The Anti-Democratic Party

Pages: 1 2

America’s Democratic Party lost its enthusiasm for democracy a long time ago.

Today’s gubernatorial recall vote in Wisconsin a short time after the most recent general election is just another reminder of how far the party of Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson has strayed from its honorable roots. Founded as a reaction against the elitist ways of the we-know-what’s-best-for-you Federalists of the early Republic, the modern Democratic Party can’t stop telling Americans what to do.

Democrats are acutely mindful of Joseph Stalin’s aphorism that “The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.”

Democrats did everything but orchestrate a coup d’etat in 2000 after Democratic presidential ticket Al Gore and Joe Lieberman won the (unimportant) popular vote but narrowly lost the (all-important) Electoral College vote to Republicans George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. While sales of “Sore Loserman 2000” tee-shirts surged, the nation held its breath for five weeks after Election Day as Democrat thugs and their allies in local governments across Florida tried to overturn the will of the people. During the selective recount the self-described champions of equality argued with a straight face that votes from some counties in Florida had to be treated differently than votes from other counties.

The relentless barrage of partisan propaganda continued until the process was mercifully shut down on equal protection grounds by a 7 to 2 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Although Democrats continue to gripe about the Bush v. Gore decision to the present day (a belief in the decision’s wrongheadedness is virtually a required article of faith on the Left) they don’t allow bitterness to detract from their democracy-denying ways.

In the Democratic stronghold of California, the land of the ballot initiative, Democrats have worked tirelessly to undermine laws approved by electoral majorities in plebiscites when they contradict leftist dogma. Here follow just three examples. Long after the official votes took place Democrats took aim in courts, the state legislature, and municipal councils at proposition number 13 (1978, limits property taxes), number 209 (1996, state must be color-blind) and number 8 (2008, protects traditional marriage) all of which became law after being approved by the people of California.

Democrats love to count perhaps even more than a familiar “Sesame Street” character known for his fangs, monocle, and cape. If they don’t like the results, Democrats keep counting the votes over and over again until they get the result they want. They tally, calculate, and enumerate their way to victory whenever their candidate is within what columnist John Fund calls the “margin of ACORN.” (See U.S. Sen. Al Franken, Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire, to name just two recent examples.) With the help of radical financier George Soros they even created the Secretary of State Project to install state officers who would help rig elections for Democrats.

Democrats want the votes of everyone to count, from U.S. citizens to illegal aliens and lawfully disenfranchised felons. Corrupt Democratic election officials routinely expand the electorate, accepting votes from the under-aged and the dead. That’s why they collectively freak out when the topic of voter photo ID comes up, advancing the most ridiculous arguments against ID requirements. The poor, minorities, and the old are too dumb and frail to acquire photo ID – even though getting by without it is impossible in modern society.

The Democratic Party of today does not believe in democracy in the way the term is used in America. If Democrats win, it’s a fine example of democracy in action. If they lose, they claim that democracy has been undermined and usually some cabal of corporate villains in a smoke-filled backroom is to blame for the injustice. Democracy isn’t a fixed concept in the minds of Democrats: it’s whatever they say it is.

Pages: 1 2

  • Wisco

    Wait, so a constitutional and legal election is undemocratic? Look up “election” some time in the dictionary — I’m guessing you’ll be surprised by the definition.

    You might want to put just a moment’s thought into that argument. Of course, if you did, you would never have made it in the first place.

    • Johncdavidson

      Not when you threaten voters, sir!

    • Looking4Sanity

      It doesn't take much to smoke you moronic union thugs out, does it? I look forward to the day we break every union in this country. Then you stupid, lazy b@$tards will actually have to justify your miserable existence.

      • scum

        Enjoy the ride to the bottom. Gutting wages doesn't help Americans buy homes or commodities.

        • Looking4Sanity

          Simultaneously inflating wages and prices is only a more deceptive ride to the bottom, dumb @$$. Going through life being a gullible foole is no way to live…word up.

      • Oleg

        I don't mind the idea of people organizing collectively to gain better pay or working conditions with a private company, but membership in such organizations has to be voluntary along with their funding, and they must be democratically run, in short they should be made to justify their existance. When it comes to government employees though, their jobs are more or less immune to the ups and downs of the economy, schools and courthouses don't close down because the unemployment goes up or car sales go down. Government employees also have the unique position of being able to vote and campaign for their employer/s, the same employers whom they would be negotiating union contracts with, a clear conflict of interest.

