Posted on 01/27/2008 12:44:28 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
If any recent day typifies life in this crazy modern world, it was probably this past Tuesday. World financial markets were in a meltdown and the Federal Reserve held an emergency meeting to cut the interest rate a massive three quarters of a point in an attempt to stave off a precipitous stock market drop.
President Bush was working with congressional leaders on an economic stimulus package to reduce the likelihood of a recession. Meanwhile the U.S. presidential campaign was in full swing with Hillary and Obama having just ripped each other to shreds at a debate, and Fred Thompson announced that he was dropping out of the race on the GOP side.
Overseas Condi Rice was working diplomatic circles in an attempt to put more pressure on Iran and its burgeoning nuclear program. The nation of Israel had just reduced fuel supplies flowing into Palestinian territory in response to rocket attacks against Israel. In turn, Palestinians breached a security wall separating Gaza and Egypt.
It was a normal day in America's newsrooms; then the story broke that Heath Ledger had died. I racked my brain ... who the heck was Heath Ledger? I shouldn't have worried about finding the answer, because for the rest of the afternoon and evening all the important news was swept from the airwaves of CNN, Fox, and MSNBC as we were flooded with wall to wall coverage of yet another celebrity tragedy.
Dave Ramsey and two other prominent financial gurus were scheduled to appear on Larry King for a full 40 minutes to discuss the rapidly worsening financial situation. Sorry, guys ... some Hollywood type was diddling around with drugs and took a dirt nap. CNN will have to reschedule you so that we can bring viewers mind numbing ramblings on the life and times of Heath Ledger.
I hate it for the guy. Ledger was in the prime of his life and his movie career was headed higher. However, what should have been a 30-second news piece turned into a media feeding frenzy with every network trying to create a new angle in order to drag the story out. Is this what we've come to?
Are Republicans really ready to nominate a 72-year-old U.S. senator who has more in common with Democrat John Edwards than Ronald Reagan? Or have we swallowed his marketing mantra of "straight talk"?
Who cares what Barack Hussein Obama believes in? Oprah endorsed him and that's enough for millions of Democrats. Shouldn't we want to understand Hillary Rodham Clinton's socialist dream for America? Nah, the only thing that matters is that she's a woman.
I can't even count how many times a talk show host on our radio station has taken a call from a supporter of Obama or Hillary and then asked the caller to name one policy their candidate espouses. Usually there's dead silence ... and then a rambling answer about how he or she believes their candidate cares about people.
The caller was yet another victim of modern marketing that appeals to how we feel instead of to the facts surrounding an election. The odds are pretty high that the person standing in line behind you at your polling place on Feb. 5th won't have a clue.
Every election we hear the media types pontificate about how pitiful voter turnout is. I've been guilty of it myself. However I've about come to the conclusion we would better off as a nation if we discouraged voting. Do away with motor voter. No more voter registration drives.
It's easy to see why only property owners were allowed to vote in some colonies in the early days of this land. The powers that be understood that those with a vested interest would pay attention and cast their votes accordingly to protect our capitalist way of life.
As evidenced by the new Donkephant economic stimulus plan, here's what we have. Today the majority of Americans are like spoiled children with parents who can't say no. If you'll stop crying then mommy will let you have one more cookie ... OK two more cookies ... all right three cookies, but that's it ... maybe. How else do you explain a stimulus plan that gives tax rebates to people who paid no taxes?
Let's see ... the U.S. dollar is sinking in value against foreign currencies because our government is running massive budget deficits. Additionally our trade deficit continues to skyrocket.
So Bush and the Democrat controlled congress want to take dollars we don't have and will have to borrow from the Chinese... then give the money to Americans so they can spend it buying more stuff made in China, thus increasing the budget and trade deficits. Wouldn't that make the dollar even weaker and our economy worse?
Financial markets don't like uncertainty. The failure of congressional Democrats to make the Bush tax cuts permanent is a contributing cause of our financial jitters. Instead of doling out Oreos, simply making the cuts permanent would increase confidence as businesses make long-range plans. Companies would invest in new projects and create jobs and we all would win without more government borrowing. The problem is that answer is too complicated for most folks ... so just slip us some Chips Ahoy. Heck, a chocolate IV would be nice. Hmmmm.
