Posted on 06/17/2010 8:12:58 AM PDT by Big Bureaucracy
If we are not free to choose wrongly and irresponsibly, we are not free at all. So back off the Greene guy, you Democrats. The man won fair and square the primary in South Carolina.
America is a free country. All kinds of people were able to govern through the history. The requirements to be a US Senator are for the person to be mostly human and of certain age – Alvin the Man is totally within the frame. The law does not prohibit us the “small” and “stupid” people to run for office.
Even the requirements are not carved in stone as evident from the 2008 Presidential elections. Nowhere the candidates were required to prove eligibility – the vetting process is left to the voting public. In Barack Obama’s case: his eligibility was discussed in the media, Facebook and even twittered (as famously noted by a judge in one of the birther cases). The voters decided the guy is an American enough to be President. Period. Power to the people!
In Alvin Greene’s case: 60% of democratic voters decided he is a first class senatorial material. Period. Power to the people!
Now Greene brought some porn at work and showed it to a female colleague. This is not a Big F… Deal by the Washington DC standards. After all, a democratic President used an intern for ashtray in the Oval Office. It is hard to beat that one.
(Excerpt) Read more at bigbureaucracy.com ...
“If we are not free to choose wrongly and irresponsibly, we are not free at all”
I’m not sure I’m down with that logic..
I think part of the degradation of freedom is the consistent choosing of wrong and irresponsible candidates.
Also, there WERE reports of tallied votes in the machines exceeding the number of voters, so ... I am not sure he won fair and square.
But, if the election has been certified, then he won!
Maybe that's the problem they have with him. He won "fair and square".
Sincerely, that's not a hit against him, but the dem voters that made him their nominee. While I probably disagree with him politically on the overwhelming majority of things he seems a likeable enough chap in a Chauncey Gardner sort of way...unlike the vindictive, inept idiot narcissist that currently occupies the presidential palace.
My argument would have been: “Could Alvin Greene possibly be any worse than the nitwit commies that make up up the bulk of the current demonrats in office?”
Putting stricter requirements would deprive freedom. What if somebody requires a Harvard diploma for running for President?
I agree.
Also democrats cannot have it both ways - if vetting by the voters is good enough for the Obama eligibility - it is good enough for the Greene eligibility.
“What if somebody requires a Harvard diploma for running for President?”
Why would anyone want to dumb-down the office of President that much?
I’m not saying put requirements, I’m just saying I don’t agree with the logic.
Freedom is not defined by the grievous errors that are made. I see what the author was trying to do in setting up the talk about Greene, I just disagree, that’s all..
Who says their picking of Greene is an error though? Must candidates be chosen “because they can win”? The dem electorate preferred Alvin Greene, very possibly because they wanted a black guy. So they got their black guy.
It may be that a lot of people thought they were voting for Al Green, not Al Greene.
Well said!
I don’t see the big deal here.
How smart does a Democrat Senator have to be anyway. All they have to do is stick their hand up and vote the way the rest of them do.
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.