Today is
Saturday, June 24, 2017

Google Safe Search


Home > Perspective

The Real Loser


"Senator" Harry Reid (D-NV), leader of the senateís shrinking Democratic party minority, seems to have no remorse for referring to our beloved President as a "loser" some days ago.  Reid is quoted as saying, "Maybe my choice of words was improper, and I have indicated that maybe they were, but I want everyone here, I repeat, to know Iím going to continue to call things the way that I see them, and I think this administration has done a very, very bad job for this nation and the world."  What a crock!  Sen. Reid has been the person who has disserved this nation.  He is the real loser.


"What supposedly makes our President a "loser?"  Is it his victory for a second term? Is W a "loser" for leading his party to gains in state houses and both houses of Congress in both 2002 and 2004?"


What supposedly makes our President a "loser?"  Is it his victory for a second term? Is W a "loser" for leading his party to gains in state houses and both houses of Congress in both 2002 and 2004?  Is our President a "loser" for hunting down Al-Qaeda everywhere it lurks and striking at these terrorists?  Or is he a "loser" because there has been no terrorist act on American soil since September 11, 2001?  Is George W. Bush a "loser" for going into Iraq and freeing the people from the most dangerous despot in the region, and in the process, drawing the terrorists away from the United States?  Or is he a "loser" because Saddam Hussein is in prison awaiting trial?  Is he a "loser" for being the first President since 1988 to win the election with an actual majority, as opposed to a plurality, of votes?  Is he a "loser" for having the guts to work to repair Social(ism) Security before it collapses, and in the process, make it a program that liberates people from the government rather than forcing their dependency?  I think that we know the answer to these questions.

What about Sen. Reid?  Is he a "loser" for threatening to freeze all Senate business if the GOP forces a vote on judicial nominees?  Is he a "loser" for blocking Wís nominees with a filibuster threats unless the GOP capitulates and only presents "acceptable" (meaning extreme left wing) judicial nominees to the Senate?  Is he a "loser" for presiding over a senate with fewer and fewer people from his party in the chamber?  Remember that he took over as Minority leader when his predecessor lost re-election to the Senate.  Is he a "loser" for refusing to recognize that America rejects his and his partyís extreme leftist, dependence-on-government viewpoints?  Is he a "loser" for supporting private Social Security accounts when his party was in power, but opposing it when the GOP is in power?  I think that we know the answer to these questions as well.

Who are the real losers?  W and the GOP, who are consistent, morally-grounded, interested in liberating the people from the government, and interested in long-term results, polls and transitory politics be damned?  Or Reid and the Democrats, the party of obstruction, regression, governmental dependence, the party that relied on daily focus groups and poll-pandering until it has been reduced to a semi-influential minority?  I think that we know the answers to these questions as well.  If you cannot figure this out, I respectfully refer you to the 2004 election results.  The people prefer consistency, and have spoken with their votes.  The people prefer proactiveness and have spoken with their votes.  The people prefer less government, and have spoken with their votes.  The people have already decided who is the winner and who is the "loser."