So to all the folks who don't have a clue ... set your Tivo to record plenty of stuff this week to keep you entertained and then stay home on election day so you can catch up on the latest episodes of "American Awful" or 'Dancing With The Has Beens." To those who truly understand the issues we're facing ... I'll see you at the polls.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chuck Shiflett is a past chairman of the Bartow County Board of Education, former Communications Director of the Georgia Republican Party, and is co-owner of NewsTalk AM 1270 WYXC. Contact him at: Column@ChuckShiflett.com
Yeah, like Democrats.
I concur. How else could we have the five remaining that we have? How else could McCain and Romney lied themselves into a position to even vie for the nomination? We cannot place the blame solely on Democrats. Look how our party’s primaries are turning out.
The 3,000-ruble hotel room which cost us about $100 a night less than two years ago would now cost us about $123, and the hotel hasn't changed its price.
The media’s insistence despite all evidence to the contrary that McCain is inevitable is helping Republicans get McCain out of their system.
The GOP will have McCain fatigue by Super Tuesday.
But no matter what happens, at least Huckabee won’t be getting the GOP nomination.
I do fear there are three possible outcomes for the GOP nomination at this point:
1) Romney wins outright. He makes a politically savvy VP choice.
2) McCain and Romney fall short of the 1,191 necessary delegates. Huckabee trades McCain delegates for the VP slot.
3) McCain wins outright and chooses Joe Lieberman for a “unity ticket.”
I think all three scenarios win against Hillary Clinton, banishing the Clintons forever from the upper reins of power.
If McCain is the nominee, he will not run for re-election in 2012. If his VP is Huckabee, Huck will have been Dan Quayled early and often, and will not capture the GOP nomination in 2012. If the VP is Lieberman, then he doesn’t get the GOP nomination in 2012 for obvious reasons, but he runs the most successful independent run in American history in 2012. He loses, but he helps deliver the first ever 50 state victory to the Republican candidate.
I liked the title:
Some folks shouldn't be voting, (like non republicans in republican primaries).
Then we might not get a "Donkephant" as the republican candidate or nominee.
One only has to talk to some of the people voting to figure that one out.
Listen to Hannity’s man on the street segments and be very afraid.
This whole election cycle is like a horror movie or a bad dream...
Sad but true.
Maybe we should start a draft a conservative movement - what do we have to lose at this point?
How about Tom Delay?
Since the qualification seems to be young (Obama) or TV presentable (Huckabee) and media savey (McCain). Delay does not flip flop like Romney. He has good hair like Romney and better than Giuliani. I mean, if appearance is all that counts, he would have that plus substance.
If we are going to dream, at least it could be a good day dream instead of the present nightmare.
Yeah, like 95%.
Watch one episode of Leno’s “Jaywalking” and give up on America.
There is a fine line between pragmatism and CINOism.
Entertaining (and overoptimistic) prediction, and it would be the first time the GOP carried 50 states. However Federalist George Washington and (Jeffersonian) Republican [Democrat] James Monroe both carried every state, without popular election of Electors.
Who Voted in Early America?
Voting Before the Revolution
For the most part, American colonists adopted the voter qualifications that they had known in England. Typically, a voter had to be a free, adult, male resident of his county, a member of the predominant religious group, and a “freeholder.” A freeholder owned land worth a certain amount of money. Colonists believed only freeholders should vote because only they had a permanent stake in the stability of society. Freeholders also paid the bulk of the taxes. Other persons, as the famous English lawyer William Blackstone put it, “are in so mean a situation as to be esteemed to have no will of their own.”
Becoming a freeholder was not difficult for a man in colonial America since land was plentiful and cheap. Thus up to 75 percent of the adult males in most colonies qualified as voters. But this voting group fell far short of a majority of the people then living in the English colonies. After eliminating everyone under the age of 21, all slaves and women, most Jews and Catholics, plus those men too poor to be freeholders, the colonial electorate consisted of perhaps only 10 percent to 20 percent of the total population.
The act of voting in colonial times was quite different from today. In many places, election days were social occasions accompanied by much eating and drinking. When it came time to vote, those qualified would simply gather together and signify their choices by voice or by standing up. As time went on, this form of public voting was gradually abandoned in favor of secret paper ballots. For a while, however, some colonies required published lists showing how each voter cast his ballot.
