Thursday night on Martha MacCallum’s FOX News show THE STORY –- after the first Democratic “debate” but preceding the second one –- I was asked about the stunning change in the Democratic Party over a relatively short time. That premise echoed the comment from a reader that came in to my website Thursday evening…

From Bobbie:

“As I ‘try’ to watch the Democrat debates, I feel sick that one of these people could be the next President of the United States. What has happened to our nation? How can they have these views?”

Even many Democrats share Bobbie’s concern this time around. Of all the candidates, the relatively obscure John Hickenlooper seems to be the only one actively advising against using the “socialist” label. Keep in mind, though, that the main difference for 2020 is that this time, “progressives” ADMIT they are essentially socialists who want to remake America so the government runs everything. Democrats have traditionally wanted the government (as in, themselves) to run everything; they just didn’t call themselves “socialists.”

For example, presidential candidate Barack Obama shared the goal of today’s socialists of having a government-run, single-payer health care system. It’s just that he needed an interim step to get there, and Obamacare was designed to be it. (We might not know this if someone hadn’t captured his candid remarks on video.) Today, after a run at the failed system, Democrats feel free to campaign on the single-payer idea. And, as they find themselves competing to see who can go the farthest left, they’ll expand coverage to illegal immigrants and even, according to candidate Julian Castro during Wednesday night’s “debate,” abortion services for the trans community. Very important to get that in.

Castro said he wasn’t just for “reproductive freedom” but for “reproductive justice.” People on the left have a lot of cryptic terminology; everybody's supposed to know the exact distinction between these two terms.  But from the context, I gathered that “reproductive freedom” refers to choice in one’s decision to terminate a pregnancy –- even during or slightly after birth –- while “reproductive justice” refers to getting those services for free. A leftist would say that not getting something you want because you can’t afford it is “unjust.”

 


Commentary continues below advertisement


Anyway, Martha introduced our segment, which also featured former DNC chairwoman Donna Brazile, with a few clips from Wednesday night’s “debate” --- I always put “debate” in quotes, because these things are nothing like actual debates --- to show how far left the party has gone. And it’s true, they are very, very far left, though some still employ euphemisms and code words while in campaign mode, especially regarding abortion. Elizabeth Warren, however, was blunt: “I would make certain that every woman has access to the full range of reproductive health care services, and that includes birth control; it includes abortion; it includes everything for a woman.”

That’s when Julian Castro tried to outdo her: “Just because a woman --- or, let’s also not forget someone in the trans community [big applause from audience], a trans female --- is poor, doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have the right to exercise that right to choose.”

This is such a complex subject that I think perhaps even Castro was a little mixed up. I’m pretty sure that in his eagerness to one-up Sen. Warren, he said “trans female” when he meant to say “trans male.” A “trans” female is biologically male and does not have female reproductive organs and therefore is NOT going to be facing the choice of whether or not to be pregnant. No way, no how. Now, a “trans” MALE is and has always been biologically female, and –- if too much biology hasn’t been altered by hormones and surgery –- might possibly get pregnant. That’s what is going on with those silly tabloid stories about a “pregnant man.” It’s not really a pregnant man; it’s someone with female chromosomes who lives as a man but who got pregnant. That’s the reality, albeit ridiculously complicated.

But in Progressive World, a man pretending to be a woman can pretend to need coverage for abortion. Does that mean the taxpayers “pretend” to pay for it?

Goodness, getting into all this, I really share Bobbie’s dismay at where we are politically in 2019. Donna Brazile tried to put a smiley face on it, saying that in the Democratic Party, they have “a diversity of opinions, a diversity of views and, of course, a diversity of candidates.” I would agree that the stage featured a lot of diversity, but only in terms of gender and ethnicity, not so much of views. A government run by any of them and their minions would be essentially the same.

Martha played a couple of clips from 2008, with candidate Hillary Clinton saying that abortion should be “safe, legal and rare” (“and by rare, I mean...rare”) and candidate Barack Obama saying that “there is no doubt that we have to get control of our borders. We can’t have hundreds of thousands of people coming over to the United States without us having any idea who they are.” Recall that both of them also claimed to be against same-sex marriage. Amazing.

As I told Martha, we’re seeing a dramatic shift in the Democratic Party. The first night’s “debate” was almost like an auction; let’s see who can outbid whom in the most left-of-center approach. That may work in the primary, but I truly believe there are a lot of Democrats who are uncomfortable with the party going this far left. Even before now, many have said, “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party --- the Democratic Party left ME.” If the Democrat primary keeps going the way it is, I think a lot more will be saying that in 2020.

Donna stressed that the Democratic Party is all about “solutions.” (I have to put that word in quotes, too, when a Democrat uses it.) That’s what I’m afraid of --- too many “solutions” with far, far too many unintended consequences.

She did admit that “this is a different party.” That’s for sure. “I mean, I’m a different person than I was 10, 20 years ago,” she said. “This is a different party,” she repeated for emphasis. “I’m just trying to explain to the FOX viewers and others that this is a very important period in our country where they want to see the Democratic candidates debate all these issues.” She said that Democrats might ultimately choose a more moderate candidate (right) or perhaps “someone further to the left than I am.” The good news, she added, is that they are having the conversation.

