Home Editor's Essays What Do Democrats and a Cheap Suit Have in Common?

What Do Democrats and a Cheap Suit Have in Common?

100
0
SHARE

[img]1|left|||no_popup[/img]

If Mr. McCain again manages to come from far behind in the next 57 days and wins the White House, it will be less for what he has done and more because the Obama campaign quickly blew its famed composure, like a cheap suit decomposing, grew wholly distracted by Sarah, and became hopelessly enmeshed in the media’s hurricane of hysteria to beat up Sarah.

The Dems made a bold calculation to aim all of their cannons at Sarah, instead of the candidate. They are acting as if she, rather than he, will be the main target of their fodder.

They forfeited an entire precious week of campaigning while they organized their Sarah-hits and bombarded their obedient friends in the media with enough negative storylines on Sarah to last through three more Presidential campaigns without digging up any new material.

Such strategy was not without its benefits. The candidate’s hokey, race-based, childish “They are going to say this about me” lines needed a vacation.

Not surprisingly, the Dems used harsher, more vulgar language in characterizing Sarah than they ever did to describe Hussein, Osama and the rest of the 99-Cent Store discount terrorists across the Middle East. Shamefully, they do not believe terrorism is a massive threat to us. They are afraid it would take their attention from global warming or global cooling, whichever is the hot fad of this week. The boys again have their priorities confused. Here is a cane.



Push Button Labeled ‘Panic’

Camp Obama, which has not been very original during the last 20 months, mimicked the terrified residents of New Orleans last week — half fled, and the rest hunkered down just hoping to survive the entirely unanticipated selection of and the wild national embrace of Sarah.

Ten days ago we never had heard of her. This morning, even Pakistanis speak of “Sarah” with no need to employ her (if our frenzied feminist friends will forgive a cad) surname.

­
With a measure of irony that calm people appreciate but that consistently eludes Democrats, the liberal party has lost seven of the last 10 Presidential elections for the same reasons it has, at least temporarily, surrendered momentum.

The Dems determined last winter that Mr. McCain would be the easiest mark in the Republican field to beat, to obliterate. His Veep choice would be more insignificant than what he consumed for dessert last night.

Eyes Ahead — Mostly

Like recovering addicts, Democrats took a pledge to never ever again become distracted during a Presidential campaign and wander into a ditch —unless Mr. McCain would name a governor from the least known state in the union.

To his credit, Mr. Obama was running a model spit-polish campaign until a week ago last Friday. His little loyalists were ready for any Vice Presidential nominee Mr. McCain could spring on them. They had spent weeks gathering hurt material on the longest to the shortest shots. Didn’t matter who. Whether it was Joe Lieberman, Tim Pawlenty, Mitt Romney, Rudy Guiliani or possibly the darkest horse, Charlie Crist, the sharpest minds at Camp Obama would sock him in the first hours with the hardest and fastest negatives any major party candidate has absorbed since Andrew Johnson 144 years ago.

The Dems can’t resist the temptation to at least consider suicide when the White House is at stake. Given the economy, the weight of the media and an assertedly unpopular war, they still let themselves get suckered every time.


Besides Losing, What Do You Do?

They don’t always lose elections, just 70 percent of the time.

Sarah’s nomination only threw Camp Obama off stride for several hours, it seemed. Before the first weekend was out, the Camp Obama chiefs had practically doubled the population of Alaska by frantically parachuting “truth-seeking” shock troops on a life-or-death mission of negative research into the state. By breakfast last Monday, they knew more about Sarah’s disgraced ex-brother-in-law — the state trooper who lasered his 11-year-old son “because he wanted me to” — than his former wife did.

Even the short-haired, pot-bellied, tantrum-tossing feminists on the far left cackled into microphones — these largely childless, unmarried man-haters — that it was an insult to motherhood and St. Feminism for a conservative hockey mom to become the first woman vice president when everybody knew their side had been trying longer tp get there and was more deserving.

Last seen, the gal gasbags were sitting in a gutter, crossing their chubby ankles, letting their tears and melting ice cream cones dovetail into a single stream that voters again may find unpalatable.