Voting fraud and abuses were common in the colonies. Sometimes large landowners would grant temporary freeholds to landless men who then handed the deeds back after voting. Individuals were paid to vote a certain way or paid not to vote at all. Corrupt voting officials would allow unqualified persons to vote while denying legitimate voters the right to cast their ballots. Intimidation and threats, even violence, were used to persuade people how to vote. Ballots were faked, purposely miscounted, “lost,” and destroyed.
After declaring independence on July 4, 1776, each former English colony wrote a state constitution. About half the states attempted to reform their voting procedures. The trend in these states was to do away with the freehold requirement in favor of granting all taxpaying, free, adult males the right to vote. Since few men escaped paying taxes of some sort, suffrage (the right to vote) expanded in these states. Vermont’s constitution went even further in 1777 when it became the first state to grant universal manhood suffrage (i.e., all adult males could vote). Some states also abolished religious tests for voting. It was in New Jersey that an apparently accidental phrase in the new state constitution permitted women to vote in substantial numbers for the first time in American history.
“Of Government in Petticoats!!!”
The provision on suffrage in the New Jersey state constitution of 1776 granted the right to vote to “all inhabitants” who were of legal age (21), owned property worth 50 English pounds (not necessarily a freehold), and resided in a county for at least one year. No one is sure what was meant by “all inhabitants” since the New Jersey constitutional convention was held in secret. But it appears that no agitation for woman suffrage occurred at the convention.
After the state constitution was ratified by the voters (presumably only men voted), little comment on the possibility of women voting took place in the state for 20 years. Even so, one state election law passed in 1790 included the words “he or she.” It is unclear how many, or if any, women actually voted during this time.
In 1797, a bitter contest for a seat in the New Jersey state legislature erupted between John Condict, a Jeffersonian Republican from Newark, and William Crane, a Federalist from Elizabeth. Condict won the election, but only by a narrow margin after Federalists from Elizabeth turned out a large number of women to vote for Crane. This was probably the first election in U.S. history in which a substantial group of women went to the polls.
Newspaper coverage of women voting was widespread in the state and included the publication of a new song titled, “The Freedom of Election.” The sarcastic last verse illustrates pretty much what the attitude of most New Jersey men must have been:
Then freedom hail! thy powers prevail
o’er prejudice and error;
No longer shall man tyrannize,
and rule the world in terror:
Now one and all, proclaim the fall
of Tyrants! - Open wide your throats,
And welcome in the peaceful scene,
of government in petticoats!!!
New Jersey newspapers debated whether the state constitution really intended for women to vote. Some argued that the words “all inhabitants” surely did not include children, slaves, and foreigners. If this were the case, they continued, women should not be allowed to vote either because they never had before. Others maintained that perhaps widows and single women who owned property worth 50 pounds should be able to vote. Married women were automatically excluded from voting since at this time all property in a marriage legally belonged to the husband.
One New Jersey opponent of woman suffrage wrote in 1799, “It is evident, that women, generally, are neither, by nature, nor habit, nor education, nor by their necessary condition in society, fitted to perform this duty [of voting] with credit to themselves, or advantage to the public.”
In 1806, Newark and Elizabeth again faced off at the polls, this time over the site of a new county courthouse. During three days of voting, partisans from both towns used every legal and illegal device to gather the most votes. Men and boys, white and black, citizens and aliens, residents and non-residents, voted (often many times). Women and girls, married and single, with and without property, joined the election frenzy. Finally, males dressed up as females and voted one more time.
Newark, with 1,600 qualified voters, counted over 5,000 votes; Elizabeth, with 1,000 legal voters, counted more than 2,200 votes. Although Newark claimed victory, the voting was so blatantly fraudulent that the state legislature canceled the election.
The following year, the state legislature passed a new election law to clear up the confusion over who was qualified to vote in New Jersey. The law declared that since it was “highly necessary to the safety, quiet, good order, and dignity of the state,” no persons were to be allowed to vote except free white men who either owned property worth 50 pounds or were taxpayers. Such voters would also have to be citizens and residents of the county where they voted. The campaign for this new election law was led by John Condict, the legislator who was nearly defeated in 1797 when many women voted for his opponent. Thus, in 1807, with little debate in the all-male state legislature, and no public protest from the state’s female population, the experiment with woman suffrage in New Jersey came to an end.
