Once again the “party of the little guy”, the party that “cares about people” has shown that it’s leaving something out of their party description. It would be more accurate to describe them as the “party of the little guy who can vote for us” and the party that “cares about people who can vote for us”.
By criticizing and attempting to defeat John Bolton, President Bush’s nominee for Ambassador to the U.N. , they are, in effect, saying that they don’t have a problem with business as usual at the U.N. The status quo is just fine, and they certainly don’t want anyone going in there and shaking things up.
U.N. workers and troops are raping women and children? Well, yes, that’s tragic, but they can’t vote for us, so no big deal.
U.N. officials stole billions of dollars from Iraqi citizens? Money that was supposed to be spent on food and medicine and, when it wasn’t, caused an untold number of deaths amongst the “little guys”? Well, while we “care about people”, what we mean is that “we care about people who can keep us in power”.
Hundreds of thousands of "little guys" being murdered in Africa? Well, helping people who can't vote for us would be risky, so we'll just endlessly debate what to do in the U.N.
I’ve always had a problem with the label “compassionate conservative” just because the adjective should be unnecessary; we are, and always will be more compassionate than the Left because we see people as individuals rather than as voting blocks (gay, black, feminist, etc.). We give more to charity (except for Bill Clinton who even donated his old underwear…ewww), and we would rather teach people to make their own way in life than give them some measly handout that’ll keep them in poverty.
And, of course, they are now trying to assassinate Bolton’s character by calling him (what else?) a bully! Children, every last one of them.
- The Exile