        • Looking4Sanity

          To be sure, the question is not an easy one. What you describe is an absolute best case scenario. That is how the idea of unions was originally pushed. That is how the camel got his nose under the tent to begin with. What you fail to realize is that Right To Work states have been doing just fine right along, even though the few unions in them are relatively powerless.It brings to mind a quote from James Madison in Federalist 51…”If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”No such obligation was ever placed upon unions. Therein lies the problem. Ergo…since they are incapable of restraint, they must be destroyed.

    • pagegl

      Well, if it is being used in an attempt to overturn a previous constitutional and legal election you kind of have to wonder. I guess the leftists and union twits get to decide which elections are really "democratic". My guess is that those that do not put in their choice of candidates are considered to be undemocratic. So, if Walker survives this recall election, will those who put it together consider it to be democratic?

      • Oleg

        Well they believe that any election that doesn't elect a "Democrat Party" is undemocratic, I guess it is large "D" undemocratic but not in the small "d" sense.


      Dont you Commies EVER say anything that is just plain ol American?

    • Robert

      All the problems in this country at present are spelled P O L I T I C I A N, and the Demorats are the worst!

  • Spinoneone

    The current interration of the Democratic Party believes in utopianism. It finds the ideas of Plato, Hobbes, and Marx quite congenial. An "elite" will decide for the hoi polloi what is "good" for them. It proposes to cosset the plebians in a soft tyranny of "nanny state" proportions which is aimed at slowly changing attitudes from individual freedom and responsibility to somnolent dependency on a "soft" tyranny of the Party. Totalitarianism.

    • scum

      blah blah blah. Give me a break. No one has been more 'congenial' to the corporate elite than the Republicans. You're voting against your own interests.

      • pagegl

        The corporate elite have done way more to further my interests in my success than any of the government elites.

      • Spinoneone

        Looks like you chose an appropriate handle. That "corporate elite" is why you have a computer and the internet.

  • StephenD

    Even the National names behind the Democrat Barrett are second guessing if it was all worth the effort to do a recall. If they were smart they would have waited to end of term and put that money behind an organized and worthy (to them) candidate that could have reversed the policies of Walker. Now, the folks will see that these policies are working in their favor and these fools spent and wasted their money. I hope the rest of the country sees the good in what Walker has done. Even if he were to lose this recall election, he is a powerhouse and should be a prominent player on the national scene from now on.

    • WilliamJamesWard

      One thing the Democrats have no respect for is money, as long as there are funds to steal
      and people to shake down, they will spend a dollar today to bilk the tax payer tomorrow.

  • Johncdavidson

    The radicals in the Democratic Party have embraced socialism which is even frightening their associates in the media for if it succeeds, we'll all lose our rights to live freely together while rationally disagreeing about personal responsibilities.

    There is nothing rational about those who call others names in a dispute. It is purely confrontational.

  • Schlomotion

    Keep touting the unimportant popular vote, Mr. Vadum. When Romney loses the unimportant popular vote, and Ron Paul wins the important delegate vote, no amount of wailing, hip dislocating and fingerbreaking will be quite enough.

    • reader

      If you are a real troll, no amount of medication will be quite enough to reverse the dementia.

    • Looking4Sanity


      I knew you were stupid, but I didn't realize just HOW stupid until this very moment!

      • Schlomotion

        You must be watching a different election than me.

        • reader

          Tell us what election are you watching, schlo. And don't forget to tell us what planet have you fallen from while you're at it.

          • Schlomotion

            A different one than your majestic plurality endulges.

    • Hank Rearden

      Were you educated in a public school? In the US of A, presidential elections are decided by the Electoral College vote, not the popular vote. Don't they teach the Constitution any more?

  • oldtimer

    All people are suffering economically. Why should the unions and it's members gain.. As a former buisness owner in a highly specialized field, I was not permitted to work in certain cities unless I employed at least one union member, at higher wage than my employees, even if that union member could not do the job, he could just sit and do nothing. I just didn't work there. The tactics of intimidation must stop and the selfishness of union members is despicable.

  • tagalog

    The commentary says, "…the nation held its breath for five weeks after Election Day as Democrat thugs and their allies in local governments across Florida tried to overturn the will of the people."

    That's right after he tells us that the popular vote was for Gore-Lieberman. So how did the Democrat thugs and their allies in local governments across Florida try to overturn the will of the people? While it's true that the Electoral College's votes decide who wins the Presidency, it's also true that Gore-Lieberman won the popular vote (or did they? What WAS that popular vote count at the end?). Winning the popular vote sounds to me like "the will of the people," for better or worse. Parenthetically, the 2000 election is a sterling example of why direct democracy is a bad idea and why the Electoral College was a creation of genius.

