Are there any credible democrats left??

I look back over the past elections and ask this question.

I’ve been around long enough to remember how Jimmy Carter’s presidency was hell. I was around back in the 1960s but was too young to realize what was going on politically. Since then I’ve heard the stories. Of course JFK is well known for multiple reasons even now, and as of now I assume that Tucker Carlson’s reports of how the CIA was involved in his assassination are true. JFK was a threat to entrenched government power, and his views were not in line with that of the ever left moving democrat party.

Just consider JFK’s famous line - “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.” Can you imagine any democrat after JFK saying that?? Certainly not Lyndon Johnson (LBJ), who pushed the “War On Poverty” and then quickly went to the full “Great Society” abomination of welfare programs and other government spending starting just 6 months after he was elevated to president when JFK died. (On a related note, I have little doubt that LBJ was also involved in JFK’s death.)

If you take into account ignorance about basic human nature and incentive, and you add in ignorance about how a bigger government always means more corruption, you could perhaps make an argument way back in the mid 1960s that welfare programs were not a horrible idea. I know that’s a stretch towards giving those ideas credibility, but at that point there was far less evidence of the horrible effects of the government engaging in legal theft from taxpayers involved in doing what were really just transfer payments from a certain segment of the population to another segment.

In any event back in 1964 Johnson was able to win the election, largely with his promises of new government spending, and also assisted greatly by the left wing media painting Barry Goldwater as an extremist. This was also the last stand of the openly anti black racist democrats in opposing the Civil Rights movement. (After 1965, the democrats remained the party of the racists but changed tactics.) The combination led to a landslide for Johnson.

There is no question LBJ was all about buying votes for democrats, and his reported comment of “I’ll have these niggers voting democrat for the next 200 years” is not reported as false even by far left wing “Snopes”. Some of Snopes’ commentary at that link:

There's no question that Lyndon Johnson, despite championing the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 and signing it into law, was also a sometime racist and notorious vulgarian who rarely shied away from using the N-word in private. For example, he reportedly referred to the Civil Rights Act of 1957 as the "nigger bill" in more than one private phone conversation with Senate colleagues. And he reportedly said upon appointing African-American judge Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court, "Son, when I appoint a nigger to the court, I want everyone to know he's a nigger."

Maybe I’m digressing a bit, but note the words “sometime racist” I put in bold above. Have you ever heard a democrat or left winger anywhere refer to the republicans they label as racists as just “sometime racists”?? I haven’t, and while this is just “fact checker” Snopes, it is also an indication of my point on credibility.

By 1968 the Vietnam war was still raging, and the democrat party had moved further left. This helped Richard Nixon beat Hubert Humphrey in an electoral landslide, with segregationist democrat George Wallace taking 6 Southern states by running as an independent.

By 1968 (If not sooner) the base of the democrat party was very anti Vietnam war. Take out the vicious attacks on U.S. soldiers and the domestic terrorist attacks that were part of the anti war movement, and opposing the Vietnam war was, and still is, a reasonable position. Opposing the way that war was fought is even more credible.

Nixon’s first term was obviously positive for most people, since in 1972 he won with one of the biggest landslides ever. It also helped that Nixon’s opponent George McGovern was the most left wing candidate for president ever up until that time. Clearly voters did not find McGovern’s positions credible, as obviously even many democrats either did not vote at all or they voted for Nixon.

Per that same (or similar) recent Tucker Carlson report which is also almost certainly true about CIA involvement in killing JFK, the CIA was involved in the Watergate scandal as part of an effort to destroy Nixon. It succeeded perhaps mostly because Nixon tried to cover Watergate up, not because it was anything all that important in the big picture. Carlson also laid out how establishment figure Gerald Ford was lined up as vice president back when Spiro Agnew resigned as VP, and Nixon had little choice in the matter as the end goal was ousting Nixon and replacing him with an establishment pick like Ford.

With Gerald Ford’s installment as president we get up to where I was old enough to be aware of what was going on in the country politically as it happened. Ford can certainly be described as “establishment”, and perhaps as “uniparty”, and maybe even RINO. During the republican primary campaign of 1976 I strongly favored Reagan, and I knew once Ford managed to get the nomination, in spite of being completely inferior to Reagan in every possible way, that Jimmy Carter was going to beat him in the general election.

Sure enough Carter did win, although it was a fairly close race. Many voters were turned off by Watergate for one, and many saw Carter as a Southern guy who was not nearly as radical as McGovern 4 years before. Note how the West Coast including California was still republican as of 1976 even with a weak option like Gerald Ford.

