MY VOTE IS FOR SALE

Vanity | July 4, 2002 | B. A. Conservative

[B. A. Conservative]

Correct me if I am wrong. Eighty per cent of the Contract with America became law. Only two of the ten items failed, the balanced budget amendment and term limits. The balanced budget amendment failed because Bob Dole was more loyal to spineless Republicans than to the freedom of current and especially future Americans. He threw the balanced budget amendment in the trash to save a worthless Republican RINO Senator. The overwhelming majority of Republicans remained true to their word and voted for term limits. There were some Republican deserters on term limits, but I don't know specifically if they were signers of the Contract with America. All of this however, is water under the dam.

Now we are at a much different point in history. America is threatened with drowning because our ship is off course. I welcome Jim Robinson to the discussion and hope you will share with us how sailing blindly with the current Captain and crew will turn the ship before tragedy can be avoided, or your plan to convince the Captain, crew and other passengers to change course before it becomes every man for himself. So far no one has been thrown overboard. Do you see the risk that many Americans are going to be in the water, but the life jackets of government promises including social security and medicare will be worthless against the cold. Can you buy enough time to make enough life boats? Are you afraid to make a serious effort to actually change course in hopes of saving the ship and its passengers? I submit that we have almost run out of time. I think its change course or abandon ship, and we all know there are not and will not be enough life boats. Swimming offers no protection against the cold. Which is the greater risk? A full scale effort to change course, or hoping rescuers will arrive before the folks in the water are left out in the cold. And if we hit the ice, make no mistake some Americans will go down with the ship along with Captain and crew.

FreeRepublic alone will not change the course and save the ship. But catalysts are amazing gadgets. They dramatically increase the speed with which reactions run and they can do so against the natural gradient or equilibrium point. Indeed they can drive reactions almost to completion in the opposite direction. FreeRepublic is capable of being the catalyst that forcibly drags Republicans back to the Constitution. It can be the catalyst that makes them put the interest of America above their own perceived self-interest. I would suggest that if we can't save the United States and our freedoms, I would rather see the ship go down and am willing to take my chances of ending up in a boat or the water. If it came down to it, I would rather go down with the ship fighting for a chance to be free that stay onboard a socialistic ship.

FreeRepublic represents a microcosm of the United States. You are the Captain at FreeRepublic. Where you are willing to lead, I think there will be many willing to follow. The discussion has been framed. I think the choices are difficult and only God knows which if any will work. I consider myself to be an agnostic, despite the almost overwhelming evidence that the United States was inspired by Divine Providence and the increasingly very high odds against the accidental origin of life and the universe. I struggle because I can't see the grand design or plan and its ultimate resolution. Now, maybe more than ever we need Divine Intervention. Most of our Constitutional rights and liberties have been usurped by Presidents, Congresses and Courts bent on exercising power over the people. They have incurred the favors of the people by promising one group of Americans that they will take the produce of other Americans and give it them as the favored groups. Every principle of the equality of man is trashed. Both the favored and the raped are losers. Only the Powers That Be in government gain from the exchange.

Jim Robinson, you must answer the questions for yourself. How long can we continue with the present course? How can we change the course? Who will change the course? I don't think there is any doubt about your ability to determine the course of FreeRepublic. Can any political party change the course of the United States toward our Constitutional Republic other than the Republican Party before we hit the ice? Who or how can the course of the Republican Party be changed for the better? The Internet and Forum for Ideas on FreeRepublic is an extraordinarily powerful tool. Jim Robinson, do you deny that FreeRepublic played a crucial, if not the critical role in impeachment? Would you deny the role of the Contract with America in the results of the 1994 Congressional elections? Ronald Reagan's election in 1980 could have simply been the result of a combination of a terrible economy, coupled with a weak leader as existing president who was faced with a charismatic extremely well-spoken opponent. But could Reagan have enacted his tax cuts over the opposition of an over whelmingly Democratic Congress with powerful leaders who were absolutely committed to the defeat of Reagan's plan without convincing the American people of the validity of his ideas. It is only the immense power of propaganda exercised by a media that is 90% committed to the Democrats' socialistic agenda that has allowed Democrats to steal election after election from Republicans until Republicans lost faith in the people and now pander to the same interests as the Democrats. Republicans lost faith again after the successful assassination of Newt by his own hand and serial assassinations of Republicans in the aftermath created by the vaccuum of Newt's absence.