    I say that believing completely that the hand of God was at work in that election; what would we have done with Gore president on 9/11?

    We righties can win without spinning history, so please stop that. Or explain what you say a little more clearly.

    • toto

      Most Americans don't care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state. . . they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was directly and equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it's wrong for the candidate with the most popular votes to lose. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

      The National Popular Vote bill would preserve the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections. It ensures that every vote is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.

      The National Popular Vote bill would change existing state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), to a system guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes for, and the Presidency to, the candidate getting the most popular votes in the entire United States.

      Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count. The candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states. That majority of electoral votes guarantees the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC wins the presidency.

      The United States would still be a representative democracy, in which citizens continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes by states, to represent us and conduct the business of government in the periods between elections.
      Direct democracy is a form of government in which people vote on policy initiatives directly.

      National Popular Vote would give a voice to the minority party voters in each state. Now their votes are counted only for the candidate they did not vote for. Now they don't matter to their candidate.

      And now votes, beyond the one needed to get the most votes in the state, for winning in a state are wasted and don't matter to candidates. Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004. 8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).

      With National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere would be counted equally for, and directly assist, the candidate for whom it was cast.

      Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states. The political reality would be that when every vote is equal, the campaign must be run in every part of the country.

      The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.

      In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%,, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: AZ – 67%, CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%. Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.

      The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 states. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions possessing 132 electoral votes – 49% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

      Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc

  • ApolloSpeaks


    In the final hours before the Wisconsin recall vote Barack Obama, the 44th President of the United States, who's striving to keep Mitt Romney from becoming President 45, has boldly and bravely reaffirmed over Twitter his staunch support for Tom Barrett in his quest to end 44 year old Scott Walker's career as Wisconsin's 45th governor. And as this is a contest between a Conservative governor and Liberal mayor, and a microcosm of the nation's political divide, the vote is strangely taking place on the 8th anniversary of Ronald Reagan's death.

    • Kendrick1

      Oh, so that is who is president! I thought the president of the U.S. was supposed to be working in the interest of all of us — on jobs, the economy, foreign relations, social issues — and not out campaigning and fund-raising on our dime! He's straghtening the deck chairs while the ship of state is sinking! And, he expects you suckers to give him four more years to CONTINUE STRAIGHTENING THE DECK CHAIRS!!

  • Youssef

    Rebel Islamists in northern Mali are banning everything from football to television as they impose their own version of Sharia law.

    Read more:


  • scum

    Of course, had Vadum bothered to look up the position of FPMers in the past, he would have found ROBUST support for the recall of Gray Davis in California. On another note, he doesn't even know his party history of the US. He needs to look up the basics of party alignments and party structure from 1800-1828. The Federalists were already baked by the time the Democrats came on the scene. They Democrats went up directly AGAINST the Democratic-Republican party. I could go on, but his article is so vacuous it's not even worth my time.

    • pagegl

      The Democratic party of Jefferson was originally the Democratic-Republican party which opposed the Federalists. The Democratic-Republican party split into the Democratic and Whig parties in the late 1820s. The origin of today's Republican party was in the 1850s.

    • Matthew Vadum

      More ahistorical nonsense. Besides, are all Front Page writers required to agree with each other?


      he would have found ROBUST support for the recall of Gray Davis in California.

      What a GREAT day that was…living in CA, and voting OUT Gray (COMMIE) Davis.

  • Hank Rearden

    The article is much too kind. If the Dems stand for anything, it is stealing elections. This goes all the way back to the Constitution, where their forebears wanted slaves to count as constituents in determining House seats. Then for a century after the Civil War, they used Jim Crow to control voting in the South and squelch anti-lynching laws and civil rights laws. In the 19th century and through mid-20th century, the Dems used big city machines to steal elections. It's still working in Chicago.

    Now they are using ballot-stuffing to steal elections. Stealing the election is the default position of the Dems. It is treated indulgently by historians and the press as "playing hardball." Dem anger in Florida 2000 was not because they won the election but because they didn't expect to be thwarted in stealing it. It was like Dracula getting hit with holy water. The Dems imported the first team from Chicago and still couldn't get over the goal line. It was Bush's finest hour. Katherine Harris should have a statue for heroism on the Mall in Washington.

  • trickyblain

    As typical, tiny Vadum is long on wind and short (no pun intended) on facts. The remedy decision in Bush v. Gore was not 7-2, as he claims. It was 5-4. All four dissenting opinions are on record — easily verifiable. Why lie?