It’s worth noting that the media was already very left wing as of the late 60s. The Vietnam war helped that transition along. Not only has the left gravitated towards journalism for decades, but Vietnam war coverage also gave them an outlet for their anti war viewpoints.

So the left wing media was largely responsible for the anti war sentiments in the country in the final few years of the war, and I’m sure they took plenty of personal satisfaction when the war ended. The advance of communism and the deaths of millions in Indochina be damned. If the media didn’t already realize it, the scalp of Richard Nixon just shortly after the war ended showed them how powerful their influence was. So they were going to be fairly open about backing democrats after Nixon’s 1972 landslide.

Depending on how old you are and your knowledge of US history in the 20th century, you may not know that in the 1970s there was no Fox News, there was no Rush Limbaugh, and of course there was no alternative conservative media online because there was no “online”. You had William F. Buckley’s ‘National Review’ magazine, and you had local newspapers that were conservative in some areas. TV news was completely dominated by left wing views, even though those views were not nearly as far left as they are now. (Where before many disagreements between the parties might be minor, for almost two decades most seem to be 180 degrees opposite.)

So of course Jimmy Carter also had the media firmly behind him in 1976. But soon after Carter took office, the reality of his horrid shortcomings and wrong world views showed themselves very quickly. High inflation, high interest rates, high unemployment, gas shortages, a weak military, and finally because of that weak military and Carter’s super obvious image as a very weak beta male, we got the Iranian hostage crisis. It was a horribly dark time for this country, and it’s only been equaled or eclipsed now by the Biden puppet fraudulency. For various reasons not even Obama was demonstrably worse than Carter.

The democrats’ anti war sentiment naturally led to a weak military. Whatever you thought about whether we should have fought the Vietnam war or other conflicts since then, the debacle of the hostage crisis showed that as of 1980 the US having a weak military was not a credible position. This does not mean that a super powerful military industrial complex is a good thing, nor does it change the fact that the military industrial complex now fully owns the uniparty office holders and that is a very bad thing. As Reagan said, you achieve peace through strength. But the military should NOT be leading politicians around by the nose.

And speaking of Reagan, in 1980 he got the republican nomination and he crushed Jimmy Carter in a landslide. Reagan was strongly conservative and also was in favor of smaller government. (A couple months after Reagan was inaugurated was when John Hinckley tried to assassinate him. Draw your own conclusions there.)

It took a couple years for Reagan to turn around the Carter stagflation. This was no small task and was no doubt delayed given that Reagan had to deal with a democrat controlled house for his entire 2 term presidency. Of course per the left wing media during the 1980 election campaign Reagan was not only a “warmonger”, but his proposed economic polices were also crazy and/or “Voodoo Economics”, with the latter term coined by the George Bush Sr. 1980 primary campaign against Reagan.

Reagan’s first term demonstrated how wrong the left wing media was, and he again won a landslide in 1984 against Walter Mondale. Electoral college wise, Reagan’s 1984 landslide was actually bigger than Nixon’s in 1972. Also notice the huge increase in Reagan’s popular vote total from 1980. Even with no “independent” candidate that time, it’s possible that the majority of those “independents” went for Mondale and not Reagan, as for many years far more democrats don’t want to commit to their world views when it comes to registering to vote, but they still vote those left side views come election time.

It was at this point in time that if you were at least 20 years old or so and you were paying attention, that you knew the left was not credible. They were all for Jimmy Carter and the results were horrible, and then they were solidly against Reagan and his results were incredible, especially given the starting point of Carter’s “stagflation” and “misery index”. Reagan’s second term further proved he was right, and in fact his buildup of the military and his own projection of strength brought about the fall of the Iron Curtain.

Of course left wing media has been trying to spin the breakup of the Soviet Union for over 30 years, including the movie ‘Charlie Wilson’s War’ from 2007 where left wing Hollywood laughably tries to give almost all the credit to a lone congressman who just happened to strongly support Reagan’s arming of the Afghan rebels. If you know your history, the movie is factually a pathetic joke in terms of giving Wilson so much credit, even if you find reliably left wing Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts entertaining in it. The left does not want to admit that it was Reagan’s strength that ended the Soviet Union because doing so destroys multiple left wing narratives in one shot.

Reagan was still so popular at the end of his 2nd term that George Bush Sr., in spite of his many limitations, effectively got elected as Reagan’s third term. While it was still a decisive win, the vote got much closer popular vote wise and electoral college wise. This election marked the end of republican wins in Washington State and Oregon, and 4 years later California went full time left as well.

