Democrats – rank and file Democrats, i.e. Democrat voters – must seriously question the wisdom of their party leaders when it comes to the candidates they choose to represent their party, especially in State-level and national elections. As it stands, the prerequisite for running for higher offices in the Democrat Party is losing at least one down-ticket election.
Consider the names being floated for the 2024 Democrat nominee for the presidency – rather, the name being floated, almost exclusively: Hillary Clinton.
An op-ed published in the Wall Street Journal this week declares – yet again – that Hillary Clinton’s time to run for President of the United States has come.
Citing a “leadership vacuum,” Doug Schoen, who has served as a political consultant to Bill Clinton and Michael Bloomberg, and Andrew Stein, a former New York City Council president, wrote that a “perfect storm” is forming for Democrats. Highlighting the dismal approval numbers for President Biden and Vice President Harris – and alluding to his cognitive decline, the two Democrat spin doctors floated the test balloon that is suggesting an opening for Hillary Clinton to run, once again, for president in 2024.
“[Clinton] is already in an advantageous position to become the 2024 Democratic (sic) nominee. She is an experienced national figure who is younger than Mr. Biden and can offer a different approach from the disorganized and unpopular one the party is currently taking,” they wrote.
“If Democrats lose control of Congress in 2022,” the pair continued, “Mrs. Clinton can use the party’s loss as a basis to run for president again, enabling her to claim the title of ‘change candidate.’”
Clinton served as a carpetbagger US senator from New York and Secretary of State after losing the Democrat nomination decisively to Barack Obama in 2008. She went on to lose to President Donald Trump in 2016.
Schoen and Stein concluded, “If Democrats want a fighting chance at winning the presidency in 2024, Mrs. Clinton is likely their best option.”
Why This Is Important
From Hillary Clinton to Stacey Abrams to Beto O’Rourke, it appears that if you run for a State-level or federal office and you lose – but you’re a Democrat – the next step in your political career is to run for office again, and almost always for higher office.
Either this indicates a very weak political bench for the statewide and national Democrat Party organizations, or it’s a testimony to throwing enough feces at the wall to hope it eventually sticks.
It isn’t that any of the retread candidates have nuanced their ideological stances after acknowledging they have been rejected by the voters. In fact, the only things that change in every ensuing election after a loss for these professional activists and politicians are time and rhetoric.
Hillary Clinton has always been the more radical of the Clintons. Bill, as much as the ideological Right cringed at his presidency, was a politician who knew how to work the halls of Congress, he understood the idea of “throwing a political bone.” This is how welfare reform and long-term capital gains tax rate cuts came to pass during his tenure in office.
In fact, The Daily Beast (hardly a centrist of right-of-center publications) said of Hillary Clinton in 2015:
“…tying Hillary Clinton to her husband is an act of political malpractice that ignores the fact that on economic issues, she was – during his presidency, during her 2008 campaign, and still today – significantly to the left of him…Her Hillarycare proposal, as it was dubbed in the 90’s, was a textbook example of government overreach that proved politically unviable.
“During Hillary’s failed 2008 presidential run, she explicitly pledged to increase the federal government’s role in the economy…
“As of 2007, Hillary Clinton was on record opposing future free trade agreements…In 2012, the State Department, then headed by Hillary, ‘recommended to President Obama that the presidential permit for the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline be denied and that at this time, the TransCanada Keystone XL Pipeline be determined not to serve the national interest.’”
In her unofficial role as election advisor to current Democrat incumbents, she isn’t counseling to temper the radical views so prevalent throughout the contemporary Democrat Party – a party fully ensconced in fascism. Instead, she advises them to “think about what wins elections”:
“I think that it is a time for some careful thinking about what wins elections, and not just in deep-blue districts where a Democrat and a liberal Democrat, or so-called progressive Democrat, is going to win…”
Note that she doesn’t talk about deviating from their deeply-held ideology or their legislative priorities, she only tells them to think about “what wins elections.” Of course, we shouldn’t be surprised, she is an accolade of Saul Alinsky’s, the progressive activist integral in the creation of “slash and burn,” win-at-all-cost, and by any means politics.
Stacey Abrams has not jettisoned her racist, race-baiting mindset, she is simply repackaging her argument in another attempt to manipulate the people of Georgia to embrace a State infected with a nanny-state government.
And if anyone believes that Beto O’Rourke has changed his stance on degrading Second Amendment rights in – of all places – Texas, then you haven’t been paying attention to what he is saying.
As reported by The New York Post:
“O’Rourke also reiterated his vow to ‘take your AR-15, your AK-47’ if he’s successful in his bid to become governor.
“Asked…if he stands by the pledge he made during a Democratic presidential debate in September 2019, ‘I still hold this view,’ he said…
“During his failed run for the Democratic (sic) presidential nomination, O’Rourke [said]…‘Hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47…We’re not going to allow it to be used against our fellow Americans anymore.”
The Democrats’ addiction to running those who lost previous elections is rooted in the fact they are determined to socially engineer our nation to their will; in their contempt for individualism and the individual; and in their bloodlust for control.
It’s a variation on the propaganda technique often misattributed to Hitler’s propaganda minister, Josef Goebbels, Democrats understand the power of telling a lie often enough so that it becomes the truth. Coupled with their embrace of “win-at-all-cost” political ethics and it is clear, they will say anything to attain power and then do whatever the hell they want.
This has become abundantly clear.