— Petr Petrovich (GoLocalProv. com)
Let’s
talk about “losers”.
Here’s
one. This guy lost his mother at young age. Suffered with low-grade depression,
according to some, and he had little education, according to most. He tried to
run a small business, twice, and failed. He served as a postmaster for his
state, had the worst record in his state’s history, one of the slowest rates
for mail delivery. As a soldier in the state militia, he could not lead a small
regiment without making frequent mistakes. He ran for Congress, lost; ran
again, won, served one term; ran for reelection, lost. He later ran for Senate,
lost. Ran for President, finally won, but he spent his entire first term
administering a war which he did not cause, with a cabinet which warred with
him, and a wife who warred with everyone (she even hit the President on the
face once).
This
“loser” was the first
Republican
US President, Abraham Lincoln, now considered one of (if not
“the”) most popular politician in this country (whether anyone agreed
or disagreed with his policies). Abraham Lincoln “belongs to the
ages”, according to Edwin Stanton, the chief of the “Chief of
Rivals”, a lawyer who had openly ridiculed and demoted Lincoln when they
were associates in an Illinois law firm. There are more books written about Abraham
Lincoln than any other historical figure, except for Jesus Christ.
Abraham
Lincoln: a “loser” whom everybody loves, who ended up quite a winner.
It’s not about “myth” but “misstatement”; it’s not about
“reality”, but “perception”.
Here’s
another “loser”. This guy grew up in a political family. His father
was a governor, then a senator. The father planned to retire from the Senate,
but died before his term ended. The son took his place, adopting a label which
did not suit him. He won reelection the next year, running “in name
only”. He lost reelection six years later, running against his own party,
railing against his own party’s leader. He later lost his party label to become
and independent. He won election to the governorship, the same position that
his father had. He soon ended up assuming responsibility for the poor choices
of his father, including the state income tax and collective bargaining for
public sector employees.
This
“loser” is another “Lincoln”: Lincoln Chafee, who left the
Republican Party’s voice, values, and vote, with not much to show for it.
Unless he demonstrates his former party’s Republican leadership, which Rhode
Islanders claim is sorely lacking in their state, he will be the leader for the
state which loses the most people to out-of-state emigration, along with the
state with the highest taxes and highest unemployment: another losing streak.
And
here’s an entire group of “losers”. This group has politically dominated one
state for decades. They spend money which is not theirs on special interests
which are not in the best interests of another group: the entire state’s
citizenry. They raise taxes, when they should cut spending. They cuddle
employee unions, when they should care about taxpayers and the poor. They claim
to represent the voters, but they only represent themselves. They may drink one
beer with a voter, but they get drunk on his tax dollars throughout the year.
These
“losers” are the Democratic hypermajority in Providence, the worst
type of “losers” because they turn everyone else around them into
“losers”. It’s
not about “myth” but “misstatement”; it’s not about
“reality”, but “perception”.
To
identify the real “losers”, look not at the “losing”
Republican Party, but the “winning Democratic hypermajority, which makes
everyone else lose. Wins from the “loser”
GOP will transform Rhode Island from a losing state run by losers to a winning
state where everyone wins, making a wave of difference in New England and
across the United States.