• Text smaller
  • Text bigger

Thus far the biggest threat to an Al Gore presidency isn’t GOP
challenger George W. Bush or Libertarian opponent Harry Browne. No, the
biggest challenge to the ascendancy of Gore into the Oval Office –
besides voter opposition — is former senator and Democratic
presidential nominee contender Bill Bradley.

Considering how much I scrutinize those who are most often in the
political limelight, I thought it would be a good idea for conservatives
to learn more about Bradley, since it could be him instead of Gore who
runs against Bush, Browne, Buchanan or Keyes.

At first look, Bradley’s “moderate” stances may look appealing to
people searching for an alternative to rehashed “mainstream”
candidates. Bradley’s people are working overtime to portray him as a
stereotypical grass-roots candidate, despite his mainstream political
history and still active connections in the hierarchy of the Democrat
Party.

But after only minimal digging, it becomes obvious that Bradley is
little more than a rehashed mainstream alternative — to Gore, Bush, and
many other vying for the presidency.

For example, Bradley’s stance on the issue of life is filled with
many of the hypocrisies we’ve come to expect from most other mainstream
political candidates. On abortion, Bradley has clung to the worn-out
excuse of supporting “a woman’s right to choose,” without following that
logic to its obvious conclusion: “A woman has a right to choose — death
– for her unborn baby.”

Yet, when the issue of life takes on another aspect — so called
“hate crimes,” for instance — Bradley waffles. On the issue of “hate
crimes,” Bradley says he believes they are crimes “against every
American — against our belief that diversity strengthens us, against
our tolerance for those who are different, and against our
fundamental value that as a society we value every individual
,
regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, disability or sexual orientation
(my emphasis). When any American is persecuted or murdered because of
who he or she is, our fundamental values are violated.”

Bradley then said, “We will not move forward as a nation to reach our
full potential unless we realize the potential — the untapped
potential — of each individual American
(emphasis mine). That means
valuing each individual for what he or she is, and that will be a
fundamental principle of a Bradley Presidency.”

So in other words, Bradley is saying that Americans “value every
individual” except unborn babies, who are not yet “individuals” worthy
of our protection. Also, he suggests that the murder of them –
“because of who they are” — doesn’t count as a “fundamental value” we
Americans supposedly share.

Furthermore, Bradley doesn’t see the irony of supporting the murder
of unborn babies because it’s a mother’s “choice” versus never being
able to realize our “untapped potential” as a nation. How much potential
has this country already killed off in the name of “a woman’s right to
choose”? And how can he speak of valuing each individual without
recognizing that unborn babies don’t mature into “tissue masses,” but
instead they would grow to become “individuals” if only they lived long
enough?

Perhaps most ironic is Bradley’s belief that the federal government
has every right to take the lead in “protecting” not only pro-choice
positions but so-called race crimes as well. In other words, Bradley’s
position here is no different than most other Democrats or Republicans
– Big Government should not only survive but flourish by doing a number
of things it was never designed to do.

Bradley also doesn’t seem to dislike many anti-gun proposals either.
He wants handgun buyers trained by the government before they can buy a
gun; he also favors trigger locks, background checks at gun shows,
higher dealer fees to drive small dealers out of business, full
licensure and registration of all handguns and — well, you get the
picture. Hey, Bill — what does, “… shall not be infringed,” mean?

The Democratic spoiler also supports government health care in the
sense that health care need be “available to everyone, as nearly as
possible.” But he obviously doesn’t know that it is already illegal for
a hospital to refuse to treat someone on the basis of his or her
inability to pay. In fact, Bradley — who helped pass these laws in the
first place — has forgotten that the federal government already
subsidizes hospitals through a number of Medicaid programs for any
“losses” incurred by providing that required treatment to indigent
patients.

Bradley is also a globalist who believes the U.S. should continue to
succumb to destructive “free trade” policies that encourages the
development of “the middle class” in other countries, but which are
financed by America’s middle class. Bradley does not seem to accept the
“Ron Paul” approach to “free trade,” which are policies that enable free
trade to go both ways, not just in a manner that is “free” to one
country while “not so free” to the United States.

The former New Jersey senator also supports federal guidelines for
public education, supported the U.S.-led NATO invasion of Serbia,
supports continuing the ***Social Security***
http://www.socialsecurity.org/index.html entitlement, and generally sees
the federal government as having an active, rather than passive, role in
our lives.

In short, I don’t see what the Democratic dilemma is all about.
Bradley is not a conservative and, in nearly every sense, he is Gore
made over to look like an “outsider”– a “grass-roots spoiler” cut from
a different cloth.

Like my pappy used to say, “It just ain’t so.”

  • Text smaller
  • Text bigger
Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.