Actions Speak Louder
Please visit Robert's editorial sponsor.
The Democrats' actions show us that all of their words are lies.
The Democrats are the Party of Appearances
It started with their party platform. While the Democrats had spent the previous week slamming the GOP platform's "radical" stance on abortion, the Democrats chose not only to come out in favor of abortion, but to push for taxpayer-funded abortion. But why should this surprise anyone? According to the Democratic Party, if you aren't subsidizing something, then you are banning it - at least, that is how it is if you ask a Democrat about abortion or contraceptives. Sandra Fluke, the activist masquerading as a college student, even reiterated that theme in her speech at the convention, once again accusing Republicans of seeking to deny women access to contraceptives. This from a woman who, after acting the part of the useful idiot in the Left's creation of the "war on women" narrative, admitted that, even though she is attending Georgetown, she didn't know that contraceptives could be purchased for cheap at the Target store right down the street from the campus.
Overall, the Democratic convention was a failure: their every action has nullified every word they spoke. Their entire party has become the empty chair Clint Eastwood spoke with in Tampa.
The Democrats' War on Women rhetoric was tired and stale almost as soon as they had come up with the accusation, primarily because so many of their accusations just aren't true. This hasn't stopped Democrats from continuing to level false accusations at Republicans, but by now, they're just spewing words with no meaning.
The Democrats have been crusading for months on their "war on women" narrative...but look at just how much their convention complemented one of their biggest campaign strategies:
- Former President Bill Clinton gave what was indisputably the biggest (and longest) speech of the convention. Clinton is a philanderer and accused rapist.
- Former Senator John Edwards also spoke. Edwards not only cheated on his cancer-stricken wife (while using her cancer to gain sympathy votes), but used campaign funds to try and cover up his affair.
- A video tribute to former Senator Ted Kennedy was given a prominent spot in the convention. Kennedy killed a woman in a drunken driving accident when he drove off of a bridge. Rather than drowning, Mary Jo Kopechne suffocated in an air pocket; it was later reported that she could have been saved if Kennedy had called for help.
- Lilly Ledbetter gave a speech about the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which was named for her. Apparently, she didn't get the memo that despite their words on the issue, Democratic politicians are some of the worst when it comes to actually giving women equal pay for equal work.
The bailout of General Motors is one of the Left's favorite topics, primarily because they have deluded themselves into believing that the bailout was a massive success...but the truth tells another story.
The Democrats and their allies in the so-called "nonpartisan" fact-checking community went on a rampage following Paul Ryan's speech at the Republican convention over his comments about the closing of the General Motors plant in Janesville, WI. The topic the Left focused on was who was president at the time the plant closed, showing that the entire Democratic apparatus had missed the point Paul Ryan was making during his speech. Ryan highlighted the Janesville plant because, during the 2008 campaign, then-candidate Obama had visited the plant and talked about how he would stand with the workers and that the plant would be open "for another hundred years." After he made those comments, the plant closed, and it really doesn't matter who was president at the time, because the plant is still closed to this day, despite the fact that there have been opportunities to re-open it. And not only is the Janesville plant still closed, but within a few months of its closing, General Motors opened a new manufacturing plant...in China.
To hear the Democrats tell it, the General Motors bailout was the best thing to ever happen to the US auto industry, and Mitt Romney is an evil SOB for even suggesting that we let the auto giant go bankrupt. They paraded members of the auto-workers' union in front of the camera and gave grandiose speeches about how much better off the US auto industry is now. But the truth is, the GM bailout has just managed to prolong the pain for the auto giant.
To hear the Democrats tell it, letting General Motors go bankrupt would mean the end of the company. But the truth is, bankruptcy is a tool businesses can use to get out from under crushing debt without going out of business so that they can re-tool and become leaner and more efficient. For General Motors, the auto workers' union was a stone around its neck: between high union wages and crushing pension obligations, General Motors just couldn't keep up with the rest of the auto industry. But instead of taking care of the thing that was causing General Motors problems, President Obama threw a bunch of money at the problem, and then made it even worse by giving the union more control over the company.
And just look at how great General Motors is doing today: their stock price is in the tank. The company is staring bankruptcy in the face yet again. The Chevy Volt, lauded by President Obama and the Democrats as the car that would save General Motors, is being discontinued because they couldn't make any money from it - estimates are showing that Chevy was losing around $48,000 for every Volt they sold - and the Volt was already quite expensive for a car its size.
There are a few different economic elements where the Democrats are getting it wrong, but the two biggest elements were punctuated by events that bracketed the Democrats' convention. First, right before the start of the Democrats' convention, our national debt broke the $16,000,000,000,000 mark. President Obama has overseen the greatest expansion of American debt in our nation's history, even after just a few years ago he said President Bush was unpatriotic for accumulating less debt over two terms than President Obama has accumulated in one.
