Previous post
The primary season is almost upon us. That means our daily exposure to political ads will increase exponentially as we near the Iowa caucus. Short of cutting your use of all electronic devices, you can’t get away from the ads. Instead, do what the candidates don’t want you to. Listen to the ads, take them apart, comment by comment and promise by promise. Ask the hard questions and demand answers. Here at Victory Girls, we’re going to do just that, starting with Tom Steyer.
If you look at Steyer’s campaign site, he’s the warrior for the everyday person. He is “committed to combating climate change, fixing our government, and, when elected president, putting people, and not corporations, in charge of our democracy.”
Sounds good, doesn’t it? At least if you believe the propaganda about climate change and believe our government (actually, our Constitution) needs to be fixed.
The reality is Tom Steyer is a far cry from being a different sort of candidate than Donald Trump is. He’s not an “every man” despite his rolled up sleeves and vows that he has our best interests at heart. From his Wiki page, he is an “American hedge fund manager, philanthropist, environmentalist, liberal activist, and fundraiser.” Oh, he’s pledged to give up half his wealth during his lifetime and that is supposed to make him some sort of hero. Sorry, it still means he is a wealthy man, living the life he publicly condemns to score political points. Now he wants to be president because, like so many liberals, he can’t stand Donald Trump and sees himself as our country’s savior. To do so, he is pouring much of his own money into a campaign that includes its own version of political “ads” (really, nothing but bad propaganda).
Congress shouldn’t be a lifetime appointment. . . .
Wait, what? First, he’s talking about term limits and now he says once elected, it becomes a lifetime appointment? This is what happens when you are trying to show how anti-government you are and, at the same time, show you have no respect for the intelligence of those who go to the polls. Like so many, Steyer thinks we will take what he says at face value and not consider the meat of his statements.
That’s exactly what the ad is: 30 seconds of nothing. Steyer hits points that he feels will resonate with voters but there is no substance, no logic to what he says. Here are the questions we need to be asking, questions we should ask of him and his supporters every chance we get.
In other words, Steyer is relying on the old Democratic (hell, let’s be honest, political) ploy of making a claim that “politicians” oppose something, knowing many voters will assume he’s referring to the other party. It is our job to be educated voters and call him and others like him out on this. Where was he when these amendments were proposed? Why are we only now hearing from him what an important issue this is?
Steyer is running on being someone different. But is he really? Change the name and party, close your eyes and look at why he says he’s running. He is supposed to be the fresh face, the non-politician who will take America to greatness. He is the anti-incumbent. Sound familiar? It should. It is very similar to the tone we heard when Trump first started his run for the Oval Office. There is one big difference. With Trump, we knew exactly what we were getting. He made no attempt to hide who and what he is. Steyer hides behind rhetoric and pledges to give up half his wealth to prove he is a man of the people. I’d be a lot more receptive to his cause if he gave it all up.
Instead, seeing him with his sleeves rolled up and his attempts to show he is just like you and me, my mind keeps going to “A New Argentina” from Evita. Peron, with Evita by his side, rolls up his sleeves and to show his support of the descamisados. It was a brilliant political move, one that Argentina still pays the price for in some ways today. The masses embraced Peron who became a dictator. This is my fear when I see politicians like Steyer and others who play to the fears of the masses.
It is up to us to keep them honest, or as honest as possible. by holding their feet to the proverbial fire. We challenge them on what they say and we demand answers. Then we challenge them some more. We hold our Constitution close and do what is necessary to protect it. We do not go gently into the night. If we do, all is lost for our country and we will have no one but ourselves to blame.
Welcome, Instapundit readers!
Featured Image: “Tom Steyer” by Gage Skidmore is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0
Term limits out the bureaucrats in charge as they can out wait the elected officials.
Out should be put. I hate auto correct.
If you hate autocorrect, turn it off. Don’t choose to use a crutch then blame your crutch.
Well, in point of fact they can already do that: Ask former U.S. Senator David Boren.
Now look at where and how he made his money!
If he really wanted to do something how about saying he’d work to roll back the federal government to be within Constitutional limitations like it’s supposed to be. Politicians, companies, any person or group that lives off of what they can buy from federal power would be upset.
Note also his commercials in which he advocates national referenda–a way to get much of the same effect as eliminating the senate and electoral college without having to bother with that pesky Constitution.
1. On term limits – The goal is to remove corrupt influences from power, not to limit the pool of political talent. Term limits are of little value if the ex-pols are still hanging around the halls of power.Let’s first stop that revolving door between lobbyists, staff and elected office. Plus, it doesn’t require a constitutional amendment.
2. On donations – I disagree about the amount of Steyer’s donations. If he is donating 50% of his wealth to philanthropic charity, that is impressive.
I just wonder about that philanthropic part. Donating large amounts of money to, say, the Clinton Foundation is not a sign of virtue. What fraction of his wealth HAS he donated? What fraction has gone to apolitical charities from which he does not derive a secondary benefit?
Uhh, no. A legitimate restriction on lobbying by termed out Congress critters would require a Constitutional amendment. The right to petition the government is smack dab in the First Amendment, and there are no exceptions for retired Congress critters or bureaucrats.
Steyer has said that he doesn’t want to be president — he wants to do things as president.
He doesn’t want the job. He just wants the power.
Term limits would do very little to improve the quality of politicians in office. Everyone would agree that democrat Hank “Island Tipper” Johnson is not really qualified to be in office, but term limits would just replace Hank Johnson with another just as bad or worse politician because it is voters that elected Johnson in the first place that would vote for his replacement.
Steyer trying to get away with implying that somehow Repubs are the lifetime job abusers reminds me of the gerrymandering controversy. A Lib friend pontificated on FB about it, but was silent when I posted the district map of a well known Dem in nearby MD.
20 Comments