The Democrats’ questionable mouthpieces

By WND Staff

So the Democrats’ little brown wren of a presidential candidate has picked a bird of paradise as his running mate! At least there won’t be any confusion over why. Sheer pizzazz is the answer – for a ticket that desperately needed some.

Experience should be more important in someone who will stand “one heartbeat away” from the presidency. In the words of the New York Times, John Edwards “has less governmental experience than any other major vice presidential candidate in at least 20 years.” His entire government service adds up to less than one senatorial term. As for executive experience, he has never served, in either public or private life, as the CEO of anything at all.

Ideological balance? On the contrary, Edwards is almost the twin of John Kerry. According to the National Journal, they rank respectively as the fourth and first “most liberal” members of the Senate. You wouldn’t know that to hear them talk, of course – they both claim, these days, to be staunch defenders of “the middle class.”

But that’s a bit odd, because it is the only economic class neither of them has ever belonged to. Kerry was born rich, and educated in private schools in Europe, where he learned to speak French fluently. (He will be able to apologize to Chirac in his own language.) His two marriages were both to women even richer than he – his current wife is estimated to have over a billion dollars. As for Edwards, he was born genuinely poor, the son of a hardscrabble mill-worker, but as a trial lawyer, he quickly vaulted into the upper class, and is now calculated to be worth somewhere been $45 and $75 million. Together, if elected, they will be the richest ticket ever to make it to the White House. Yet they claim to bleed for the middle class.

As for the campaign, who (aside from the candidates themselves) are the parties’ most energetic spokesmen? In the case of the Republicans, it will probably be Sen. John McCain and former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani. For the Democrats, the tigers with the biggest bites are clearly Michael Moore and Howard Stern.

If I were a Democrat, though, that would make me a little uneasy. Moore, the producer of the Bush-hating documentary “Fahrenheit 9-11” is a grossly fat butterball with a week’s growth of beard who is well on his way to earning the title of Chief Slob of the United States. Noisily anti-American (he recently told a British audience that Americans “are possibly the dumbest people on the planet”), his film is so full of anti-Bush rant that its fans are forced to describe it as flawed but entertaining. Not that that has prevented leading Democrats from promoting it: Democratic national chairman Terry McAuliffe and Senate minority leader Tom Daschle both attended its premiere in Washington.

As for Howard Stern, old Toilet-Mouth has recently gotten so obscene on his radio talk show that a whole chain of stations felt forced to cancel it. But boy, does he loathe Bush!

And that brings us to the question: What issue are the Democrats counting on to put them over the top in November? That’s easy: Hatred. Pure, visceral hatred of Bush. Forget Iraq and the economy – both may well be in disgustingly good shape by election day. But Moore and Stern can be counted on to keep sheer blind hatred of the president at a fever pitch.

And there is no corresponding Republican response. I have yet to find a Republican who can keep his mind on Kerry long enough to dislike him very much, let alone hate him. McCain and Giuliani have their work cut out for them.