President Obama and his party love to pay lip service to "paying down our debt," but where they're big on talk, they're notoriously short on ideas. In fact, most speeches the president gives where he mentions paying down the debt end with him talking about all of the money he wants to "invest" in this program or that department.
In fact, President Obama's only real plan to "pay down our debt" is his tax-the-rich scheme, which is already doomed to failure - even if he doesn't drive the rich out of America, his spending plans will more than compensate for any extra revenue his proposed tax hikes might bring in. And if Republicans, most of whom understand the damage that tax hikes would do to our economy, maintain control of Congress, President Obama won't have much of a chance to make his wealth redistribution schemes law.
Add to this the fact that President Obama and the Democrat-controlled Senate haven't passed a budget in over three years, and it is abundantly clear that the Democrats are the party of perpetual debt.
Right after the Democratic convention ended, America was treated to an abysmal jobs report - the unemployment rate dropped by another tenth of a percent, but hiring was so extremely anemic that no one could deny that the rate went down due to the massive drop in labor participation, which has been declining precipitously - and has, in fact, been the cause of most of the recent drops in the unemployment rate.
Obama's presidency has been one of unprecedented debt, unprecedented regulations, and unprecedented irresponsibility on economic matters. The Democrats' words at their convention only showed that on economic issues, the Democrats cannot see through their rose-colored glasses into what is going on in the real world.
One of the few arguments the Democrats have made that Republicans have had a hard time countering is that President Obama has more foreign policy experience than Mitt Romney. The recent attacks on US embassies throughout the Middle East seem to have proven that conservatives' initial questions about President Obama's own lack of experience back in 2008 were, in fact, correct. Following disastrous attacks on our embassies in Egypt and Libya, the latter of which resulted in the deaths of 4 Americans, including the rape and murder of our ambassador, Mitt Romney issued a statement condemning statements made by the Egyptian consulate, which gave credence to the attacks by Islamic radicals by preferring to condemn the makers of a poor-quality anti-Islamic film over condemning the Islamic terrorists that had attacked the consulate.
Thus far, the American media has focused their time and attention on questioning Mitt Romney's remarks, trying to pass them off as irresponsible and amateurish. In reality, Romney responded as a president should: soon and decisively. President Obama, on the other hand, showed a glaring lack of leadership, taking much more time to respond. And while the White House initially backed away from the Egyptian consulate's remarks, President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton have both made statements mirroring the focus on the filmmakers, rather than on the terrorists.
And thus far, it seems that the federal government's focus has been on the filmmaker over the terrorists, as well. Federal agents have dragged the assumed director in for questioning, but all that has been done to curb anti-American violence has been to move a destroyer into the area.
In the meantime, the violence has spread. The attackers in Egypt brought down the US flag, replacing it with the flag of Al-Qaida. Similar attacks have been perpetrated in other Arab Spring nations. Emerging evidence shows that the US government was warned of an impending attack on the Libyan embassy around 48 hours prior to the attack, yet security measures were shockingly inadequate.
On top of this, the Democratic Party chose to turn their backs on the nation of Israel, one of our closest allies. In their party platform, the Democrats chose to exclude previously included language acknowledging Jerusalem as Israel's capital. When a motion was brought to the convention floor to re-insert the language, it was soundly defeated in a voice vote ' yet Antonio Virragosa, in a decidedly un-democratic action, chose to override the defeated vote and declare the motion passed...quite a thing for the party whose very name implies that they care about democracy. It was obvious that this move was made to re-instate the appearance that the Democrats support Israel. Meanwhile, the truth was more than shown in the voice vote: the Democrats, as a party, do not care about our strongest ally. After all, it was just the other day that President Obama told Prime Minister Netanyahu that he didn't have time to meet with him, right before announcing his upcoming appearance on Letterman.
It has become blindingly obvious not only that America is paying for the incompetence and inexperience of our president, but that the Democratic Party as a whole cares more about words than they do about actions. They will say or do anything to retain power, even if it means bringing America to its knees ' which is exactly what will happen if Barack Obama is elected to a second term.
Robert Cleveland, Senior Conservative Editor: Robert Cleveland is the IT Director for a document management services company. When he isn't working on computers and scanners, he's spending time with his wife and kids, or writing about just how jacked-up Washington politics is. He is a strong believer that hard work and freedom are what make America the greatest nation on the planet, and it is of the utmost importance that we never lose those values. Robert's other writing can be found at his blog, more...)