see from the recent SWATting actions against conservatives, LGBT bigot Obama supporters will abuse the court system, the law enforcement system, anything to get and keep their grip on power.
Davinci nails it. Barack Obama and his supporters have zero restraint on their behaviors, zero morals to guide them, and the absolute certainty that anything they do is right because they are doing it.
“It’s different when I do it.”
Fill that in as the response to any accusation against the Democrats, because that’s exactly what they think, whether they admit it or not.
Obama is all for matching funds until McCain agrees (and Obama sees how much money he can actually get if he does NOT go with matching funds), and promptly decides not to use matching funds.
Apparently, morality isn’t decided by the act itself, but the intentions behind said act. Democrats can do the exact things they accuse Republicans of, but since the Democrats are good and right, it doesn’t matter.
I think davinci is wrong — Liberals do have a morality, it’s just nonsensical — what they do is correct, regardless of the act itself or the resulting consequences — because they meant well. If you perform the same actions, and even get positive results, if you opposed them in doing it, you are wrong.
It’s that extra step, the ‘do as I say and not as I do’ that really rankles. Even little kids see the hypocracy when their parents do it — do the Democrats really think we don’t (see it)?
Thanks for posting!
Ah, the irony.
I know they are going to bring up their favorite whipping boy Citizen United. But that is disingenuous to say the least. Before Citizen United, Corporations and other large entities, donating to either party, had plenty of ways to funnel plenty of money into the political system. But here’s the thing that really bugs me. If Citizen United was SOOOO horrible, where was the effort to propose a Constitutional Amendment stripping corporations of their right to donate to political causes???? There wasn’t one. Why? Because Democrats also rely on that same “evil” funding to get elected and re-elected. Citizen United gives the Dems a hammer to pound on the GOP, but they have no problem using the results of that ruling to bolster their own campaign slush funds.
And check out this video. Stop drinking milk or Coke first, as it will surely spew from your nose!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Ro6Qfm1ySKQ#!
The best line by far, criticizing the CNN news team: “Who are these people? They’re not even from Wisconsin!”
Of course, that wasn’t a problem when protesters were being bused in from out of state!
Sometimes, the best comedy comes from real life!
As Rush is fond of saying, Democrats never lose. They just fall prey to Republican dirty tricks. But hey, it was worth it to watch “Mister Ed” Schultz on the verge of tears when Walker was announced as the winner.
The Democrats overplayed their hand with this recall; what they do now is just a slow burn of their own implosion.
The game is not over till we when. Sounds like the gay rights movement.
Oops! The “when” above should be “win”. Sorry.
Can I say, I don’t really have a problem with this at all?
What the democrats are saying is, essentially, “I think it’s a bad idea for Scott Walker to be governor of Wisconsin.”
To me, the proper response is “Well, I disagree, it’s a good idea for Scott Walker to be governor”.
The proper response is NOT, “Well, it may be a bad idea, but that bad idea was arrived at through the proper channels, so shut up.”
Why should ANYBODY of ANY political persuasion give up their ideals because part of the process went against them?