VOTERS HAVE A CLEAR CHOICE (Oklahoman Editorial -- MUST READ)

The Oklahoman ^ | July 11, 2004 | Mark Green

[PhiKapMom]

Voters have a clear choice

Mark Green, The Oklahoman
July 11, 2004

WASHINGTON - Thanks, John Kerry. Bring it on!

You've made sure the months leading up to the quadrennial presidential derby will be exciting and no holds barred. As they say, that's entertainment.

Kerry is indeed pro-choice. His selection of fellow senator John Edwards to be his running mate means we will have clear ideological choice in November. The namby-pambies who always complain about the lack of contrast between Democrats and Republicans can just shut up. Houston, we have contrast!

Even now voters are awakening from their four-year slumber to an eye-gouging, hair-pulling contest in the making. Editorialists and pundits are happy, their troughs filling with choice fodder. Vice President Dick Cheney has been spotted thumbing through a thesaurus, searching for new verbs and adjectives to employ in the upcoming veep debate.

Now, the safe pick for Kerry would've been someone like Missouri Rep. Dick Gephardt or Sen. Bob Graham of Florida. Both are old war horses who would pass the experience test a significant hurdle for Edwards, who looks 23 and hasn't yet completed a full term in the Senate. Either Gephardt or Graham also would've given the Democrats a shot at a key toss-up state.

That's fine, but those two would've been bor-r-r-r-r-r-ring.

Instead, Kerry went for sizzle and as a byproduct, the country gets a clear, unmistakable election ballot variety.

By now probably everyone knows John Kerry is numero uno in the Senate when it comes to liberal pedigree, put there by the nonpartisan National Journal. According to the publication's analysis of voting records, Kerry is more liberal than Hillary Rodham Clinton, even more liberal than Teddy Kennedy. But guess what? So is John Edwards!

Edwards comes in at No. 4, which means the two of them together average out at 2.5. That's way, way out there. You have to flip back to Mondale-Ferraro (1984) or McGovern-(Eagleton)-Shriver ('72) to find a tandem as liberal. I think it's safe to say the Democratic Party's strategic, centrist tack under Bill Clinton was a detour. And it's over.

Terrific!

Democrats trying to reside in the moderate middle just confused voters, anyway. They were like the folks who move into the neighborhood and immediately decorate the front yard with an old junker on cinder blocks.

Again, the Naderites and Greens and Mugwumps can't complain that the two national tickets are just alike. Not this year.

Republicans will go with a team that is Reagan conservative. Democrats are decked out in Great Society retro. Lots of choice, little echo.

Look at the major issues. Tax-cutters vs. bigger spenders. Free traders vs. thinly veiled protectionists. Family values vs. gay marriage. On foreign policy, the Bush doctrine of protecting U.S. interests first is matched against the Kerry doctrine of first checking with the United Nations to see if protecting those interests is OK.

Edwards is a pretty face, a syrupy drawl and a compelling life story. But he's also like Alka-Seltzer to the Electoral College watchers in the GOP, who were worried sick that Kerry would pick Graham, gift-wrapping Florida's 27 electors for the Democrats and making Bush's re-election pretty dicey.

Edwards doesn't really deliver any state to Kerry. For every vote in North Carolina or Louisiana gained by the aw-shucks drawl, there'll be two or three lost when folks see that most of Edwards' positions get a big hug from Michael Moore.

Edwards' trademark "two Americas" speech plays well before red-meat Democratic audiences, but it just sounds goofy and conspiratorial to the average bear in America. As one business community rep said on a national radio talk show this week, there are two Americas: the one that works to create wealth, and the one that works to redistribute it.

Most Americans are glad there are rich people in this country, because they themselves want to be rich some day and are working toward it. Most don't believe the rich got rich by victimizing the rest of us, one of the central themes in Edwards' "two Americas" rant.

In a way this smells like a Republican set up. Those rascally Republicans! They won a nail-biter in 2000, and they've watched with glee as Democrats stayed angry indeed, got angrier. Now it appears the Dems have given in to their fury by trotting out a far-left ticket.

This is as clear a choice as America has seen in two decades. I think Republicans are glad Democrats did them this favor.

Green is national editorial writer for The Oklahoman.

[MeekOneGOP]

..... Vote for your own best interests, not out of party loyalty or foolish pride. Vote for Badnarik!

Your children and grandchildren will thank you.

---

No way, Jose ! Your tactic ONLY serves to give power over to the 'RATS ! Is that what you want ? That's what YOUR tactic would give us if ENOUGH GOP abandoned the good ship !

I'm going to do my USUAL STRAIGHT TICKET GOP vote. My tagline:

I am the Will Rogers voter: I never met a Democrat I didn't like - to vote OUT OF POWER ! haha !