Expanding the Right to Vote
Although for a time some states like New Jersey wanted to limit suffrage, the trend throughout U.S. history has been to expand the right to vote. At first, the main debate was over property tests. But by the Civil War, most states had replaced the freehold and other property requirements with universal white manhood suffrage or something close to it.
With the end of slavery, reformers turned to securing the right to vote for black freedmen. While this was accomplished constitutionally with the ratification of the 15th Amendment in 1870, another century passed before discrimination against black voters was finally suppressed. Women did not win the right to vote until the adoption of the 19th Amendment in 1920, over 100 years after women lost the vote in New Jersey.
In 1964, the 24th Amendment prohibited denying anyone the right to vote in federal elections for failing to pay a voting or any other tax. Finally, in 1971, the 26th Amendment reduced the legal voting age to 18 in all elections.
I am sure you know why not.
Forgive my ignorance, but isn’t Tom Delay still going through his legal difficulties?
All in all, considering the mess we are in, I can live with any of your scenarios. (Doesn’t mean I have to like them)
If Hitlery wins, build a bomb shelter, because their is a suitcase nuke coming to a neighborhood near you.
I don’t like that scenario.
I’m still hoping for a brokered convention.
And, I still love FRED.
One thing I’ve figured out, though, is that you are a real thinker.
I pay attention to your posts. ;o)
Presumably - I said it was a day dream.
Grand jury shopping (Earl) is like doctor shopping (Rush) a Dem tactic to slander conservatives. Interesting isn't it, how the Clinton's genuine legal difficulties and campaign finance corruptions do not count with the MSN but manufactured fables, such as Bush's military record reinvented, do.
Any genuine conservative is going to have some invented charge against him. If there is none, they will make one up. Whoever is the republican nominee this time around will have the same problem in some form.
This is part of the nightmare - fair and balanced is not in the MSN, including Fox.
Sorry, but a brokered convention isn’t going to happen now, or at least not the way we had both hoped for.
For a brokered convention Fred would have had to kickstarted his campaign in South Carolina and Giuliani would have had to do better than 3rd in Florida.
But none of that happened and the race is now already Romney vs. McCain.
This means either one of them jumps out front after Feb. 5th and goes on to sweep the rest of the contests, garnering the 1,191 delegates required, or it is a very close delegate race, with Huckabee holding the difference.
Rudy’s big states he staked his candidacy on are all winner takes all: Florida, New York, New Jersey. Those three would have given him over 200 delegates. But now it looks like he’s not going to win any of them, meaning he will go into the convention pretty much empty handed with almost no delegates and not enough leverage to matter.
This means the only brokered convention scenario will be with Romney and McCain both just under the delegates needed, and Huckabee holding all the cards as kingmaker. This will not result in a deadlock that turns to Fred to ride in on a white horse. Sorry, but it just doesn’t. I wish it did too, but I think you are starting to see where this would inevitably lead...
This brokered convention has only one possible outcome, and it is the worst of all plausible possibilities left: a McCain-Huckabee ticket.
Yep, like welfare recipients and anybody else that gets a gub'mint check: teachers, firemen, cops, city employees, etc.
They consistently try to convince the world that GW Bush is evil and dishonest. Of all Bush's shortcomings, he doesn't lack decency or moral fiber. But they'll keep looking.
Or at the very least, they should get only 1 vote, like everyone else.
Would you include military personnel and the President in that list?
I agree with his point, but extending the franchise is a one way ratchet. You can’t take the vote from anyone who has it, no matter how badly they have misused it.
I would love to see the requirements tightened up. A minimum of a sixth grade level reading test, solid identification, proof that the person has at least paid taxes in one form or another...
But no... it’s bread and circus time.
That’s the most spot on summary of this election season that I’ve seen. And more.
There should be some kind of responsible pre-requisite...a course in politcal science or a list of candidates positions so voters would at least have access to the issues.
At the bare minimum some people are so stupid they can’t determine which candidate to choose on a 1st grade reading level punch card, so we know they’re ignorant of the issues.
Shouldn’t vote on the basis of “change” or some vague empty rhetoric. Change can be good or bad, in this case to change the course in IRaq now will do irreparable harm to the country, not to mention the entire middle east. It’s so irresponsible it makes my head swim.
