Surprisingly, America not only re-elected the President, they did it with more than
half of the votes going to his electors. This is very controversial to some foreign news sources, but in my opinion,
the American people have sent a message that they will not vote a certain way because our enemies or allies tell us to.
I believe it is a direct result of a combination of Americans not liking the challenger and liking what they can expect from
the President. I also belive moral issues were key, and those issues are not what the Left would want us to believe.
It has been debated, at least since the early 1900's in the days of Theodore Roosevelt,
whether the US has a moral obligation to spread democracy. The reason is that democracies really are more peaceful,
according to historical trends that show that democracies fight less often than non-democracies. I think the people
are as split now as they were 100 years ago, but the majority seems to agree that it is a moral obligation to spread democracy,
even if it is only to protect ourselves. Also, I think America had trouble understanding how the challenger could have
supported the battle for Iraq so much a year and a half ago, and oppose it now that it isn't going perfectly. The challenger
made a comment about voting for funding before voting against it. He then said he had mis-spoken because he was tired.
The problem is that the comment was true, he voted for it in committee and then he voted against it. If he had just
explained why he did what he did, it would have helped him.
The other moral issue is taxes. As much as the Left wants regular people to think
they didn't get a fair share of tax cuts, they see that the economy is speeding ahead and things are getting better, even
if it is slow. The amount of tax cuts regular people got might not be very much to the elite Left, who are mostly made
up of present or former spoiled rich kids, but those cuts really did help regular people. Even $500 is enough to buy
groceries for a month for many families when you aren't buying fancy food from France. And every time a rich person
uses their tax cut to buy a fancy new car, that is a car several American workers built. Those workers might not have
had a $20+ an hour jobs if car sales had gone further down.
So where does the DNC have to go now? Toward the center will help. The problem
is, if the same far-left people remain in the party, they will stay on the far left or go to the center and be hipocrits.
I would rather see the people, average democrats, work together to elect new people who are at the center. But that
will cause another problem. The party will split into two parties again. But it might be worth the problems if
you consider the fact that right now the party is close to its end because it just doesn't understand regular people.
They make fun of regular people, they call them names and think they are dumb. The truth is, they are
as smart as anybody. How can a party regain power when they are making fun of over half the nation? Their
base has been proven to be too small, and name calling will not expand it. The Right was able to expand their base by
going to democratic areas in the last days of the campaign.
There was a time when people could disagree and be friendly. Where did that time go?
Only people who are disconnected from reality think the President lost the election. Such people were once placed in
institutions, but today they get on television and radio and explain away all the evidence with conspiracy theories.
That kind of talk will not do anything but continue to split us all apart when we need to come back together. When Nixon
lost in 1960, he could have disputed a couple of states and defeated JFK, but he did not because he knew it would be bad for
the nation. I just hope if the challenger had won this year, the President would have done the same as Nixon.