I would urge you to reconsider and to do the same (at least on the TOP of the ticket). Thanks.

---

Hear the Donkey Bray
(RealPlayer)

[Expletive deleted] !!!

[MainFrame65]

You cite several differences with the President, and I agree with all of them to some degree or another. Nevertheless, on each issue you name, there IS a real difference between the Republicans and the Democrats, and the Republican view is more consonant with my view of reality. So I will support the President this fall with enthusiasm and involvement, and as much time as I can spare.

So I suppose it seems I am sacrificing principles on the altar of expediency - but I do not accept that interpretation. We are not a pure democracy here, and thank G_d and the Founding Fathers for that! But most of our governance IS based on agreement by majorities of one form or another, subject to some rules.

But those rules are also the product of agreement by a majority, and according to what many around the world consider to be the most important secular document in the world, The Declaration Of Independence, are subject to revision or replacement when and if the people (another majority) decide.

So the task of each of us who do not agree with existing policies is to assemble a majority that agrees with the change we propose, find a suitable representative for that view, and use that majority to first nominate, and then elect, our choice.

But the real work - the trench warfare of really achieving change - is in the nomination process, not the general election. This time around, it's Kerry or Bush, not anybody else, no matter how much more sympatico they might be. Assemble your own majority, and maybe I'll join you. But majorities mean inclusion and compromise, not ideological purity, so it might take a while to learn how to reach consensus with as many people as it will take to get there. Good luck with it - I would probably be proud to support your candidate, but I am 64, and might never have that opportunity again - not since Ronald Reagan (who would, I believe, agree with what I have said here.)

[MeekOneGOP]

Great post ! And welcome to FreeRepublic.com .....

[MeekOneGOP]

Is that the only "maverick" (Mike4Freedom) you've seen here on this thread ??

[Chieftain]

Good laugh!

[neverdem]

Gun owners can be single issue voters.

[deport]

This mantra of teaching us a lesson is the dumbest thing we have heard of on here -- America's future is too important to "teach anyone a lesson by voting for a 3rd party or staying home."

---

Damn..... quit fussing at the 'French Wing' of the GOP..... maybe a few will vote GOP on Nov. 2........ LOL.... /sarcasm

[backhoe]

Kerry and Edwards seem to have forgotten that we continue to be engaged in a war with people who don't just want to take away our dishwashers and barbecue grills, they want to cut our heads off and kill our children. I don't think the rest of the country has forgotten, however. Time will tell if I'm right or wrong, but I will feel sorry for this land if those two shallow, elitist, nincompoops carry the day in November.

Precisely. Well spoken.

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

Your children and grandchildren will thank you.

For what? Putting our country in the hands of wild-eyed, vile, weak-kneed-when-it-comes-to-war, must-please-the-global-"community" socialist Democrats? I think not.

[don-o]

Great find!

[DoughtyOne]

What I like about this forum, is that people can out themselves for what they are without any help from me.

I have stated that I plan on promoting Bush/Cheney this year.  In reaction you and others have chosen to overlook that revelation, to focus on something that happened between four and eight years ago.

You don't know what level of political activity I have participated in.  You don't know what my personal schedule is like and whether I can involve myself in efforts to drive certain issues.  What you could do is take a look at my comments on this forum over the last six years and see if I have been driving conservative values or ones more suited to the democrat party.  Like I said, you could, but you couldn't be bothered.

As for Proposition 187, I voted for it and several other related initiatives and supported them as much as I could at the time.  I wasn't retired then, and am still not retired.  I do what I can.

California is 55% democrat by registration.  It's state house is in firm control of the democrats.  It's Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is the most liberal appeals court in the nation.  Our two Senators might just as well be members of the communits party, for all the good they do for us.  Once an initiative is bottled up on appeal with the appealate courts, there's next to nothing we can do.  Since you don't seem to know these thing, I guess that tells us how much you know about California State politics.

In 1996, I helped produce eight campaign rallies for Pat Buchanan, from Rancho Coucamonga to Santa Barbara and Fresno.  What did you do that year?  In the year 2000, I helped produce more rallies for him, and tried to help organize the Reform Party in Southern California.

Since 1998 I have been to Washington, D.C. four or five times, all but one at my own expense.  There I supported House Managers and other conservatives, and conservative issues.

In the year 2000, after election day I helped produce four rallies in Westwood, California at the Federal Building, to support Bush/Cheney over Gore/Lieberman.

I sometimes marvel that we have any conservative members left on this forum, after watching the antics of you and other pinheads, who haven't a clue.  For your information, we're supposed to support each other when we can, an try to attract new blood whenever possible.  How is that possible when idiots like you are so willing to overlook the common ground to bash some of the most reasoned conservatives you'll ever meet?

