Every political observer knows of the far left's hostility toward President Bush, his war policies and anyone who supports either or both. But has it occurred to you how much the base must also distrust most of the major players in the Democratic Party? That's one thought I took away from this week's Democratic presidential debate.
The relationship between the base and the party's candidates and officials is like a forced marriage characterized by a mutual dependence and reciprocal distrust.
The base, typified by groups like MoveOn.org, has no choice but to accept the Democratic Party as its vehicle to promote the liberal policy agenda. There is no other viable alternative. In turn, party leaders must cater to the far left because of its indispensable funding and grassroots contributions.
While there are many blind followers in the base, there are also plenty of savvy operators who are fully aware of the massive deception Democratic leaders have perpetrated on the American people concerning Iraq.
They're too shrewd not to understand that John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards, to name a prominent few, have been lying through their teeth in saying they were duped into supporting the Iraq war resolution.
Other than their delusions about Bush having stolen the 2000 election, nothing motivates the base more than the carefully crafted fable that Bush "lied" us into war. You cannot be worthy of the left's consideration unless you fully embrace this propaganda.
Kerry was the first prominent Democrat saddled with this dilemma, which would have discombobulated candidates with less skill at flip-flopping or slightly more integrity. But Kerry, when he realized he was about to lose the nomination to the anti-war left's darling Howard Dean, concocted the ingenious but preposterous story that would not only earn him redemption with the base, but would come to serve as a template for future, similarly situated Democratic hopefuls.
My jaw dropped when I first heard Kerry's far-fetched canard that he and other Democrats only voted to authorize Bush to attack Iraq because Bush promised he would only use that authority as a last resort after exhausting diplomatic avenues and additional weapons inspections.
Every intellectually honest thinking person had to know that was simply not true. The resolution contained no such limiting conditions on President Bush, and he made no such verbal assurances. Kerry expected us to believe he had placed unwavering trust in a man he had long since denounced as untrustworthy to engage in activities, like multilateral diplomacy, that Kerry claimed Bush was inherently unwilling to perform.
Must Watch: Senator Explains Why He Changed From Being a Democrat to Being a Republican | Katie Pavlich