We must get the attention of the Republican leadership and the members of the Congressional delegations and get them back on the Conservative course. Please explain to me why you think blindly voting Republican will change their direction. Explain why I am wrong in contending that when conservatives blindly vote Republican, it only encourages Republicans to move further to the left to gain addtional Democratic votes. Even where there are genunine conservative Republicans in Congress, I would argue that keeping them in office carries some risk since they are not getting the job done in terms of leading other Republcians to enforce the provisions of the Constitution. Don't lose sight of the big picture. All we are asking of Republicans or anyone in the government is too simply enforce the Constitution and stop circumventing or flaunting it. Most of our existing federal statutes and most of the departments of government have no Constitutional basis and are frankly unconstitutional. How little are we asking? And in exchange for our vote, you would demand nothing.

How long are you willing to wait to get your freedom back? How many more are you willing to surrender while we wait? Do you think there is limit as to how much Congress and indeed even Republicans seem willing to take? Have you examined the Patriot Act signed by Bush? How about the farm bill he signed or the tariffs? How many of Clinton's executive orders has he repealed? When he was elected governor of Texas, his first official act was to withdraw the Coastal Management Plan submitted to Congress by Ann Richards. You cannot imagine my euphoria. Less than four months later he resubmitted it largely unchanged to Congress with his signature, but he appointed his own man and fired Richard's choice to be the man in charge. Blindly re-electing people who are part of the problem because the alternatives are worse is not a solution. It is merely a form of delay that contined long enough simply compounds and prevents a real solution from being found or implemented. Whether you recognize or admit it, we are at that point now. Soon we will be beyond the point of no return.

MY VOTE IS FOR SALE using the CONTRACT WITH CONGRESS is a powerful tool for change. Employed using FreeRepublic as the catalyst, it can change the Republican Party. In turn the Republican Party may be able to change the course of the United States while there is still time.

I ask you again Jim Robinson, "Will you become a patriot and fight for freedom now, or are you going to continue letting the Republicans use you for a patsy?" You want to restore the Constitution; they want to stay in office and with your vote safely tucked away they are free to move left and try to take Democratic votes with more socialism. Which Medicare plan for drugs for seniors do you favor? Which version of the minimum wage increase will the Republcans pass next? How many more immigrants will Bush cater to and how? What will he take from you and promise to them? How long will this continue to go on or when and where will it stop? If it doesn't stop now with the Contract with Congress, it may simply be too late to stop it at all. It could be up to you Jim, now or never? Are you willing to lead this fight, or is it time for those of us who want to use this weapon in the fight for freedom to look for other alternatives?

[exodus]

I love Patrick Henry.

"They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year?

Will it be when we are totally disarmed..."

Timeless words, as relevant today as they were in colonial days.

[Jim Robinson]

Vote out the Democrats is my answer.

[Little Bill]

All this breast beating is giving me a pain. As someone pointed out earier, lt is the first priority to destroy the Rat party and then fight among ourselves. As Doc On The Bay told me along time ago; Herding Conservitives is like Hearding Cats, don't happen.

[dcwusmc]

You are most articulate, my friend, and make a most compelling case. Thank you. It would please me if the Pubbies would become the answer, as they do have the numbers, but unless the RLC becomes much more powerful, powerful enough to overcome the influence of socialist-lites and the various colors of authoritarianism, it won't happen. We can see a microcosm here at FR... the various authoritarians who want to control certain aspects of others' lives, whether they are "liberal" or "conservative," and differ only in whether or not the incumbent party has a "D" or "R" after their names, the conspiracy-minded who see the misdeeds of gooberment as specific plots, and the reasonably rational rest of us who only want to be left alone to pursue our peaceful lives without interference of any sort from big brother or big nanny or who ever... as long as we respect the same right in those around us.

