Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Laura Hollis :: Townhall.com Columnist
Don't Be a Media Dupe - Vote to WIN
by Laura Hollis
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


By now, the media bias in favor of Obama is so glaringly obvious that it’s clear - MSNBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, The New York Times – are nothing but shills for the Democratic Party. 

I saw this years ago.  During the 1994 congressional elections, I was living in London, and the contrast between the American media coverage and that of the European media shocked me.   Whatever their personal sentiments, it was clear to the Europeans that American voters were in a “throw the bums out” mood, and that’s what they reported.  The American press, on the other hand, was in complete denial, like Kevin Bacon’s character in Animal House, screaming, “All is well!” as he is trampled by a stampeding mob.

And it has gotten worse.  With each successive election, the American media has tried harder not only to influence the outcome, but to dictate it; to control it.  You know their tactics; there’s no reason to recount them all here.  Old media has lost every shred of credibility it once had.

But somehow, the “poll results” have remained sacrosanct. 

So for weeks we’ve been hearing how Obama is “pulling ahead” in almost every “major poll.”  I hear some conservatives worrying that the election is already lost.  This is nonsense.  After months of hearing the media spout lie after lie, they report skewed, self-serving poll results, and you believe them? 

Despite the media’s love affair with Obama, and despite the fact that McCain has not run anything like a brilliant campaign, Obama is still (allegedly) only 5 or 6 points ahead.  I think even this alleged point spread is exaggerated.  My suspicion is that Obama and McCain are neck-and-neck.  The media wouldn’t believe that, because they spend all their time talking to people who think like they do, as well as believing that they, like God, can make something happen just by announcing that it’s so.  But as Sarah Palin and Joe Wurzelbacher have shown, Americans roar their approval when someone has the guts to tell them the TRUTH. And, like Joe, many Americans don’t reveal who they’re voting for, even when asked.

WAKE UP!  The whole purpose of the media spin is to persuade conservatives that the election is over:  stay home, don’t vote, don’t bother.   One sure way for conservatives to hand Obama the election is to do precisely that.

The second fatal error conservatives can make (and I know I’m inviting the onslaught here) is to throw away your vote on a third-party candidate who cannot win, on the assumption that a couple of years with a super-liberal government will turn people’s heads around.

I am just as disgusted with the spend-happy Republicrats in power as the next person.  And, as a Libertarian, I believe in third parties.  But it is one thing to support a candidate with a legitimate shot at victory, and another thing to throw your vote away, essentially casting another vote for Barack Obama.

We saw the same arguments being made in 2006: “I’m voting my conscience;” “I’m voting for someone who actually espouses conservative principles;” “I’m sending Republicans a message” (my personal favorite);  and “After two years of a Democrat Congress/President, the public will be so fed up that we’ll get real conservatives elected in the next election.”

I get it.  But I’m sorry, those rules don’t work, for what should be obvious reasons.

Those of you who “sent Republicans a message” by staying home or voting for third party candidates in 2006 helped create a Democrat-controlled Congress.  It’s been two years – see any outrage yet?  Are the same Democrats who helped create the financial crisis being shown the door? 

This year’s election poses the threat of a filibuster-proof Senate.   If Obama wins the Presidency, you’ll have helped hand all three branches of government to the Democrats.  Yes, three.  A President Obama and a Democrat-controlled Senate will nominate and confirm, respectively, the most liberal Supreme Court justices this country has ever known.  John Paul Stevens is 88.  He will retire.  More may follow.  Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life; there’s no “getting rid of them” in the next election.  You can kiss your rights and your traditional values goodbye, as that new liberal Supreme Court finds all kinds of new ways to shut you up and shut you out.

Further, you’re assuming that you’ll get another chance at an election.   But what if you don’t?  Last week, I said to a family member that what really worried me about an Obama presidency is the risk that we’d get hit again by terrorists, or face some other catastrophe.  “And on the heels of that,” I said, “what’s to stop Obama from ‘suspending’ elections?  I can hear his sonorous voice now, proclaiming in the most presidential tones, that ‘we cannot afford the divisiveness and partisan bickering of national elections, when the current crisis demands that we be unified as a nation!’  And to those who’d challenge (legitimately) the constitutionality of such a move, our President Obama would simply quote the Great Liberator, Abraham Lincoln, who asked what would be gained if he ‘los[t] the nation, and yet preserve[d] the Constitution?’” And then what would you do?

Think this is all beyond the pale?  What, then, do you make of Joe Biden’s comments that “… within the -- first six months of this administration ... we're going to face a major international challenge, 'cause they're going to want to test him…” and “I promise you, you all are going to be sitting here a year from now saying, 'Oh, my God, why are they down there in the polls, why is the polling on Obama so low, why is this thing so tough?'  We're going to have to make some incredibly tough decisions in the first two years, so I'm asking you now … be prepared to stick with us.  Remember the faith you had at this point, because you're going to have to reinforce it." ?

