How on earth do these people get elected? Today's case in point is the nutcase from Minnesota. Clearly since Cynthia McKinney was swept from office by her disgruntled constituency, tired of her histrionics and pervasive paranoia; there has been a 'paranoia deficit' in Democratic ranks Arguably, the deficit is not much of one, but McKinney's departure from Congress definitely left a tastelessness and crudity gap that Ellison fills very well. See video here.
He could have been a voice for moderate Islam. Instead, he is just another idiot apologist for the poisonous fruitcakes currently manipulating his religion.
Some day in the future, reasonable people will look back on this time in the history of our country and shake their heads in disbelief at the insanity currently being promulgated as mainstream Democratic dogma. Personally I don't think the trend to elect these incompetent morons and surrender experts suggests the end of democracy, as much as it is a harbinger of the collapse of the Democratic Party. This political party has become so narcissistic and dysfunctional it no longer serves any purpose at all except to be a living, breathing suicide note written by the left.
Sadly, the Republicans are only marginally better. Which is why I have always considered myself more of a libertarian/neo-conservative. This morning there is an interesting piece by Randy Barnett in the WSJ that discusses some of the disagreements among libertarians regarding the Iraq war. Suffice it to say, that Ron Paul does not speak for all libertarians.
As a last link, there is a thoughtful article that I actually read last week by Charles Kesler on Iraq and the Neoconservatives which argues the fundamental incompatibility of Bush's alternately Lincolnesque and Wilsonian takes on foreign policy; and the differences between first and second generation neoconservatism. Here is a taste:
The problem is that Bush wants to be both "idealistic" and prudent at the same time. He wants to take credit for proclaiming the lofty, breathtaking, galvanizing moral imperative, which is all of these things precisely because it is stubbornly opposed to the maxims of experience, impatient with the self-love integral to human nature, and insistent that duty requires maximum striving for the impossible dream, precisely because it seems impossible. That's his idealism. In that sense, global democracy is his War on Poverty. But at the same time he wants to be sober, responsible, and popular. He wants to bring democracy to every nation (and culture!) and to end tyranny in our world—but not immediately, and not by our efforts alone, and not at the expense of local customs and traditions, and not at the risk of our authoritarian allies, and not by force except in rare cases. These are all sensible limitations, of course, but what then is left of the original idealistic policy that made the blood race and the head swoon? He really can't have it both ways.
I think Kesler gets to the heart of the matter, which is that the Bush Administration has not been very successful in trying to synthesize the two diametrically opposed perspectives that drive their foreign policy initiatives. Essentially, this dialectic is responsible for the often contradictory actions of the Administration that end up alienating many Republicans who would otherwise be inclined to support Bush.
At any rate, my conclusion is that at least Republicans, libertarians, and neocons have ideas; while the Democrats' thought processes--as evidenced by the likes of Keith Ellison and the other delusional defeatocrats-- have degenerated into a mass of bizarre conspiracy theories and paranoid posturing that, while entertaining for the masses, only highlights their essential moral and intellectual bankruptcy.
Indeed, such foolishness on their part makes them ideal candidates for one of the 'wonders' of the world in the sense that it is a wonder any of them ever got elected in the first place; and it will be truly be astonishing if the American people have become suicidal enough to re-elect any of them in 2008.