JimRob is kinda frustrated because of the slowness of the process, near as I can figure, and I can't blame him too much. However, unless it's the RLC, I do not see the pubbie branch of the incumbent party as the answer.

[Little Bill]

My FRiend, Revolutions don't hapen overnight.

[Tourist Guy]

>>>Their overwhelming lack of success speaks volumes about the electability of any serious Republican politician who would run on the same platform.<<<

Then they are not using the correct strategy. Period.

[Dec31,1999]

Less, no, no, no, no. I'm feeling very pessimistic and I really think there is no hope.

[Dec31,1999]

After reading the whole thread, I think you've presented a very powerful arguement, but I don't have the vision to determine which way is right. I, too, voted for Perot, and all I see is that voting for third party candidates gives the election to the opposing party, hence Clinton.

However, I am also disappointed, in part, by Bush's increasingly socialist policies. For example, why seniors need government reimbursment for useless drugs to make drug company's stock holders rich is beyond me. Really. My parents are in their eighties. The fewer drugs they take, the better they feel. (My father takes a daily aspirin, is all.)

Mysteriously absent in your arguements, however, is the impending threat of WMD from the adherents of the Koran. Why is that? And what role do you think this "monkey wrench" plays? You're analysis is so September 10th.

[185JHP]

Thanks for replying to my post. Do you remember Dick Armey's response to the possibility of repealing the Hillay gas tax increase? "Well, it isn't *that* much money!" We don't know much about the (possibly seething) mass of non-voters, and how they woulda voted, had they voted. I know of two things that will get a lot of nonsense fixed - a major war, and/or a Depression. On that note, FReegards!

[Earn Your Vote]

...all I see is that voting for third party candidates gives the election to the opposing party, hence Clinton.

Clinton in 92 (with a Dem house and senate) begat a Republican house and senate in 94 and the best days of federal governance ensued til the GOP caved over the budget deal at the end of 95. Every election we get the same old reason: 'We have to vote for the quasi-socialist GOPer or else the full-blown socialist Dem will win'. All that is really occuring is that we are moving further from conservative goals.

So, I am not buying it anymore. Sometimes you have to take a step backward to go forward again. Eventually, a real conservative sweep will again happen. I hope I live to see it and that it will last longer than a year. Next time, we can't let weak leaders destroy the moment.

[Earn Your Vote]

If it becomes necessary to enforce our threat not to vote, that means not voting in local or state races as well. Ours is a bottom-up grass roots effort. Local and state candidates who face the loss of office without our support will multiply our power with the national leaders. I fully recognize the loss of power Republicans face if conservatives are forced to make good on their threat to stay home.

I am in agreement except the part about not voting. Do you see ads for cars during Saturday morning cartoons? No. Kids don't buy cars. And a politician doesn't care about people who won't vote. It is awfully hard to tell whether that person sitting home is doing so out of apathy or out of protest.

But if politicians see third parties starting to garner 5-10% of the vote, that will change their behavior. So I would vote, but vote for a third party.

[strela]

4. No more socialism. That means no new payments to individuals except for services rendered or goods purchased.

So, if somebody is 64 the year before some politician pays your price, they get no Social Security when they turn 65?

Rotsa ruck selling this one. Or, maybe a rewrite is in order.

[B. A. Conservative]

Read the Cato Plan. No one is advocating taking promised benefits away from elgible persons with past participation. And the privatization is completely voluntary. Every American will have a choice of whether to stay or to opt out of Social Security except younger workers who have not contributed or only contributed small amounts and they will get fair value on what they have contributed to Social Security.

Statistically, based on projected future payments, most folks younger than 55 can be predicted to opt out, and those over 55 predicted to remain in Social Security. At some age for young workers, the voluntary election will become mandatory. The last time I looked it was at age 35. That is workers younger than 35 would not have the option to stay in Social Security. But these workers would get zero coupon bonds from Uncle Sam redeemable for the current cash value of what they have contributed in Social Security taxes up to the date they are no longer covered by SS. In other countries that have privatized using the Cato or Chilean model, a far greater percentage of workers have opted out than was predicted.