Just what kind of crisis, precisely, does Biden think a President Obama will face?  What “incredibly tough” and unpopular decisions would the pragmatic President Obama be willing to make to ensure that he – and his cohorts in the Congress - stayed in power?  Would he exploit a nationwide sense of fear, panic, and helplessness for his own political benefit?  What, precisely, is Biden insisting we would have to tolerate?

And we haven’t even touched on Obama’s love of gun control.  Hmmm.  Let’s see – no votes, no guns, no … chance?

Obama may be a relative unknown, but far too many of those supporting him, funding him, inspiring him, and otherwise propping him up have made no bones about their disdain for this country and their desire to bring down the entire American system.  I put nothing past them, and I think we ignore them at our peril.   At best, we will find ourselves saddled with a bloated, egotistical, economically ignorant, redistributionist government that treats American workers like pack mules, to be flogged until we collapse under the weight of an unsustainable system.  And at worst, we could be facing a form of entrenched despotism the likes of which we never imagined possible.

There was a time when Democrats in power meant a slight shift to the left, and Republicans in power meant a slight shift to the right.  Elections were relatively minor “course corrections.”  Politicians on both sides of the aisle loved this country, believed in it, wanted the best for it.  The disagreements were about the best way to accomplish what were reasonably mutual goals. 

Not anymore.

If we stay home, if we vote Democrat or third party to “send the Republicans a message” or to “punish them,” WE are the ones who will be punished.  And quite likely for a long, long time.

Think about it as you head to the polls.  The ones that matter.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Laura Hirschfeld Hollis is a Clinical Professor of Business Administration at the University of Illinois.

Be the first to read Laura Hollis' column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

GO VOTE MCCAIN-PALIN ! USA,USA !!!!
DO IT FOR YOUR KIDS AND GRAND KIDS!DONT LISTEN TO THE LIBERAL PRESS THEY ALREADY DRANK THE OBAMA KOOL-AID!

LAURA HOLLIS IS A TRUE AMERICAN!
THANKS LAURA!

I've Been Telling People This For Weeks
Sure NObama is going to get the socialist vote, the liberal/fascist vote, i.e. the democrat base. Also a bunch of fake votes. But I have been telling doomsdayers for weeks now these polls are primarily the fascist media and can't be counted as complete truth. Alot of conservatives holdout for election day to cast their vote and do not poll prior.

I Beg to Differ
While I support the basic premise of this article, I don't believe that "we the people" are ready to roll over to dictatorial government in any form for any reason. Congress is already on thin ice with the people and Barack Obama is perceived by many, as a threat to the very fabric of this nation.

The people may honor his election should he win in November. They will not tolerate however, any attempt to destroy the very system that allowed it.

Dear DanNV
Well said, and I hope you are right! Honorable, yes. Pushovers, no way!

Vote McCain and Palin
for our forefathers who fought and died for America, not for a watered down Socialist republic that it will become with Obama and his leftist illuminati in charge. Keep the flag, the Pledge and the Star Spangled Banner intact.

A third party vote is a FOR OBAMA
Don't vote Barr and don't write in for Paul, who in the name of service to his country, should have endorsed McCain and put America first.

Two or three more Ginsbergs on the Supreme Court, many more liberal activists on lower federal courts, innumerable decisions against religion and family and common sense are among the MYRIAD reasons to vote McCain.

Congress may have spent wildly, but

MCCAIN HAS NEVER HAD AN EARMARK AND NEVER VOTED A TAX RAISE.

O is promising tax raises in precarious ec. times, something ONLY a disconnected socialist would promote.

Vote McCain/Palin for believable change in DC.

McCain Volunteer Has Letter "B" Carved
INTO HER FACE at a Pittsburgh ATM last night.

http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/17789356/detail.ht ml

Don't look for this story to be carried by the MSM.

A police spokeswoman said the robber took $60 [while holding a knife to her throat] from the 20 year old woman from Texas [in town as a volunteer for the McCain campaign] became angry when he saw a McCain bumper sticker on the victim's car. The attacker then punched and kicked the victim, before using the knife to scratch the letter "B" into her face, the police spokeswoman said.

Had this happened to an Obama supporter...

...well, we all know there would be cries of RACISM...HATE CRIME...

And it would be plastered ALL OVER all the network news channels with pictures of the woman's face, with interviews with Katie Curic tomorrow morning to follow, lamenting how racist America still is.

The Sunday talk shows like "Meet the Press" and "Sunday Morning" would already be gathering their panels for this weekend's shows to talk about the pervasive and violent white racism, targeting the campaign of Barack Obama, in America in 2008.

Something like this happening to a black woman would be the end of John McCain's bid for the White House.

As it is...nothing to report here...

...not a peep.

