Priceless differences between the GOP and the Dems

TownHall.com ^ | 10/01/02 | Marvin Olasky

[kattracks]

Some readers of this column view the clash of political parties as meaningless. Here's a letter from Pete Berglar of St Louis: "I find myself agreeing more often than I'd like with the old saw about the two parties, 'There's not a dime's worth of difference between the two.' I read (about Republicans) losing the Senate, House or White House to Democrats, but wonder if it really makes any difference who is in control?"

Yes, Pete, many Republicans have been disappointing -- but here's my short list of where we'd be domestically if liberal Democrats had controlled all branches of government over the past two decades: Over 3 million abortions per year. Euthanasia rampant. Gay "marriage" legal everywhere. Home schooling illegal. Christian schools facing severe restrictions. Propaganda in public schools more virulent. Tax rates higher. Nationalized and inferior health care our only choice.

The GOP, for all its weaknesses (and the tendency of some Republicans to back the liberal agenda), has helped to keep those developments from occurring. Does the Democratic Party have some honest candidates and the GOP some slimeballs? Of course, and I will not vote for a candidate I know to be an unrepentant adulterer or a major league liar. But political correctness dominates Democrats more than it does Republicans, and PC pandering leads to dishonesty.

Look at some specifics. Liberal teachers' unions are so influential in the Democratic Party that it can't see straight on educational choice. Al Gore's foreign policy would leave the United States dependent on the U.N. Congressional Democrats are doing their best to eviscerate welfare reform and make more people dependent on the government once again. The Republican Party is an ideological battleground, and that's upsetting to conservatives who would like a unified party, but the Democratic Party is a dictatorship that silences pro-life voices.

As to George W. Bush: Even though I'd like him to push harder in several domestic areas, I'm so glad that he is president, and not only because of the usual policy concerns. Let me mention an encounter I had with Bill Clinton. It came at the very end of 1997 at a "Renaissance Weekend," one of those affairs right before New Year's Eve that brought together over a thousand liberal Friends of Bill and several conservatives such as myself. (We were entertainment.) When I had the opportunity to talk with the president one evening, I mentioned that I was writing a chapter on Henry Clay for a book on American leaders, and saw many Clay-Clinton similarities.

Clinton did not ask what the similarities were, or I would have told him: Henry Clay gave insinuating speeches in which he said, essentially, I feel your pain; other Americans saw him as smooth but untrustworthy; he was a big-time womanizer. But the president did not ask; instead he said: "That's such an interesting period of American history. I think about it all the time."

OK. The next morning, while I was saying a few words about race relations and trans-racial adoption, Clinton wandered in and during the audience participation segment made a comment: "This is such a crucial matter for America. I think about it all the time." And so it went.

I don't know how many times Bill Clinton told people that he was thinking about their particular concern all the time -- or how many times he did not tell people what he was really thinking about all the time. What's the value of having an honest president like George W. Bush? It's priceless. And what's the value of having a Congress that's often disappointing but at least not dictatorially pushing a far-left agenda? Certainly worth a minute in a voting booth.

Marvin Olasky is Editor of WORLD magazine, a TownHall.com member group.

Read his biography

©2002 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

[Diogenesis]

Congressman: "We would like to learn how you execute your own people who have different views from us."

Iraqi Terrorist: "For selling out your country, and calling Bush a liar, we will show you."

[Mo1]

VOTE THE RATS OUT!!

DONATE TONIGHT. SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD

[Mike Darancette]

....but here's my short list of where we'd be domestically if liberal Democrats had controlled all branches of government over the past two decades....

Sounds just like Europe.

[thegreatbeast]

Still and all, the American public is strongly against the recognition of gay "marriages". They stand queasily for the culture of death but don't try throwing it in their faces. Democratic contol over all branches and agencies of government still wouldn't invent a plausible reason to outlaw home schooling.
The nut Noam Chomsky believes we have the two parties so that they might enact each others agenda without drawing fire. Sort of like a magician's misdirection. Think about what Bush has done. Had Clinton tried to do many of the same things he'd be undergoing a second impeachment trial!
Just because republicans lost control of the executive & legislative branches would not give the democrats carte blanche to turn America into an overtly communist country.

[FreeLibertarian]

By the title of the thread, I though it was going to reveal which party accepted the largest bribes. Oh well.

[justrepublican]

I for one would like to try out a RIGHT side governance for some period of my life, just for awhile.

[Common Tator]

Right. They would get more liberals on the surprere court. And if you don't think they would rule gay marriages constitutional and home schooling unconstitutional you think abortion is still illegal.

The liberal agenda has never been enacted by congress. It is has been dictated from the courts. Liberals having he house, senate and the presidency insures totally liberal justices appointed and confirmed on all courts including the supreme court. It ensures the constition says the liberal agenda is the law of the land.

You have to be very slow on the uptake.