Current polling data indicates that two out of three Americans favor privatization. Amazingly, if you confine the people being polled to registered Democrats, a majority still favors privatization. And if you confine the poll to persons currently drawing Social Security, the majority still favors privatization.

Why aren't Republicans advancing this agenda?

[B. A. Conservative]

"voting for third party candidates gives the election to the opposing party, hence Clinton."

We have Congressional elections every two years. If we adopt this strategy this year, and the Republican Party candidates refuse to sign the Contract with Congress, hopefully those Republican candidates will lose and the Democrat win. Bush is not a strong conservative, but he is far more conservative than a Democrat. How much of Democrat agenda would he sign into law? How much different would a Democrat agenda be from the agenda that has recently been passed by a Republican controlled Congress. You see, that is the problem in a nutshell. The Republicans act more as a drag on the Democratic agenda when they don't control Congress than they do when they are in control. It is almost as if the Republicans are trying to steal the Democrats' agenda in order to get the credit for its passage from voters who normally vote Democratic. From a Conservative voter's point of view, the net cost of allowing the Democrats to controll Congress for two years with Bush in the Whitehouse will not be that painful. Now fast forward to the 2004 elections, all those Republican candidates who want to get into office for the first time or back into power after having been defeated will want to get the conservative base of voters out in force and back in their camp. They will sign on to the Contract with Congress in droves. The 2004 election will be a repeat of the 1994 election. And none of this will escape President Bush's notice. He may not be very conservative, but he is a very astute and skillful politician. I can guarantee the George W. Bush that campaigns in 2004 will be a hell of a lot more conservative than the one we saw in 2000.

The power in the United States is and always has been, the people. But you have to exercise that power once in a while to prove you have it. The power of voting takes place at the margin. Every year in local and rarely in national elections, a race will be decided by a one vote margin. Perhaps the most egregious one vote margin in history occurred in South Texas in an adjoining Congressional district to where I live. The worst President in American history was Lyndon Johnson, aka "Landslide Lyndon". Most people think he got that nickname from his defeat of Barry Goldwater in 1964. But he actually got it in his very first race for elected national office when he ran for a House seat in Congress. He won by a single vote in the most politically corrupt Congressional district in the United States outside of Chicago. There were over 2,000 votes cast by people whose names were on tombstones in local cemetaries. Regardless of the legitimacy or who cast them, most of the votes in that race didn't decide anything. But somebody cast that one vote that started LBJ on the most devastating political career in American history. That one vote at the margin represented immense power. Consider each vote in every 5-4 Supreme Court decision and consider how much power that vote represents. Withholding votes also exercises power. When candidates can take voters for granted, the voter can only exercise power by deliberately making a decision to withhold their votes from a candidate or from the party. When a party is involved, every candidate in the party suffers when voters withhold their votes from the straight party ticket. It gives voters immense leverage over the party and its candidates.

If Conservatives simple donate their votes to Republicans empircally, Republicans are free to look for additional votes from traditionally voting Democrats. This is why Republicans are vieing with Democrats for a prescription drug bill, debating minimum wage amounts, and imposing steel and lumbar tariffs. And it is why we are not hearing the media and the Democrats in complete panic over the Flat or Fair Tax and the Privatization of Social Security. They would either be hysterical or catatonic or both. If you are Conservative and if you want to change the behavior of Republicans in office, demand they sign the Contract with Congress or don't vote for them. It is possible that Republicans will not take conservatives seriously (I think recent elections support this as the likely outcome of our demands), then Conservatives must follow through and either not vote at all or make a real statement and vote for third party conservative candidates where there are some in the race. Yes, we might see an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress in 2003. Any suffering as a result will be more than off-set by the change in the agenda of Republicans in 2004. If the 2004 election is not a replay of 1994, I think the United States is doomed and the sooner it ends the sooner we will all get our Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms back. I want freedom in my lifetime and I only have a couple of decades left. Eternity for me is twenty years and I intend to be free and I intend to leave my children and grandchildren a better world than I inherited. That has been the legacy of Americans for two centuries, but we are dangerously close to breaking a precedent.

