The Democratic Party’s Recent Embrace Of Losers
In the golden age of Richard Daley’s Democratic Machine, they had a maxim: Don’t make no waves, don’t back no losers. If Daley were alive today, he would be glad to see the nation’s Democrats are doing fine in regards to the first part of the maxim. Nobody in the Democratic Party is making any waves. AOC and the squad might occasionally splash around in the kiddie pool once in a while, but nobody is threatening the status quo in any meaningful way.
On the other hand, when it comes to “don’t back no losers,” the Democrats have really fallen short. Not only do the Democrats do nothing BUT back losers, I don’t even know if they could imagine what winning would look like.
We’ll start with the obvious one: Hilary Clinton’s loss to Donald Trump. Losing to Trump has got to push anyone to the front of the line when it comes to being an all-time loser, although Trump has a strong case to make for himself by losing to Biden.
Biden was a loser, too, he only made it into office with the generous help of the FBI, CIA, MSNBC, CNN, and PBS pushing an unhinged conspiracy theory for 4 years. Kamala Harris was supposed to get the nod but she was such a big loser she even lost to the other big loser. Buttigieg was option #2, but surprise, surprise, the mayor of South Bend Indiana didn’t get the win despite some helpful shenanigans in the early primaries. Had this pack of losers all failed, Eloseabith Warren and Amy Clownbuchar were waiting in the wings. Nothing close to a winner in the entire pack except, of course, Bernie Sanders, who they were never going to back even if it meant handing Trump his second straight victory.
Still doubt Democrats are wedded to losers? They’re running Biden again in 2024, 4 years older and no less cognitively impaired than he was when 50 intelligence officers could still claim that his son’s laptop was a story made up by Russians. Oh, and he’s proven that he would accomplish none of his promises and could get us unthinkably close to nuclear confrontation with two countries.
As at home, so abroad. Democrats backed loser terrorist fundamentalist Muslims in Syria in order to topple the government there. They, along with the Republicans, backed Juan Guaido in Venezuela, who, in case you need reminding, lost his bid to become the puppet president of his country. They’re currently backing a military coup in Pakistan with the intention of getting rid of the tremendously popular Imran Khan, so there’s a potential victory to be celebrated there. But their attempt to influence the election in Turkey against current president Recep Erdogan ended up — care to make a guess? — failing.
Once Joe Biden got into office, he supported failed uprisings in Belarus AND Kazakhstan, both neighbors of Russia and both of which Russia did not take kindly to. I’m convinced this played a major part in Russia’s decision to settle the Ukraine situation, the sight of perhaps the Democrat’s last winning regime change in 2014.
Now, in case you haven’t noticed, Democrats are backing Volodymyr Zelensky, looking to break their losing streak. I don’t know what the hell they would consider a victory at this point, other than Blackrock Investment purchasing all of Ukraine’s farmland at bargain basement prices, but they are determined that Zelensky should be victorious. Perhaps victory is counted in the corpses of Russian soldiers and not in the corpses of Ukrainian soldiers. Either way, it’s not looking like a win as far as I can see. The best-case scenario for Democrats looks something like a winnable nuclear war. To which I would quote the movie War Games: The only way to win is not to play the game.
At least the Democrats can take consolation from the fact that they’re not making any waves. That should make the transnational corporations they work for happy.
P.S. Republicans suck too. Maybe even more, but it’s a close contest either way. As in the case of nuclear war, there are no winners in a contest like this.