What I like about this forum, is that people can out themselves for what they are without any help from me.

I have stated that I plan on promoting Bush/Cheney this year.  In reaction you and others have chosen to overlook that revelation, to focus on something that happened between four and eight years ago.

You don't know what level of political activity I have participated in.  You don't know what my personal schedule is like and whether I can involve myself in efforts to drive certain issues.  What you could do is take a look at my comments on this forum over the last six years and see if I have been driving conservative values or ones more suited to the democrat party.  Like I said, you could, but you couldn't be bothered.

As for Proposition 187, I voted for it and several other related initiatives and supported them as much as I could at the time.  I wasn't retired then, and am still not retired.  I do what I can.

California is 55% democrat by registration.  It's state house is in firm control of the democrats.  It's Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is the most liberal appeals court in the nation.  Our two Senators might just as well be members of the communits party, for all the good they do for us.  Once an initiative is bottled up on appeal with the appealate courts, there's next to nothing we can do.  Since you don't seem to know these thing, I guess that tells us how much you know about California State politics.

In 1996, I helped produce eight campaign rallies for Pat Buchanan, from Rancho Coucamonga to Santa Barbara and Fresno.  What did you do that year?  In the year 2000, I helped produce more rallies for him, and tried to help organize the Reform Party in Southern California.

Since 1998 I have been to Washington, D.C. four or five times, all but one at my own expense.  There I supported House Managers and other conservatives, and conservative issues.

In the year 2000, after election day I helped produce four rallies in Westwood, California at the Federal Building, to support Bush/Cheney over Gore/Lieberman.

I sometimes marvel that we have any conservative members left on this forum, after watching the antics of you and other pinheads, who haven't a clue.  For your information, we're supposed to support each other when we can, an try to attract new blood whenever possible.  How is that possible when idiots like you are so willing to overlook the common ground to bash some of the most reasoned conservatives you'll ever meet?

[Barlowmaker]

I also think the Edwards selection was made to reinvigorate the "White Shame/Childhood roots in Poverty" appeal that Clinton had to the currently unengaged yet vital Black vote.

[DoughtyOne]

I want you to take a look at the full comments I've made on this thread, each and every one. Then come back and tell me if you feel that I have not made it clear that I will be supporting Bush/Cheney this year, and whether I do or do not like them. Thanks.

[don-o]

How bad a candidate must a Southern Senator be to get beaten in Georgia by a liberal, pompous, boring New England aristocrat? Kerry defeated Edwards in the Georgia primary.That says it all.

Gore lost Tennessee.

These boys are as dumb as a bag of hammers.

[Barlowmaker]

Spare me the victim shtick. What did you, specifically, do to reinsitute Proposition 187?

Since the flood of illegal immigration into California the past 8 years has been largely enticed, and reinforced, by the welfare benefits Prop 187 sought to deny - and illegal immigration seems to be the be all-end all obsession of a vocal and emotional element here - you should be well prepared to document the efforts you and others undertook to challenge that anti-citizen abuse from Pfaezler's court and the Davis administration.

In the absence of any intelligent, directed effort on the part of you and your cohorts to fix your grievences - all the pain, fear and loathing that chokes this forum over the issue is a bunch of ugly b.s.

[Gabz]

There are Loony-tunes everywhere, aren't there?????????

[SuziQ]

As one business community rep said on a national radio talk show this week, there are two Americas: the one that works to create wealth, and the one that works to redistribute it.

What a priceless quote!!

[DoughtyOne]

I just explained the hard cold political facts regarding any California proposition that is stricken down on appeal, when all recourses are controled by democrats. I'm sorry you didn't have the mental faculties to comprehend the explanation.

Failing any possible recourse in California for the fate of 187, I supported a man I knew would take federal action to alleviate the need for it. Evidently that was lost on you as well.

Why do you ask these questions if you're incapable of understanding the responses as they relate to your main point?

Were you so fixated on my specific comments made on this forum with regard to 187, that you couldn't recognize tangible efforts made outside this forum to facilitate a remedy? I'd respond with a resounding 'yes' if I were you, and I wanted to salvage any self-respect beyond this point.

[SuziQ]

we continue to be engaged in a war with people who don't just want to take away our dishwashers and barbecue grills, they want to cut our heads off and kill our children.

Big old BUMP!!

[SuziQ]

If I didn't conduct myself this way, I'd be just as guilty as Clinton supporters who never thought it necessary to be honest about his shortcomings. Nope, I'll never go that route with any candidate.

Being willing to criticize when necessary is a far cry from withholding a vote and helping to elect the opposition. I'll do the former, but wouldn't be caught DEAD doing the latter!