I am very confidant that this electoral strategy will work. I am equally confidant that if it is not implemented or if it fails, that there will be a series of secessions before the 2016 election cycle. The United States is not viable in its present configuration and on its present path. We have allowed the finest governmental model devised by the mind of man with Divine Providence, to be corrupted by the socialistic Democratic Party. Socialism, like Democracy, is an unworkable form of government. Tyranny is the inevitable result.

Regardless of the particular sentiments recorded in this forum, when you read between the lines and look at the underlying fundamental sentiments, you can feel the oppression felt by every Freeper. It is almost tangible. There was a time when you heard horror stories about some other person who had a bad experience with government. Now almost every American reacts with government and with increasing frequency. For some it is a daily experience. How often do you come away feeling great about the experience and that if it weren't for that government intervention, I would have a real problem? How often are you frustrated by the experience? It is that growing frustration over interactions with government that is going to result in major changes. And it is the growing amount of resources being taken from voters and wasted that is going to result in major changes. We are either going to return to our Constitutional roots, dissolve the United States or deteriorate into civil wars and chaos. The status quo is untenable. Voting for Republicans who would preserve the status quo is a vote to end the United States through secession or civil war. There is hope, and the Contract with Congress is it. So far, I have not seen other proposals, but there may be others forth coming.

[strela]

No one is advocating taking promised benefits away from elgible persons with past participation.

Actually you did, in your Condition Number 4 in Post 133; to wit:

4. No more socialism. That means no new payments to individuals except for services rendered or goods purchased.

A strict reading and enactment of this condition would indeed prevent a 64 year old from receiving any SS benefits, since his or her SS benefits would be "new" payments when he or she turned 65, after your proposed Condition 4 was enacted.

I'm not arguing in any way with your previous post, and am currently reviewing them. I can say that I find a great many things therein that I agree with so far. Just not your Condition 4, as I read it.

"Since when has justice been as simple as a rule book?"

[B. A. Conservative]

"Vote out the Democrats is my answer."

Wishful thinking. Wishful thinking makes for easy replies and appeals to everyone. But the problem is that it seldom provides meaningful answers to existing problems and tends to obscure reality, our only means of find solutions that work. In the case of elections, the reality is that your strategy hasn't worked in over 70 years. And on the only two occassions that voters threw the Democrats out was when the Republicans adopted a staunch conservative agenda, ie Reagan's election and the 1994 Congressional elections. Worse, voting the Democrats out and electing the current crop of Republicans simply means Republicans will be passing the Democratic agenda instead of it being done by Democrats.

Tell me in as much detail as you would like how throwing Democrats out and electing most of the Republicans currently in office is going to restore our Constitutional freedoms. Can you tell me which parts of the existing socialistic statutes or programs they plan to eliminate or reduce? How much do they intend to reduce government spending? How many government workers are going to be discharged? If you can't or are unwilling to answer these questions, how effective is FreeRepublic going to be in restoring our Constitutional Republic? When the difference between Republicans and Democrats is only in the degree or amount of socialism sought, Conservatives who desire a restoration of our Constitutional rights have already lost. Does your endorsement of Republicans who support incremental socialism or simply willing to accept a deceleration in the rate of socialistic programs mean you are admitting or willing to accept defeat? You don't owe anybody anything, but I am asking you to provide an explanaton for your apparent willingness to accept socialism as long as it doesn't grow too rapidly or does no worse than stay the same. If you are willing to accept the status quo, then I think you have become part of the problem and therefor my enemy rather than the ally I am seeking. Are you so afraid of the Democrats, that you are willing to simply accept holding them at bay rather than fight to drive their unconstitutional policies out of our land? What benefit is a cutting edge technology if you never willing to unsheath your sword?

[tpaine]

"Vote out the Democrats is my answer." - JR -

_________________________________

"The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave."
"Besides, sir, we have no [REAL] election."

_________________________________

With apologies to ole Pat H, - his words were never more timely.

[Jim Robinson]

Just vote out the Democrats.

[OWK]

Just vote out the Democrats.

The ones with the R's... or the ones with the D's?