Don's Tuesday Column

        THE WAY I SEE IT   by Don Polson  Red Bluff Daily News   10/28/2014

Democrats no longer moderate

There will be a fascinating and important program on DVD tonight at the Tea Party Patriots meeting. Titled “The Border States,” it was produced by the Tea Party and promises to be part analysis and part solution to the horrendous reality that America effectively has no southern border under this President. That’s at 6 PM at the Westside Grange.

This is probably the best week to let people know for whom I’m voting and why; to each their own, as they say, so readers can take or leave my preferences. I don’t think the pain pills I’m taking for my injured knee are having any dilatory affect on my political judgment but it is a bit challenging to string the words together properly. There is another bottle of stronger medication for after the surgery so it remains to be seen if next week’s column will write itself or not.

Again, I don’t presume to know what others may be deciding but it comes down to a fairly simple equation, the way I see it. There is no longer any such thing as a “moderate” Democrat politician (as opposed to your more typical reasonable Democrat voter). Those who have, or had, level heads, such as Presidents Kennedy and Truman or Senators like Henry “Scoop” Jackson and Daniel Patrick Moynihan, are gone from the ranks of Democrats much like Ronald Reagan and many others who left a political party that talked, walked, trended and lurched its way to further leftward extremes with each new issue.

Democrats that have ushered in the era of hard core progressivism—culminating in Barack Obama’s, Harry Reid’s and Nancy Pelosi’s ascent to the Presidency, Senate and House leadership respectively—would not be recognized by party leaders and rank and file Democrats half a century ago. Even as recently as the 1990s, President Bill Clinton and many in his party could proudly claim membership in the moderate, business-friendly Democratic Leadership Council. Today’s Democrat core constituencies are so beholden to ideologically pure leftism that they think Hillary Clinton is insufficiently liberal enough to carry out their radical redistribution agenda.

Some Democratic candidates, like the ones we see vying for office here in the rural parts of northern California, can talk like moderates, call themselves moderates and even take a stand now and then that veers away from the uber-liberal positions held by party leaders. However, when ideological push comes to shove they will toe the left side of the line. They may even flat-out lie to the public and then wink and nod to their core supporters who know that you can’t get elected in, for instance, coal mining areas while supporting efforts to destroy coal as a source of inexpensive electricity. They can’t be honest with voters if you know that their Democratic party agenda is going to continue to jack up energy prices, make it more expensive to hire employees and staff a business, cut “we, the people” off from using our collectively owned resources, and fail to provide the water that is essential to a rural economy.

I have therefore come to the conclusion that there is no way to vote for any Democrat for any office, high or low. When I look at the ballot sheet and see “Party Preference: Democratic,” that candidate’s qualifications, accomplishments or ethical strengths are irrelevant to what must be done locally, in Sacramento or Washington, DC, to restore an abundant and free America. One might find differences with a belief or position of any particular Republican candidate but a vote for anyone but a Republican is essentially a vote to empower and legitimize the undermining of our Constitution, our liberties and our economic system. That may be a harsh judgment but until Democrats come to their senses, that’s going to be my stand.

I’ll gladly work to make the Republican Party conform to the maximum degree with what is best for America, its people and our system as envisioned by our Founders through the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and Bill of Rights. For those reasons I have no hesitation in voting for Doug LaMalfa, Jim Nielsen and James Gallagher for their respective offices. I know that Doug will carry out my desires and vision in Congress and that Jim and James, although badly outnumbered in Sacramento by the leftist Democrat majority, will do their best to protect our interests and way of life.

In the “Judicial” section, I’ve been informed by sources I trust that Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, Vance W. Raye, Andrea Lynn Hoch, Ronald B. Robie and William J. Murray, Jr. deserve a “Yes” vote. I’ve marked all the others with “No.” For Superintendent of Public Education, I’m voting for Marshall Tuck; I concluded from reading that the teachers’ union gives their support to Tuck’s opponent that the best choice would be the candidate not supported by the union. Tuck has apparently earned the unions’ ire by favoring charter schools and reform generally—that’s kind of like holding up a cross in front of a vampire. Likewise, if you see that the unions support any of the candidates for any school district, vote for the other ones.

On the propositions, I’ve concluded that none of them—1, 2, 45, 46, 47 and 48—should be passed by voters. I don’t trust that any of the high-sounding goals and purposes will ultimately pan out as intended and that money raised for bonds will just unnecessarily add to California’s fiscal burden.