Am I the only one who sees the irony in two old white guys leading the Democrat presidential primary?

Yes, the one spending the most money, inundating us with his insidious ads, is Michael Bloomberg. And the one who is winning early contests is Bernie Sanders. However, the further irony is that neither of these gentlemen are “true” Democrats…Sanders is a Democrat Socialist, while Bloomberg is a former Republican Mayor.

It is obvious why the current Democrat Party base will reject Michael Bloomberg. Senator Elizabeth Warren made that point very clear during the Nevada Democrat presidential debate, a real debacle for Bloomberg.

But why is it that the Democrat Party is rejecting Bernie Sanders, as evidenced by recent comments from former Clinton adviser James Carville and MSNBC commentator Chris Matthews.

First, let’s admit that Bernie Sanders is the Frankenstein’s monster of socialism that got out of the laboratory and is now ravaging the countryside. It is one thing to talk about the failed economic model of socialism on college and university campuses, but to have it openly embraced as a viable political philosophy in America is another thing.

Make no mistake, today’s Democrat Party is a leftist party, but they would prefer using the element of deception, deceit, and distraction. They understand progressive socialism is easy to present to the low- and no-information electorate, those who believe in government supremacy, dependency. However, when the US economy is operating on full throttle, this is not a simple sell.

In a way, Bernie Sanders and his supporter Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are the creations of the Democrat Party. The Democrats allowed more and more radical elements to find a home in their party.

And in comparison, there was nothing “radical” about the TEA (Taxed Enough Already) Party movement. The only radical thing was that it was the first-ever constitutional conservative nationwide grassroots movement. It was a movement focused on fiscal responsibility of the government. It was a movement based upon principle, not politics, and was powered by the common American citizen.

The problem was that it threatened the political elite class. And at the time, it threatened Barack Obama’s presidency, after he realized its power from the 2010 midterm elections where he suffered a massive electoral defeat.

In opposition, the Democrats welcomed, supported, and advanced groups like Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter, and now, Antifa. Each of these groups are rooted in acts of violence, yet they have gone unchallenged by the Democrat Party. The result is that Frankenstein’s monster, the creation of the Democrat Party, is now roaming all over the American countryside.

There are two phases to a political campaign, image and message. Since the JFK vs Nixon televised presidential debate, the image phase has become integral. This is not just about looks, although that is vital; it is about a persona, an aura, an identity.

Let’s be honest, the Democrat Party has been very effective in dominating the image phase of electoral politics in America. Today we call it “identity politics.” For JFK, it was his looks. For Jimmy Carter, it was the simple “peanut farmer” from Georgia. For Bill Clinton, it was the “man from Hope” who also capitalized on the simple Southern persona. For Barack Obama, it was the first black president.

But, in the case of George McGovern, Michael Dukakis, Walter Mondale, and Al Gore Jr. there was no image to sell. This was exacerbated in the 2016 election with Hillary Clinton. The identity politics mantra of running the first woman presidential nominee could not supersede Ms. Clinton’s personal unlikability.

Barack Obama was a socialist. We should never forget his moment of truth with Joe the Plumber when he admitted that we should “spread the wealth.” Obama asserted that we were five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America. Obama claimed that if you own a business, you didn’t build that. We could go on and on, but there were two points, his personal likability and the media covering for his narrative under the premise that any and all criticism of him was rooted in racism.

In the case of Bernie Sanders, he has no likeable image. As a matter of fact, it was Hillary Clinton who said that nobody likes him. Down South, that is what we call “the pot calling the kettle black,” — and that is not racist, folks.

Bernie is just an old white guy, really old, and he appears angry, delusional, frumpy, and unhealthy — face it, he has bad posture. Bernie Sanders does not help the Democrat Party win the image phase of an election.

I wonder what it is that so many young people see in Bernie? After all, young people tell their parents and grandparents that they want to be left alone, make their own decisions, and not be controlled. So why is it that young people in America are following this really old white guy who just wants to control their lives, because, as we know, free does not equal freedom. I guess ol’ Bernie is promising them “participation trophies.”

That leads to the message phase. The Democrat Party realizes that with no marketable image, Bernie Sanders cannot adequately deliver their message. And it is a message that they prefer to covertly, not overtly, present.

The leftist message is horrible. Who wants economic enslavement? Who wants to lose their private health insurance? Who wants to see America energy dependent again? Who wants to find themselves disarmed subjects? Who wants higher taxation and more regulation? Who wants to have America overrun by criminal illegal immigrants? Who wants to murder unborn, and born, babies?

The Democrat Party needs an image that can distract us from who they really are — and what they truly stand for. And make no mistake, this is their message.

They just need a deceptive, and attractive, image to lull us into a philosophical slumber…that was Obama’s greatest asset. It is what Bernie Sanders lacks, and why the Democrat Party is rejecting ol’ Bernie.

This column was originally published at CNSNews

The views expressed in CCNS member articles are not necessarily the views or positions of the entire CCNS. They are the views of the authors, who are members of the CCNS.

© 2020. All rights reserved.

© 2020. All rights reserved.