As a follow up to Reagan, George Bush Sr. proved to be pathetic. Not even the very decisive and swift Persian Gulf military victory to drive Iraq out of Kuwait could save Bush from his horrid lie about not raising taxes. Bush Sr. acquiesced to a democrat tax increase plan, and that sealed the deal for his loss in 1992.

Of course Bill Clinton was the democrat opponent, and despite his lying, corruption, and obvious bimbo issues, he was far more intelligent and charismatic than any democrat presidential candidate since JFK. He also did not put forth a radical left wing agenda, so his win was not a surprise given how Ross Perot siphoned off so many republican votes. If Perot does not run, Bush Sr. gets a 2nd term, as at least 65% of those Perot votes go to him and some of the rest don’t vote.

When Clinton took office in 1993, he pursued policies more left wing than what he ran on. One of those was “Hillary Care”, which was a precursor to Obamacare. When people saw this, they turned back to the republicans in droves in the midterm election of 1994 and thus republicans actually took control of the house for the first time in about 40 years. So clearly, in spite of his charisma and charm, voters did not find Clinton’s policies to be credible options.

In 1995 those new conservatives in the house, lead by Newt Gingrich, set about keeping the promises they made in the “Contract With America”. The changes they enacted actually lead to the first balanced budget in many years, and for a couple years the national debt was reduced. Of course as I said Bill Clinton was no dummy, so he pivoted away from his prior positions. He pivoted quite hard in fact, and went with the political winds. He signed almost all of those conservative republican plans into law. This was the first rightward move by a democrat presidential candidate or office holder since JFK, and it was also the last.

By the time the 1996 campaign came along, the republicans could ill afford a feeble old pathetic fool like Bob Dole as the candidate, but somehow that’s who ended up on the ticket anyway. Perot was back as spoiler again, but it’s a toss up at to whether he made the difference. Clinton won handily, but with no Perot and a strong republican candidate the 1996 election goes republican.

The late 1990s saw the Monica Lewinsky scandal but at the same time there was republican infighting. The establishment republicans struck back against Newt Gingrich and his group of conservatives (Some of which became turncoats against Gingrich.) by filing a bogus ethics complaint against him and then installing pedophile RINO Dennis Hastert as speaker of the house to replace Gingrich.

In the 2000 campaign, it was a battle of two weak candidates. As much as George Bush Jr. was ridiculed by the left for being dumb, Al Gore was dumber. Bush was likely at least 110 IQ, but Gore may have been below the average IQ of 100. For reference, I estimate Obama at 115 to 120, and Bill Clinton at about 125 to 130. So yes Clinton was smarter than Obama, but neither one of them was or is nearly as smart as some of the IQ numbers claimed for them online.

It turned out that Gore was the weaker candidate, and his low IQ and stiff as a board demeanor is what allowed Bush Jr. to win in one of the closest races ever. Ralph Nader certainly helped by siphoning off almost 3 million far left wing votes, at least 80% of which probably go to Gore if Nader is not on the ballot. So Nader became like Ross Perot as a spoiler, but this time at the expense of the democrats.

Policy wise Bush Jr. was somewhat more conservative than his father, but those policies took a distant back seat after the 9/11 attacks less than 8 months into his first term. The shock of the attacks resulted in a unified front between republicans and democrats. This included politicians and everyday people, as those on the left were suddenly shocked into the reality of the evil in this world and how damaging it can be to project weakness.

Unfortunately this unusual unity lead to overreach on the political side, and the unity did not last on the everyday people side more than a couple years either. People on the left have very short memories, and they are very susceptible to being persuaded that the US is guilty of so many things that they will start to blame their own country for attacks. It’s a bad combo.

In 2004, if the democrats pick a more credible candidate, Bush Jr. loses instead of winning a 2nd term. John “Lurch” Kerry, also stiff as a board and also not very bright, was not that candidate.

As Bush Jr.’s second term progressed, he became less and less popular. The war in Iraq got more and more questionable. While democrats came up with ridiculous arguments and conveniently forgot how they were all for the war early on, opposing the war in Iraq was perfectly credible. Multiple good arguments could be made we should not have gone in in the first place, we should not have taken out Saddam Hussein with no obvious figure to replace him, and we should not have remained in there for years trying to nation build. Some democrats did make those arguments.

