What with all the acrimony, even hysteria about the upcoming presidential election in the United States, we thought it might be useful to present a plan that would guarantee (as far as is humanly possible) that everybody would win, even people not voting and those residing in every country in the world. Yes, and even the “losers,” who would lose nothing substantive under our proposal.
|Shuck the abortion shtick, Joe|
Today we’ll consider what the Democratic candidate, Joseph Biden, needs to win. Let’s be blunt. If he continues on his present course, he’ll keep the hardline “progressive” voters . . . understanding “progressive” in its non-Theodore-Roosevelt sense. That is (to oversimplify greatly), a platform consisting of MORE abortion, LESS Trump.
In other words, Candidate Biden is counting on voters who hate Trump more than they hate abortion. Having shifted from a position in which he merely tolerates abortion without being too obvious about promoting it — somewhat less hypocritical than old Mario Cuomo’s “personally against but willing to tolerate it” stance, but no more ethical in the long run — Biden has come down hard pushing the abortion agenda.
This has led to calls for his immediate excommunication from the Catholic Church by people who don’t understand excommunication, i.e., it’s a remedy, not a punishment, and you can’t excommunicate someone who is already excommunicated, such as a pro-abortion politician.
It has also forced pro-life Democrats effectively out of the party, some of which have declared publicly that they will vote for Trump even though he nauseates them. What about voting for a third party candidate? That’s splitting the Republican vote and would ensure the election of Biden. To prevent that, they will vote for Trump.
|Rutherford B. Hayes|
Biden’s current position virtually guarantees Trump’s reelection by people who are voting against Biden and not for Trump, especially the somewhat ephemeral “Catholic vote,” which could be key to this election. He isn’t doing himself any favors by trying to position himself as a traditional, practicing Catholic while opposing clear and unequivocal teachings of his own church.
The other possibility is to make the election so close that Trump can drag out the recount for months until he gets what he wants. It’s happened before, although nobody alive today remembers the Tilden-Hayes election fiasco in the nineteenth century.
The election was so close that the Republicans kept demanding recount after recount in Florida, the swing state. Finally, months after the official election, Hayes was declared the winner by a single electoral vote under questionable circumstances. During Hayes’s entire administration the Democrats referred to him as “RutherFRAUD B. Hayes.” Hayes’s saving grace was that he did almost nothing while in office.
Of course, the Biden campaign might be counting on Trump pulling a boner so big that nobody can overlook it. That’s how the Democrat Grover “Ma-Ma-Where’s-My-Pa” Cleveland defeated Republican James “Continental Liar” Blaine.
|James G. Blaine|
The “Catholic vote” was also key to that election, especially in New York that was the swing state. Whoever won in New York would definitely be president. A few days before the election, a rabid anti-Catholic minister and supporter of Blaine made a speech in New York City when Blaine was present. The minister sneered that the Democratic Party was the party of “Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion,” clear and unfavorable references to the presumed drunkenness of the Irish, the allegedly anti-American Catholic Church, and the Civil War.
Blaine turned immediately to his companion and said, “That ‘Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion’ was a most unfortunate remark” (or words to that effect) and repudiated it. Every effort was made to get the minister to retract his statement, but he refused. It would probably have been useless in any event, as within hours the Democrats had leaflets allegedly illustrating Blaine’s anti-Catholic and anti-Irish position printed and distributed throughout the state. Having (or so the voters assumed) insulted the Irish and the Catholics in New York, Blaine lost the election . . . by a single electoral vote.
But wait! you say. Wasn’t that the same James G. Blaine who opposed aid to Catholic schools? Wasn’t the Plumed Knight (Blaine’s nickname) anti-Catholic? Isn’t that the same as Biden’s pro-abortion stance?
|Stephen Grover Cleveland|
No. Blaine was actually favorable to the Catholic Church. He opposed aid to all religious schools on constitutional grounds (we disagree with them, but that’s another issue). The fact that President Grant and a number of states pushed for “Blaine Amendments” as an anti-Catholic measure (not the smartest thing Grant did) was not Blaine’s fault.
Fortunately Cleveland turned out to be a fairly good president, as would have Blaine, except that he probably would have died in office even earlier than he did — being president of the United States is not exactly a stress-free job. The fact was, however, that Blaine lost the “Catholic vote” and thus the election when he didn’t need to due to somebody else’s stupid comment. Can Biden count on Trump having the same thing happen? That would not be a good idea as a campaign strategy.
So what would be a good campaign strategy for Biden? Let’s be blunt: Biden would win in a landslide that even Trump couldn’t dispute IF he dropped his active support for abortion.
|"We both lost when Taft ran"|
Let him say he personally is for abortion BUT he will not allow one cent of tax money in any way, shape or form to be used for abortion. Period. After all, who is he or anyone else to say that people who find abortion morally repugnant should pay for it? When slavery was legal, did the state or federal governments tax abolitionists to purchase slaves for people who “needed” them? Then don’t use tax money to support abortion.
Does that mean Biden would lose the votes of pro-abortion extremists?
No way. Do you really think that an advocate for abortion is going to vote for Trump instead of Biden? Really? If you think that, you definitely need a reality check. A pro-life Democrat would vote for Trump instead of Biden if Biden maintains a hardline on abortion, but a pro-choice Democrat would vote for Biden instead of Trump, no matter what.
What about voting for a third party candidate who promotes abortion paid for by tax dollars? You mean split the Democratic vote so that Trump gets in, anyway? We may disagree strongly with the pro-choice position, but that doesn’t mean we think the people holding it are fools.
Now, having shown how Biden can win the election in a landslide, in the next posting on this subject we’ll show how Trump can win in a landslide . . . without contradicting anything we said today!#30#