Posted on 10/11/2006 9:58:06 AM PDT by Gordongekko909
Some people say that there is no point voting because there is no difference between the two major parties, and the other parties have no chance of winning. However, there is a difference: the Republicans are disappointing and the Democrats are dangerous.
Republican voters have more reason to be bitter than do Democratic voters. The Democrats are in Washington pushing for the kinds of things their supporters want: more spending, more immigration, more liberal judges.
Republicans are also in Washington pushing for more spending and -- in the Senate, at least -- more immigration. But the Republicans have finally stopped nominating liberal judges, after years of putting liberals like David Souter and John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court.
Differences in judicial nominees may seem like a small difference between the two parties. But federal judges serve for life -- and some are a major disservice for life. Crazy decisions are still being made by federal judges appointed by Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter and even Lyndon Johnson.
Allowing these kinds of judges to create new "rights" for captured terrorists out of thin air would be an invitation to disaster. Yet more such judges will be appointed by Democrats.
On immigration, at least the Republicans in the House of Representatives had the sense and the guts to stop the Senate Republicans from creating amnesty for illegal immigrants.
Moreover, on immigration as on spending, where the Republicans are bad, the Democrats are worse. Ted Kennedy and company have fought bitterly against building a fence on the border.
As for spending, both of California's Democratic Senators want the federal government to give the taxpayers' money to agricultural producers who lost money because of the recent recall of contaminated spinach that spread sickness and death to people in a number of states.
Maybe financial losses will help get some of these agricultural producers to clean up their act before their produce sickens and kills more people. But liberal Democrats want to throw the taxpayers' money at irresponsible behavior, whether by farmers, foreign aid recipients or people on welfare.
The most that can be said for the current Republicans is that they want to throw away less money than the Democrats. In general, Democrats are the only real reason to vote for Republicans.
When it comes to national security and the war on terrorism, that is a big reason.
The same liberal unwillingness to get tough with criminals that has marked the Democrats, and the judges they put on the federal courts, for decades on end has now been applied to the captured terrorists for whom they want to create new "rights" that are nowhere in the Constitution or the Geneva convention.
Whatever the Democrats' new-found rhetoric about "supporting the troops," their track record for more than a quarter of a century has been one of consistently voting against military appropriations and appropriations for the intelligence services, as well as hampering the intelligence services with restrictions.
On foreign policy, Democrats continue to argue as if talking with our enemies is the magic formula. We should keep talking with Iran while they keep building a nuclear bomb, just as the western democracies kept negotiating with Hitler while he kept building up his war machine in preparation for starting World War II.
Today, people ignorant of history -- which includes graduates of our most prestigious universities -- have no idea how close the western democracies came to losing that war and what an unending nightmare it would have been for the world if Hitler and his Japanese allies had won.
Nor do most of the liberal Democrats, which is to say, almost all Congressional Democrats, seem to have any sense of what an unending nightmare it will be for western nations if Iran and the international terrorists it sponsors have nuclear weapons.
Against that background, those disappointed Republican voters who plan to stay home on election day to protest their elected officials' failings are seeing politics as a way to vent their personal emotions. That is a frivolous self-indulgence in a deadly serious time for this nation.
Wordsmith, ethicist, erudito. Medal of Freedom winner when we get the next great President...
How big would the bumper sticker have to be?
Wonderful article. Hopefully this will be a three-parter.
Okay then, you've laid out three choices - the bad, the worse and the completely unrealistic.
Post and ping coming later today.
Too many of the supposedly "conservative" justices have morphed into liberals. It wasn't more than a year ago that they decided that a city can take your business and give it to your competitor.
So you think they can roll back 60 years of socialism in 6? My, you are an optimist.
I think they could do it overnight in a Constitutional convention. Another option we might have is to have a amendment to allow states to secede and/or to have a procedure for ejecting states from the union.
But I don't see the pendulum swinging any other way but left. We are moving towards more socialized medicine. The Supreme Court makes noises about modeling our laws to be consistent with European laws. The borders are still wide open and Bush wants to legalize the illegals which will only invite more. We don't have much time to fool around.
I'm not an optimist. I'm a realist who sees that our options are getting more and more limited.
Not as unrealistic as the notion in 1776 that a group American colonies with very little military experience or means could declare independence from the world's largest superpower. Political changes don't have to be gradual.
We have can do this legally. We have the threat of a Constitutional Convention. It's a big club that could be used to roll back a lot of what's been done. But we have to play chicken and we can't flinch. And we have to be prepared to go though with it if they don't back down.
This mental illness happened in 1992. That enabled the Clintoons to seize control. Our nation and world is still suffering from that BS. We will not survive if they seize power again in 2006 and 2008.
Cheers to your new bombs!
Link to You Tube: Starring Halfbright and Horney/Stinky Kim Che in Clinton's Latest Glow Job
. . . the Democrats are fellow travelers of the establishment known as "objective journalism." And the defining characteristic of "objective journalism" is that it promotes itself by denigrating everyone who does not depend for his self-validation upon "objective journalism." "Liberal" and "moderate" and "progressive" are not descriptions of the people to who those labels are applied; journalism uses those only as code words signifying membership in good standing of their club of fellow travelers.Everyone who does important and necessary things - instead of merely criticizing those who do - gets mercilessly second guessed by journalism, abetted by its fellow travelers. Since that emphatically includes the military, Democrats "supporting the troops" is a parody of the real thing. Democrats do not respect soldiers any more than they respect policemen or businessmen - or anyone who does respect them.
But conservatives have not. And that's the problem.
First thing is to get someone with credentials interested in the idea. That would be hard because most people are in denial and they think the federal government can somehow be repaired. It would have to be a true conservative specializing in Constitutional law -- Ann Coulter maybe.
Then we would need to get the attention of state legislatures. It takes two-thirds of them to create a convention.
As far as the immediate elections are concerned. I'm not sure if it would a bad thing to have Congress and the White House controlled by different parties. That's what happened from 1994 to 2001 and the resulting political gridlock managed to keep taxes and spending increases reasonable.
But mostly we need to keep the idea alive by bringing it up whenever possible. If it comes down to the wire, no one blinks and the federal government is abolished the states will be free to form new allegiances. Most likely the blue states will immediately form new unions and the red states will be forced to do likewise to counter the threat.
I don't like these scenarios but it's better than the steady decline we see now. My hope would be that the liberals and neo-cons would respond pragmatically to the threat of a Constitutional Convention if they realize we are serious and it allows us to do some serious rollbacks. My fear would be that bogus promises would be made to force the states to back off.
The 2006 elections are what I am interested in. I think the idea of divided government is nuts. You only hear how good it is when the Democrats are out of power. If the Dims get hold of either house, they will truly make GWB a lame duck with ceaseless investigations and calls for impeachment. Iraq will go the way of Vietnam as they will refuse to fund the war. The reason divided government has worked in the past is usually there was a Republican President holding back a Dhimmicratic Congress. Now both are the same party and there is a war going on AND GWB is NOT a conservative. Bur he IS a smart, courageous, and patriotic man who can see through Dimocratic BS. Frankly, your cure is worse than the disease. What we need to do is defeat the RINOs in the primaries. If we can't, we hold our noses and vote for them. Just because the leg has gangrene, doesn't mean you shoot the patient.
Good analogy. What I am suggesting will, if it works, entail the amputation of a few states.
What do you think the chances of getting conservatives from states like Massachusetts? California is pretty much lost to the illegal alien vote.
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.
