Voters against Soros revolutionaries
“I I want to be very clear about what happened tonight,” Chesa Boudin intoned shortly after being ousted as San Francisco district attorney in Tuesday’s recall election. “Right-wing billionaires spent three times as much as us.”
The far-left extremist would have you believe that he is on the side of the little guy and was victimized on election day by right-wing black money. The truth, however, is that he lost because of the more substantial fact that voters were fed up with a district attorney whose attitudes align with those of his Marxist revolutionary parents, Kathy Boudin and David Gilbert, who were convicted of murder for their role in the Weather Underground crimes.
Boudin is on the side of the criminals and is steeped in contempt for ordinary citizens and American society in general. The San Franciscans wanted him gone because he was undermining the peace and security of their society as fast as he knew how.
There are several ironies in his comments. The first to note is the phrasing. When Boudin says, “I want to be very clear,” he is echoing former President Barack Obama’s tic of prefacing his most implausible assertions with “let me be clear,” implying that they are irrefutable. .
In addition to his casuistical rhetoric, there is a deep irony in Boudin’s substance about right-wing billionaires. He took power in 2020 with the financial backing of George Soros, the left-wing billionaire who still today infiltrates soft-on-crime extremists across America to destroy major cities with grotesque crime spikes.
It is both ridiculously late and utterly hypocritical to complain at the time of defeat about the influence of money on the politics that got you there in the first place. If you live on money, you can’t complain if you die of it too. The detrimental effect of governance by these Soros lieutenants is not a bug but a feature – not an unfortunate by-product but their purpose. Boudin was not recalled for his incompetence but for his appalling efficiency in achieving his ends.
Nor, of course, was money alone that beat him. It was popularly dismissed because it helped make San Francisco synonymous with filth, dysfunction, violence, theft, and other crimes. The left-leaning locals who chose him two years ago, like other Californians, seem to relish the warm glow of virtue that prospective progressive policies deliver. But they don’t like them when they take their inevitable effect. When they explode, as they always do, these same people are horrified by the mess they make. Suddenly they don’t want to defund the police, don’t think shoplifting up to $1,000 should be considered a harmless urban sport, and don’t think career criminals are the victims of life.
It is not only the voters who vote who are abandoning Boudin and his ilk. It is also other Democrats who fear losing their re-election bid. They are tactically rejecting or suspending leftist orthodoxies faster than Californians are fleeing to better run states, like Texas, where the brief of malicious progressive experiments does not work.