Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Frivolous Politics: Part II (Thomas Sowell)
Townhall.com ^ | 10/11/06 | Thomas Sowell

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.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: sowell; thomassowell; wakeup
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-36 next last
Thomas Sowell strikes again! Ping in 30 seconds!
1 posted on 10/11/2006 9:58:08 AM PDT by Gordongekko909
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 2ndreconmarine; AlaskaErik; Alexander Rubin; Alissa; arthurus; balrog666; bamabaseballmom; ...
Thomas Sowell *PING*

FRmail me if you want on or off the Thomas Sowell Ping List.

2 posted on 10/11/2006 9:58:42 AM PDT by Gordongekko909 (Mark 5:9)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gordongekko909

Gyah! Off by four seconds. Maybe I'll copy the ping list before I post the article... that'll save me the time I'm losing by using my awesome new trackball mouse.


3 posted on 10/11/2006 9:59:49 AM PDT by Gordongekko909 (Mark 5:9)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Gordongekko909
There are few writers in this day and age who write essays without a single wasted or unnecessary word. Sowell is one of them
4 posted on 10/11/2006 10:02:53 AM PDT by dirtboy (Good fences make good neighbors)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gordongekko909

Thank God for Thomas Sowell. A sane voice in an extra nutty time.


5 posted on 10/11/2006 10:05:30 AM PDT by RedRover
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: 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.

Some people say there is no point voting because the votes were already tabulated weeks/days ahead of the supposed vote.

Re: DrudgeReport, 1998 mid-term elections.

6 posted on 10/11/2006 10:06:03 AM PDT by 100-Fold_Return (Soros hates MEGA-churches, Televanglists, and Wal-Mart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gordongekko909

The fallacy here is that we only have the two choices, a choice between bad and worse. That isn't so. If the federal government does not abide by the constitution, the states have the right to abolish it. Maybe we should be thinking in those terms.


7 posted on 10/11/2006 10:08:01 AM PDT by Dan Evans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gordongekko909
"...the Republicans are disappointing and the Democrats are dangerous."

Reminds me of one of my neighbors: "The Republicans are evil, but the Democrats are worse."

8 posted on 10/11/2006 10:14:14 AM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dan Evans

From whence springs this right of the states to abolish the federal government?


9 posted on 10/11/2006 10:15:13 AM PDT by Gordongekko909 (Mark 5:9)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Gordongekko909

The US Constitution. The states have a right to a Constitutional convention. The states created the Federal government, they can also abolish it.


10 posted on 10/11/2006 10:21:26 AM PDT by Dan Evans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Gordongekko909

"...Republicans are disappointing and the Democrats are dangerous."

As usual, when Sowell is finished, there is little to add.


11 posted on 10/11/2006 10:25:52 AM PDT by SaxxonWoods (DEAN, YOU INSIGNIFICANT BAST@RD! . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dan Evans

In other words, abolish the Constitution of 1789? Hell, we can't even get rid of Social Security.


12 posted on 10/11/2006 10:27:28 AM PDT by Gordongekko909 (Mark 5:9)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Dan Evans

That's the "important". Right now the "urgent" is upon us.

VOTE!


13 posted on 10/11/2006 10:51:27 AM PDT by chesley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Gordongekko909
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.

We cannot let the rats get control of the house, which starts all appropriations. There goes the border fence (authorized but unappropriated as of now) and there goes missle defense, which is, in my opinion, the most important military technology today. There is little or no hope of containing Venezuela, NK, or China without a robust missle defense.

14 posted on 10/11/2006 11:20:58 AM PDT by ModelBreaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gordongekko909
From the article: "In general, Democrats are the only real reason to vote for Republicans. "

Ann, is that you?

15 posted on 10/11/2006 12:08:22 PM PDT by William Tell (RKBA for California (rkba.members.sonic.net) - Volunteer by contacting Dave at rkba@sonic.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gordongekko909
In other words, abolish the Constitution of 1789? Hell, we can't even get rid of Social Security.

That's because the Federal government created it. But the states are not the Federal government. They are a different political entity and they stand to gain if we do away with this greedy, intrusive, overweening monster that shows every sign of growing even larger.

16 posted on 10/11/2006 2:07:50 PM PDT by Dan Evans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: chesley
First of all I seems to me that things work out better for the taxpayer if we have the White House and Congress are controlled by different parties. That way the president is not constrained by party loyalty from vetoing new spending bills.

Secondly, by not voting, I am signaling that there is potential vote for a party that would be more inclined to respect the Constitution.
17 posted on 10/11/2006 2:13:22 PM PDT by Dan Evans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Gordongekko909
If our prez gets another chance to appoint a Supreme and wants a non-lawyer, something many lawyers believe would be good for the Court, he should pick Sowell.

The steadfast thoughtfulness and intellectual rigor of his thinking is a rare quality.
18 posted on 10/11/2006 2:30:03 PM PDT by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dan Evans
Whatever works for you. Me, I prefer to have the clout to roll back some of the "progress" of the 60s.

Liberalism is a one-way ratchet. Unless you can force them back. Fiscal restraint is an important consideration, but it isn't in the top 5 things I vote on.
19 posted on 10/11/2006 4:53:44 PM PDT by chesley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: chesley
Whatever works for you. Me, I prefer to have the clout to roll back some of the "progress" of the 60s.

Republicans have had control of all three branches of government for almost six years now. What have they managed to roll back so far?

20 posted on 10/11/2006 5:16:10 PM PDT by Dan Evans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-36 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson