Understanding Liberals

The Democratic Party is about to nominate another far left candidate as its presidential hopeful in 2008. It doesn't matter whether Sen. Barack Obama or Sen. Hillary Clinton is the nominee. Both are among the most liberal politicians in the country.

The National Journal, as close as you will get to a nonpartisan publication that covers politics, ranks Sen. Obama as the No. 1 most liberal member of the U.S. Senate. His opponent for the nomination, Sen. Hillary Clinton, is ranked No. 16 on the magazine's list.

What's wrong with having a liberal for president? I'm glad you asked. Think George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, Al Gore, John Kerry. With the exception of Carter, who was an accident of history and is probably the worst president of the 20th century, American voters have consistently rejected liberals running for president.

For those of you who don't know why liberals are bad for this country, I welcome you to the first of occasional series intended to help you understand what liberals are all about.

Here is one of the best summations I've seen to explain what it means to be a liberal:

"Are liberals truly more concerned about the poorest and weakest members of society than other Americans? Or are they simply in love with the idea of their own righteousness? When you demonstrate indifference to the harmful effects of your supposedly benevolent efforts, isn't it fair to call your motives into question? Besides, throughout the past four decades, liberals have caused real damage. If that is 'compassion,' then clearly we need a great deal less of it. Liberal dominance of important areas of America's social and political life has undermined many of the virtues that have sustained this country."

— Mona Charen,
Syndicated columnist and author of "Do-Gooders: How Liberals Hurt Those They Claim to Help (And the Rest of Us)"

For another perspective on liberals, check out "Top psychiatrist concludes liberals clinically nuts" at WorldNetDaily.com