The disarray of the Democrat party can best be seen in the weak candidates seeking the party’s presidential nomination. The party who could once offer political giants for high office must now settle for the strongest of the weak.

The weakness is brought about mostly because Democrats are in a poor position to claim that electing a Democrat to the White House will improve things.

Republicans’ benefit from a robust economy, low employment, high productivity, increasing personal incomes and a dismal performance by Democrats after winning control of the Congress.

To cap it all, there have been no further terrorist attacks in the U.S., and the Iraqi war, the centerpiece of Democratic political opposition, is going well for America.

The main problem, however, is that the Democratic candidates are all on the extreme far left of the political spectrum.

This leaves Democratic voters who are nonleftists with little choice. To vote for a candidate not on the far left, a Democratic voter must choose a Republican.

Conversely, Republicans have fielded a large number of presidential contenders with something for all segments of the party. This is a condition made to order for a Republican moderate or social conservative to attract Democrats and independents who are not happy with their own far-left candidates.

So the question seems to be: Can Democrats win the White House with only the left and left-of-center vote?

To win, the Democratic candidate must have not only the whole of the core party constituency; that is, minorities, government workers, liberals, welfare recipients, socialists, special interest groups and unions, but also a large number of independents and disillusioned Republican voters.

Past presidential races also suggest that Democrats must have total media support and large donations from foreign sources.

But the key to a Democratic victory, as was shown by the two wins by President Bill Clinton, is to split the Republican vote.

This explains the Democrats’ strategy of trying to convince voters that none of the eight Republican candidates are acceptable and that a third-party candidate is needed.

It is highly doubtful, in my opinion, if the far left is strong enough to elect a president in American — yet. But it was close with Gore, and the time is drawing ominously near when the left will gain enough strength to place a far leftist in the presidency.

The real significance of Hillary Clinton’s run for nomination is not that she would be the first woman president, but that she would be the first dedicated Marxist to occupy the Oval Office.

Jack Chesney

Sautee-Nacoochee