Good Fences Make Bad Leadership

The cadre of people running the Democrat Party and the left leaning media wield Religion and Guns as weapons against the Republican Party, not each other. To the great surprise of the tunnel-visioned elitist left leadership and its mouthpieces, voters hold wide and differing opinions on Religion and Guns, and just about every other issue that can be contrived.

The law-abiding citizens of the United States are blessed with all the fundamental rights bestowed on every human at birth. Most particularly at issue today: Guns and Religion. The Editoral Page of the New York Times opines on April 16, 2008, that Guns rights and Religion are not Democrat issues.

Simply erecting a fence between Republicans and Democrats to contain an issue does not prevent voters, real live human beings, from jumping the fence on that particular issue. The leadership of the Democrat Party and its mouthpieces should ask Regular Janes and Joes how they feel about the issues. These Janes and Joes vote for the person they feel would best represent their interests NOT the person who carries a particular party tag.

Senator Clinton discovered the fence jumpers following Senator Obama’s insult of Regular Folks while speaking in San Francisco. The media likely do not comprehend the hubbub about the issue. Regular people hold opinions. Just ask. Senator Clinton exploits the issue now because she has little else new to offer. Senator Obama’s lack of communication with Regular People left him WIDE OPEN for attack.

In order to have a substantive conversation with these Regular Folks, the Democrat Party would be required to acknowledge that Regular Folks, not the high end, money-gushing liberals, provide the votes that decide an election. And that, sadly, will never happen.



Filed under 2008 Election, Media, Politics

4 responses to “Good Fences Make Bad Leadership

  1. I hate to disagree, but the rubes do tend to vote for party over issues. Obama will get voters to vote for him, regardless of his openly verbal Marxist view of the world. Even Lieberman is refusing to deny the marxism of Obama… Just like certain groups will vote for a Democrat even when there is no reason to support them. Labor will vote for the DNC even though Dems support taxes and hikes that effect jobs. Jews will vote for Dems even though there is no support of Israel and many Dems are openly anti-Semitic. Blacks vote for Dems even though the majority tend to be social conservatives that want vouchers… The ability to blind while voting is sheer intellectual laziness that too many people suffer (and force us to suffer with them).

  2. salmonandgrits

    While you are right that typically votes vote by party, it seems that everyone has their hot button, point of no return. Look at the poll results that indicate if there candidate (Clinton or Obama) is not elected, the people intend to vote for McCain. The Democrats are losing those people. Why?

  3. VoteNader

    I think Obama was using religion and guns as metaphors for areas where people seek refuge from their problems… instead of becoming angry at the system and people responsible for their plight, they become zealous about other issues as a way to place blame or vent anger. A similar phenomenon was observed in Nazi Germany, according to scholar Max Horkheimer. He saw anti-Semitism not as any particularly popular principle but rather as an outlet of anger and dissatisfaction. Obama is not anti-religious, he’s a professed Christian, and he’s also not talked about altering the 2nd Amendment. I think he merely sees the way that many people find newand usually incorrect outlets for their anger. They should be angry at the Republican party and its corrupt corporate policies that allowed such economically disastrous bubbles like the sub-prime bubble to grow to such proportions in the first place. But instead of blaming the government or corporations, these people will blame immigrants/homosexuals/liberals/heathens/muslims/etc. And Obama was right. Funny how Hillary can point a finger and call someone elitist …

  4. salmonandgrits

    Agreed. Hillary has an ivy league degree too.

    Rural people are not Nazis in training. Rural folks and regular people live in a smaller world. A world of two lane roads and weekly newspapers. A world where gossip is not shared on a blog but at church on Sunday. A world where church is the center of the community, not the local Starbucks.

    Zealous religiosity is nothing new. It’s why people left England to seek shelter. It’s why Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt. Small town folks are not dissatisfied with their lives. The problem appears when people from outside disrupt the equilibrium. People cling to their church and religion because it is the center of their world. And isn’t that the ultimate object of Christianity, Catholicism, Muslim and Jewish religions: to walk in the life of the Savior, Prophet or God.

    No, an analogy to Nazis is not appropriate.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s