In 2008 the democrat caused mortgage meltdown occurred, and at that point it would have taken an excellent republican candidate to beat Obama. Especially since Bush Jr. made an unforgivable error in never making the case that financial crisis was the democrats’ fault. In a previous post I covered how even Saturday Night Live admitted it was the democrats and George Soros:

---

The extremely pathetic RINO John McCain was not the candidate to beat Obama, and of course he lost badly.

But back in the 2008 campaign, other than the fact he was half black, and thus fully black for the purpose of being referred to as a potential “first black president”, were Obama’s policies credible?? Is it possible that 99+% of the opposition to Obama had nothing to do with skin color, and instead dealt with policy?? Of course it is.

What about Obama blaming Bush Jr. and the republicans for the financial crisis when even SNL put the blame on the democrats where it belonged? How can that lie be made credible? What about Obama’s campaign statements that he believed marriage was between one man and one woman, and then changing his tune a few years later? What’s credible about that reversal?

How about Obama’s admission that under his “cap and trade plan”, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket? When you’ve done the research and know that global warming is a complete scam, you realize such a plan is sheer lunacy, let alone being credible. There is no argument that can make such a plan makes sense. What about Obama telling a big crowd at a rally late in the race how they were a few days away from “fundamentally changing this country”?? How is it credible to say you love your country but then you want to fundamentally change it?? Tell us about the fundamental changes.

So in Obama’s first term the luster quickly wore off. After the 2010 midterm election, the Tea Party was able to stop or at least slow down many of Obama’s plans. In 2012, the republicans had a chance with a good candidate, but again they chose a RINO. Romney was less RINO than McCain at the time (But has since equaled McCain in that department.) and was better than feeble old Bob Dole 16 years earlier, but he was still weak. Despite Obama getting over 3.5 million fewer votes than in 2008, he still won. Even accounting for a few million fraudulent democrat votes, Romney still probably does not win even with no fraud at all.

Into his second term, Obama moved further left. On top of fully supporting homosexual marriage Obama changed his tune on what powers he had per the Constitution. The “DACA” program that rewarded illegal invasion was one example. Does U.S. law allow for rewarding illegal alien parents for bringing or sending their kids here by “deferring” their deportation? No it does not. Is it ever a good idea to encourage the illegal invasion of this country? No it is not.

What about the promises that Obamacare would let you keep your doctor, keep your plan, and the average family would save $2500 per year, which all turned out to be lies? Is someone credible when so much of what they tell you is false???

Obviously a majority of people did not think democrats were credible in 2016, as they elected Trump in spite of non stop media attacks that exceeded even those against Reagan.

For the record, even though the mass mailing of ballots was not widespread in 2016, I have no doubts that there were millions of fraudulent democrat votes in 2016. It’s very possible Trump won the popular vote as well as the electoral vote. Illegal ballot harvesting and ballot box stuffing goes way back, and I’m sure it was going on in 2016. Democrats just did not have enough to change the outcome in 2016. They planned ahead better in 2020.

Trump won in 2016 in spite of all the attacks, including the Russian collusion scam created by and paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign. That has been fully revealed, with even key facts finally reported by CNN. How does anyone have credibility after telling that lie for so long? What about the lies on Hunter Biden’s laptop being Russian disinformation?

What about how the Corona “vaccines” would stop infection and stop spread? What about how even cloth masks would protect people? (And per the latest comprehensive study not even N95 masks make a difference.) But democrats and left wing media will still tell you not to believe your lying eyes, as I discussed over a year ago:

I’ve also made a very long list of left wing lies:

---

Having listened to various leftists trying to make their case lately on multiple issues, I’m finding close to zero credible arguments from them. The left isn’t even making the obvious anti war and anti government military spending arguments that they used to make. Nor do they defend free speech anymore, nor are they distrustful of rich and powerful companies like big pharma. They have abandoned several of their previous core ideals where about now they have their strongest cases ever. Why is that?

Big tech companies are another example. Serious privacy violations and big time suppression of free speech. Democrats in the past actually had a better take on privacy than republicans, and they were also anti big business in that regard. And for many years they were all in favor of free speech. But now it’s their political opponents on the right being suppressed, so I guess that makes the censorship okay for them. But again, how is that position credible?

So what am I missing? Someone please explain it to me. Am I just encountering leftists unable to make a good case? And democrat politicians can’t make a case either except for Tulsi Gabbard and every once in a great while Joe Manchin?

Or is it that almost all democrats have moved so far left their entire set of ideals is in La La Land???

P.S. I’m not even going to go into the big fraud of 2020. I’ve already covered that extensively in other posts.