A rchive Date
[ 20-08-2000 ]
Category
[ International Relations ]
sub-Categoy
[ U.S ]
|
[Time to vote for principles
Enough of sickening spectacles
By PAUL JACKSON - Calgary Sun
August 20, 2000
I really haven't much time for Liberals.
That's whether they're Canada's Liberals - weak-kneed, in the trough parasites - or the U.S.'s Democrats - characterized by the likes of the immoral President Bill Clinton and his fawning amoral wife, Hillary.
Canada's Liberals and America's Democrats describe themselves as pragmatists, individuals who are not doctrinaire, but so open-minded they will accept any policy or philosophy that works. This is a cop-out - what they really mean is they have no principles whatsoever.
Unless winning elections no matter what can be considered a principle. Or squandering the taxpayers' money on self-indulgence is a fine attribute - a la Human Resources Minister Jane Stewart's $1-billion patronage scam.
We conservatives are supposed to hang our heads in shame because we have principles - believing in the Ten Commandments, hard work, not ripping off the system, defending our nations against their enemies and supporting our police forces rather than criminals. These are somehow considered alarming values.
Values that have no virtue, according to Liberals and Democrats.
Watching the Republican and Democratic conventions on TV this month, I was struck by the difference in character of Texas Governor George W. Bush and the smarmy Clinton.
With Clinton we have a man who is a serial adulterer, was impeached though not finally convicted, and is such a disgrace to the law profession he's having to fight not to have his licence lifted, and may yet land up in jail.
Yet this paragon of vice beams and smirks as, cloaked in hypocrisy, he tells Americans what a fine president he has been and what a fine administration he has run. A sickening spectacle, by any measure.
Yet this is the man our own Jean Chretien has the foolery to say looks up to him like a father! What kind of flimflam is this?
Presidential candidate Al Gore, by the way, may not be immoral in the sense Clinton is, but he, too, is a "pragmatist." who really believes in nothing. Gore, to my mind, is another Jimmy Carter - prone to foolish gaffes. If Gore wins in November, he'll make the U.S. look ridiculous just as Carter did.
Then we'll need another Ronald Reagan to rebuild the economy and America's image in the world.
Gore's running-mate, Joseph Lieberman, is, of course, a decent type.
Lieberman chastised Clinton for his appalling behaviour and bringing disgrace to the presidency, but it's actually Gore who'll be orchestrating the direction the U.S. takes, not the noble Jewish senator.
Bush is painted by the pseudo-intelligentsia as a lightweight and simple-minded. Coincidentally, just as the lib-left set portrayed Reagan.
Just a couple of points: When Reagan took over the presidency, the U.S. people could be described as suffering from 3-D syndrome - disheartened, demoralized and disillusioned. By the time the Great Communicator had hit his second term, the nation was back on its feet, its people vibrant and the Soviet Union in its death throes.
Reagan, apparently, wasn't so dumb after all - and neither is Bush.
Gore picked the charming Lieberman as a running mate solely to distance the Democrat administration from Clinton's tarnish. Bush picked his running mate, Richard Cheney, for the single most important reason - Cheney can step into the president's shoes if Bush dies or is incapacitated.
It wasn't because Bush thought Cheney could win votes for him - none of that hucksterism that the Gore Democrats will pull on the American people. But I'm betting Bush is going to give Gore a walloping he'll never forget.
Let's hope our own Stockwell Day can do the same to Chretien's Liberals come our federal polling day.
Jackson, associate editor of the Sun, can be reached at paul.jackson@cal.sunpub.com
 World Fact Book (CIA]
|