You should never place a bet that you are smarter than a sack of rocks. While it is true a sack of rocks has never been right on any issue, it is also true that a sack of rocks has never been wrong on a single issue. That can not be said about you.

[weikel]

Woodrow Wilson's and FDR's agenda were opposed by the courts think again( FDR successfully intimidated the Supreme Court by threatening to "pack" it after that the Supreme Court kinda rolled over and died). LBJ's agenda was enacted by congress as well.

[Ragtime Cowgirl]

I don't know how many times Bill Clinton told people that he was thinking about their particular concern all the time -- or how many times he did not tell people what he was really thinking about all the time. What's the value of having an honest president like George W. Bush? It's priceless. And what's the value of having a Congress that's often disappointing but at least not dictatorially pushing a far-left agenda? Certainly worth a minute in a voting booth.

Thank you for posting this kattracks.
E-mail our propagandists.

[PhiKapMom]

Excuse me but just what are your political leanings with comments like you just made?

Why do you think the Clinton DemocRATs are holding up all those Bush Judicial nominations and why they won't let others come to the floor to vote? Hint: Because they are judges that are Rule of Law judges not the liberal we must make new law judges.

You must be living in another Country if you don't see the difference in having a Clinton DemocRAT in the WH and their controlling Congress. The Clinton DemocRATs passed the larged Tax hike in American history which we are still paying for. If we had not elected a Republican Congress in 1994, clinton would not have moved more to the middle. We would have had hillarycare and many other liberal packages.

If you are not a liberal DemocRAT, you sure will have surprised me! Their mantra is that we are all alike -- you can give that one a rest! The clinton DemocRAT Party is rotting from the core with their skirting the rules, breaking the laws with very little consequences, and putting Party and Unions over the best interests of the United States of America.

Looks to me like those three Congressmen who went to Iraq are perfect examples of the new Clinton DemocRAT Party!

[MeekOneGOP]

The DIMocRATS are the Party of the Ethically Challenged !!

[Utah Girl]

Ping

[Common Tator]

I am not nearly as nice as you are dear lady.

I have found it important to understand the perspective of those who see no differences between the two parties .

As my poltical mentor used to say, "To a p*ss ant, both a pebble and the rocky mountains look equally tall."

[bmwcyle]

I hope America does not wake up too late.

[jeremiah]

There is no honor in either party. By that I mean that the party system is corrupt, and corrupting. Bringing both down by the entanglements of compromise, over the amount of years it takes to become a "person of power". Of course the R party, has more honorable people by %, but not by as much as most conservatives would hope.

Without the gridlock, and conflicting rhetoric, it would be hard to sell either side in an election. I truly believe, that when the Republican candidates (the majority anyway) talk of limited govt, they not only know it won't happen, they don't want it to. When the Democrat candidate talks of new programs(the majority) do want more govt. So that leaves us with true believers(the Dims) and mouthpieces(the Pubbies) That makes the Republican compromisers, much more dangerous than the Democrats in my book.

Of course I will continue to hold my nose, and vote for the most conservative candidate put before me(usually a Republican), but I do so knowing that there is a better than 50% chance, his true feelings on the constitution, and limited federal powers, are never fully aired, else he would have to run as a Dim.

[b4its2late]

A "thanks for the ping" bump.

[Ragtime Cowgirl]

Ping.

[PhiKapMom]

Let's put it this way -- what I wrote had to be rewritten because the first comments were not nice! I am trying to maintain some sort of nice, but I have just about reached the end of my rope trying to explain and giving people the benefit of the doubt.

You might say that "nice" isn't cutting it anymore! I have been livid for weeks now at the rotting core of the Clinton DemocRAT Party and how the media prints whatever they want.

I just got back from lunch with my youngest daughter who is taking a course in Mass Communications where they are learning about the 1st amendment, libel, and ethics. There is hope for our side yet when the first course in my daughter's first semester in college in Journalism is taught by a Republican conservative professor that is pounding in their heads that you are to report the news, not make the news or give your own ideas as news on the front page! Opinions are to be left on the editorial pages of America's newspapers.

She has been giving examples of bad news reporting which sounds like MRC's coverage of the nightly news. She gives the national press no quarter for reporting DemocRAT talking point papers as news and has given examples where they have reported spin instead of news.

At least that is one class that I feel like tuition is more than worth it! Today was the discussion of the Torch and how DemocRATs have chosen once again to ignore the law and how that should be reported!

We need a lot more professors like this Head of the Journalism Department across America to show up just how bad the press has become in being on the side of the DemocRATS!

[PhiKapMom]

Come to Oklahoma -- our Republican candidates really are conservative -- makes it easier here not to have to hold your nose and vote.

BTW thanks for holding your nose and voting. I did that in 1996 for Dole and it is not a great feeling but the opposition in 1996 was worse!