Hey, that’s just what Kamala Harris says whenever she’s asked a politically risky question: “I believe we should have that conversation.” The senator from California is in a position to gain a lot in these “debates,” as she, a former prosecutor, is articulate and fearless. I’ve seen her go too far to her prosecutorial side in Senate hearings, treating witnesses with undeserved disrespect. But right now, she’s obviously trying hard to be cool and likable. Don’t be fooled; she’s a leftist wearing a big campaign smile and she would very quickly take the country to places we do NOT want to go.

https://video.foxnews.com/v/6053228546001/?playlist_id=5410209611001#sp=show-clips

Leave a Comment

Note: Fields marked with an * are required.

Your Information
Your Comment
BBML accepted!
Captcha

More Stories

Democrat outrage

Democrat outrage

Comments 1-11 of 11

  • Edward Finley

    07/02/2019 03:10 AM

    All I can say is Wow! Are we in America or I'd rather say The United States,are we really going to consider any of these folks as viable? I thing they are totally insane. Anyone who would vote for any of these weirdo's needs to question their own sanity. What in the world is happening to some people? Again I say Wow! Or should I say Whoa?

  • Linda Orf

    06/29/2019 05:59 AM

    I too cringe at any of these candidates becoming president. Everyone of them will undo, whatever would be within their power to undo all the magnificent changes President Trump has put in place. They are preying on the spirit of greed that can so easily effect people. “Geeedy” corporations make too much money and pay too few taxes, really? Can they not see that the tax cuts corporations made is exactly the thing that enabled businesses and corporations to expand and create JOBS for those looking for work!! The tax cuts on corporations brought back the USA jobs and businesses that had left the country because of high taxes. And we really won’t know until November of 2020 just how many have been fooled by this jargon. And another thought that comes to me is written in our Holy Bible: God blesses those that bless Israel. I can’t help but believe that our president is being led by the hand of God because he does bless Israel. I doubt even one of the democratic candidates even care about Israel, let alone pursue to bless her. Not one candidate believes abortion is a death sentence to God’s beautifully woven creation. Not one believes God wonderfully made man and women so compliment and fit so perfectly together in a union of marriage. We must all continue to pray for the deceived in this nation and for our upcoming presidential elections.

  • Jean Y

    06/28/2019 07:12 PM

    I turned the radio on today. I rarely do. Rush said today that the Democratic Party is running on nastiness. They have nothing else going for them. They have become total animals. How sad.

  • Joe Wilkerson

    06/28/2019 05:57 PM

    Some consider it better to be a drone than a pollen gatherer

  • TOMMIE CLARK

    06/28/2019 01:33 PM

    THESE PEOPLE GOT TO GO WHERE ARE ALL THE OLD DEMOCRATS GROW A SET AND STAND UP TO THESE LEFTISTS , U ARE ALL GOING TO BECOME REPUBLICANS BECAUSE DEMOCRATS HAVE GONE WAY TOO FAR LEFT, IF U WANT TO LIVE IN A SOLOLIST COUNTRY MOVE THERE AND TAKE YOUR MUSLIM FRIENDS WITH U

  • Maureen Innis

    06/28/2019 01:01 PM

    Governor, I am confused with all this trans-gender verbiage. In the homosexual community, doesn't one partner identify as a female, or in the lesbian community, doesn't one partner identify as a male? Isn't trans-gender just another way to define all that? When you get into perversion, I guess your intelligence just flies out the window. The result is this mess. And Americans are supposed to vote for people who think this is okay?

  • Nena Close

    06/28/2019 12:18 PM

    Kamala hasn't helped California out of the hole it has dropped into, I pray she won't get the opportunity to do the same to the country. Watched her during last night's debate blaming Trump for the devastating fire in northern California and not once mentioning the CA power company that sparked the fire in the first place. She also talked about helping undocumented veterans... that's a new on for me. Was she referring to military veterans or what exactly?

  • Rosalie Gilliland

    06/28/2019 12:04 PM

    I disagreed with Democrats up until the 2012 Democratic National Convention. When the name of God was mentioned, about half the attendees booed. That was when I began to fear where the Democrats are now headed.

  • jack macdonald

    06/28/2019 11:48 AM

    Send Donna Brazille to the showers FOX! What are you thinking giving this corrupt Lib a platform to spout the same nonsense as she did when she was trying to sink Mitt Romney? Partly because of her fraudulent behaviour during those debates we got OBama. She is dishonest and does not deserve time on the air.

  • Harold Levi

    06/28/2019 10:51 AM

    I am surprised and dismayed that you can not get this correct!!! These people are NOT Socialist!!!! They are COMMUNISTS!! I reference Nikita Khrushchev for this definition.

  • Donna Sims

    06/28/2019 09:36 AM

    I have a question re. Buttigieg that perhaps you (Mr. Huckabee) can address. I had been thinking about the question recently, but yesterday saw his picture with his "husband" on the cover of Time. How does the homosexual couple choose who is the husband and who is the wife? Time designated the other person (Charles) as the husband. Does that mean if Buttigieg is elected, he could be our official woman as the President? Or, do they (Charles and Pete) switch positions weekly or monthly or annually (if the "marriage" lasts that long) in designating who is the husband and wife? And, doesn't being wife somewhat indicate having less authority and leadership (Oh, my. My old-fashioned thinking is seeping out here). Perhaps you could address this confusion on MY part in a future article.