But to add insult to injury, this is their idea of supporting the troops! General Clinton went so far as to claim victory for herself!
We need a military, but imo we don't need teachers (when will we finally kill the government schools?), fire departments could (and should) be private affairs paid for by an insurance policy, and we know that 90% of the police force are mere reactionary donut eaters whose function would soon disappear if all citizens were trained to arms.
But yes, I'd disqualify the president if that meant that all the others couldn't vote too.
Oh well, sounded a lot simpler when I first typed it... ;O)
President Bush was working with congressional leaders on an economic stimulus package
Some folks shouldn’t be voting, including the Democrat majority Press who have brought many into a media driven recession.
Hmmmmm.....
It's got a beat. You can dance to it.
At no time has there ever been as much access to the candidates' positions as there is right now. They all have websites and they all have videos out on YouTube. A few clicks of the mouse and people are there. A few more clicks and they can find supporters and detractors. Yet a few more clicks and they can find accounts of the major campaign events at media sites.
Access is not the problem. Desire to access is the problem.
Well, if women couldn’t vote, we wouldn’t have any more Democrats elected.
Not that I’m suggesting that......
LOL! But it’s never going to be a hit.
McCain is still ahead in Floriduh, a fact that completely amazes me.
Listened to those. Am that. Very much, sometimes.
McCain is still ahead in Floriduh, a fact that completely amazes me.No, he isn't.
Don't count on that.
The Clintons will lose, and they will be out of power for good, believe me.
They are burning all their bridges with their racist attacks on Obama, and their day of reckoning will come for that.
They will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory for Democrats and they will be blamed for it. They will not escape judgement, and Bill will get just as much blame as Hillary.
After this election goes down, the Democrats — and the black community — will divorce itself from the Clintons.
That is why they will be away from the reins of power for good.
This is the deconstruction of the Clinton legacy.
MOST folks shouldn’t be voting on November 4. It also appears that this country will be controlled by the “sheeple majority” for awhile.
Crist just endorsed McCrazy. That may be enough to swing the vote back to him.
I don’t think those kind of endorsements count for much among voters.
That etc includes members of the US military, (Active, reserve and NG) and military contractors. Military retirees. Social security recipients.
You sure you want to go there?
I thought Crist was quite popular in Fla? It would only have to swing a few %.
Yep, like welfare recipients and anybody else that gets a gub'mint check: teachers, firemen, cops, city employees, etc.
I think it would be good if city employees could not vote in municipal elections, teachers not vote on school board elections and any such elections where there is a close and narrow relationship of economic interest. On the other hand, teachers, mailmen, policemen, etc. have as much legitimate concern as the rest of us with matters of national security and moral issues such as abortion. Until there's a way to separate types of elections, I'm all for government employees voting,
Crist lost all credibility ....with just about every move he’s made.....His endorsement will have the same ‘liberal’ value as the Orlando Sentinel’s endorsement for McCain. ie, a minus value.
Originally of more concern to me was Schwartzkopf’s endorsement....but that simply proves to me Schwarzkopf is a life long Democrat.
He is fairly popular, but the thing about politicians is they are only popular when they are agreeing with you.
A single endorsement is not going to shift public opinion that much.
Instead, all of these endorsements from party leaders is cementing McCain as the establishment’s candidate and Washington’s candidate.
I think it helps Romney, plays into his campaign as an outsider who is going to fix a broken Washington, particularly all of the endorsements from the very Senators who are the problem.
This sets Romney up in the Ronald Reagan role going into Super Tuesday. If he was smart, he would actually campaign on McCain getting all the Washington establishment endorsements.
As a Fred supporter, I prefer that both D & R nominations go all the way to brokering at the Convention...as bad as our current R choices are, we may have a better candidate at that time, (a Fred like candidate)???
I don’t want McCrazy but I do want Mutt and Rooty to lose and go away.
Maybe the media's vote, but I don't think FL Republicans are too impressed. Crist was one of those "hold your nose" elections. He favors amnesty, and is toying with adopting Kalifornia environmental standards.
A good fit for McCain.
Jeb Bush could do some damage by endorsing someone other than McCain (there are quite a few of Jeb's cohorts working in the Romney campaign) but that might be seen as anti-shamnesty, so he says he'll remain "neutral."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.