    • Hank Rearden

      There were two decisions. The first decision was 7-2.

      • trickyblain

        That was a vote based on the Equal Protection clause because of inconsistent counting methods. It did not end the recount, only delayed it. It did not end the case; it was in no way a remedy.

        The ruling to stop the recount (the "remedy of ceasing all recounts"), and effectively award Bush the Presidency, was 5-4.

        It's disingenuous at best to state that a 7-2 majority "decided" the case.

    • Matthew Vadum

      The process was shut down because the Supreme Court justices voted 7 to 2 that what was going on in Florida violated the Equal Protection Clause. That is the “why.” Another way of putting it is that a super-majority of the high court justices believed that what was happening was unconstitutional. Had it not been for the 7-2 finding the 5-4 ruling as to remedy would not have happened.

      How hard is that for you to understand? Typical leftist word games.

      • Oleg

        I can't believe that they are still talking about the 2000 election results, if they didn't like Bush they had their opportunity to make their case in the 2004 election, but they chose John Kerry as their nominee, even though they had better candidates, and the public re-elected Bush instead.

        • trickyblain

          News flash: Vadum ranted about it in the article. I merely corrected his error.

      • trickyblain

        Who's playing word games? The precess was shut down (i.e., postponed) — the case was far from over so there's no reason that the "relentless barrage of partisan propaganda" (lol – as opposed to your melodramatic screeds) would end until a decision was rendered.

        Is it "word games" to point out that Bush v. Gore was decided on a partisan 5-4 decision that unbelievably included a clause that said decision could never be relied on as precedent (the actual case, not a subcomponent of it)?

        Keep on hacking, little guy!

  • H&R_ Barack

    QUESTION: ~ DO You RECALL when Republicans only had to WIN once? (just like the DNC?)

    • Roger

      Boy, it's been a while. But I think my grandma mentioned it used to be that way.

      • H&R_ Barack

        May Wisconsin go the way of Texas since the 1960's. Viva Zapatos exiting the DNC!

  • BLJ

    The Democratic Party = Communist Party. Famous Dems like Roosevelt, Truman and JFK are rolling over in their graves.

    These lowlifes will do all they can to try to steal the recall election. They are moral-less jackals.

  • Roger

    Isn't it nice that the state repaired all the damage to the capital building before the liberals came back for round two?

  • Dennis Metz

    No Cal should be its own state and have its own delegates, it is really sad they are overriddeen by the south and la

  • Oleg

    This idiocy has even been imported into Canada (Thanks George Soros) there was a group trying to undermine, or a least throw into question, the results of the last federal election nine months after it occured. Supposedly the Conservative Party made some telemarketing type calls, the left and their pals in the media dubbed them "Robocalls", that allegedly targeted and misdirected NDP and Liberal party voters preventing them from casting their vote, so called "Voter Supression". Needless to say both the Liberasl and the NDP must have a very low opinion of the intellence of their supporters to think that they would be mislead by a random phone call. How someone in a Conservative Party telemarketing boiler room determined who was a member or supporter of the Liberal and NDP parties wasn't made clear. since the Conservatives would obviously not have access to the membership lists of other parties. In any event the issue fizzled away and died since evidence of a large scale "voter suppression" campaign simply did not exist, if it had then the issue would have been brought up during or immediately after the election, not nine months later.

  • kong.ming

    Congratulations to Governor Walker.

    I desperately urge all small government advocates to avoid dangerous pride and instead focus on humility. Our real victory waits, yet not in November, but in the progress made in the years following where we will work to ensure freedom in the face of insecurity and perceived scarcity.

    Stay optimistic. Stay humble. Stay focused.

  • cynthia curran

    Well, the biggest one was 187 prop 13 would ahve work if 187 was use to curtail illegal immirgation. White Dems that voted for 187 trun aruond and voted for davis who would not up held it. and 187 didn't turn Latin vote against the Republicans the Republicans lost a lot of white vote that would have help them against hispanic and asian vote and white liberal vote.

    • Roger

      And it as the courts that threw it out. Grey Davis the pasty faced albino ferret was rejected and recalled.

  • wsk

    Wasn't even close… This is a prominent middle finger to the libtards, scumbag union activists and the man-child messiah himself. Way to go Wisconsin!

  • Ronald Johnston

    Anybody who claims to be a democrat is pure evil, completely devoid of any morals and does not deserve the fruits of this country!!!!

  • Robert

    Problems in this country is spelled P O L I T I C I A N, and the Demorats are the worst!