Bogus polls & third party future
I too think the polls are obviously slighted by a biased media interested in suppressing voter turnout for McCain. It is going to take a massive effort by Fox & talk radio to counter the doom & gloom of unrealistic polling. The battleground states are all winable and PA & NH are within McCain's grasp. If he steals PA alone the race is over for Obama. If you live in PA you have the election in your hands. Maybe you can get Acorn to give you 73 republican registration forms each (or maybe not).
As for third party candidates, I agree it is foolish to waste your vote here with too high a cost. I do however think the current enviornment supports the growth of a third party option in the future setting up a single goal of controlling the Senate. Third party candidates are often considered too fringe to hand the Presidency, but a national movement to create some sort of financially and socially conservative group of candidates to create a new check of the government by gaining control of the Senate could get traction. This would ease the fears of handing over too much power to a third party while creating a real arguement for a way to block the excesses and extremes of the current two parties. It could also involve the recruitment of good Senators or Conressman from both parties that show a tendency to buck the system as it is. The six year takeover approach would take alot of planning, but it is much more practical than runs for the Presidency or each congressional seat. There are going to be many unpopular Senators in an Obama Presidency also if his economic socialism is put in place and the economy tanks as it likely will.

'does it have legs'
"the American media has tried harder not only to influence the outcome, but to dictate it;"

Too right.

On a related note, on the day the "wardrobe" story came out, AC360 anchor Anderson Cooper introduced the material and then turned to his panel and said something like "let's see if this story has legs". Here's what he should have said.

"Let's see if we can give this story some legs."

Hey ! Theres a Bee on your Face
*
_Just another A C O R N Volunteer registering another voter.......

Obamafascism
Barack Obama is as fascist as Mussolini and Hitler. His national socialist policies mirror those of the aforementioned, well known, lunatic dictators. Ms. Hollis is exactly right. Soon after election, Obama would declare martial law, which is within legal presidential authority, suspending future elections. He would further declare the 2nd amendment void and criminalize gun possession effectively disarming the people. Soon curfews follow. Then requirements for white Americans, Jews, and Christians to forfeit property. Then come the secret police and the call for neighbors and family members to report to the government on "suspicious or illegal behavior". These will include such things as praying, going to mass, celebrating Christmas or Easter, possessing a weapon, speaking ill of government, and all the things that previously made you FREE! Are you ready for the end of our world as we know it? Ignore the press. Get off your butt and go vote for McCain. It is our only chance, no kidding. I know it sounds crazy, but I am convinced that the only way that the unqualified, inexperienced fascist can win is if he is THE Antichrist foretold in scripture. Therefore, NOW is the time to repent and follow Jesus the Christ. The Lamb of God, who paid the price for YOUR sins and those of the whole world! Accept Him now before it is too late!

94 Revolt II
Dims/media/libs are trying to pull the biggest scam of all time. I hope all concerned Americans are registered and have voted or plan to vote. We'll need the all time voter turnout. This guy makes Clinton look like Goldwater. His commie friends are poised to wreak havoc in his first two years.

As for the pass the media has given Reid/Pelosi for the last two years, once again we will have to depend on an unprecendented turnout against dims.

For the Barr supporters
How Conservative is Bob Barr anyway? He wants to get rid of DOMA and allow gay marriage that a handful of courts have stuffed down the throats of the electorate to be the defacto law of the land in every state. Great conservative principles there. Vote McCain/Palin.

You can still man phone banks
and volunteer to drive on Nov. 4.

NJ has been calling OH voters and actually, for all the campaigning for nearly two years straight, some people are not yet much aware of the election. For them, it's a week away.

Some have never heard of Ayers or ACORN and don't even want to believe these are related to a US pres. candidate. They can be referred to verified sources and are more easily persuaded than the MSM would have us believe.

McCain is up 1.5 in OH, Battleground poll. Mac is up a pt. in FL, both Battleground poll and AP, and AP and WSJ have tie nationally, at 44 O and Mac at 43, still leaving 12% undecided, a huge number.

Send money. Man the barricades. Take it down to the wire.

Vote McCain/Palin for believable change in DC.

last election
i share your concern that this is our last election. politics zimbabwe style. but think about it. with increasing hoardes on welfare and therefore obliged to vote democrat, add a couple of hundred million new alien voters obligated to the democrats, what difference could it possibly make if we do have an election? dont forget. 99% always voted for stalin. everyone who is not comfortable with a permanent dictator better get together and vote against THE ONE this one last chance.

Who Is This Lone Stranger?
PARTIAL COPY FROM A PRESS RELEASE [this is NO joke].

QUESTION: IS THIS WHAT PROMPTED OBAMA'S TRIP TO HAWAII THIS WEEKEND? Only "The Shadow knows"...

http://obamacrimes.com

Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania – 10/21/08) - Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of “qualifications” to serve as President of the United States, announced today that Obama and tbe DNC “ADMITTED”, by way of failure to timely respond to Requests for Admissions, all of the numerous specific requests in the Federal lawsuit. Obama is “NOT QUALIFIED” to be President and therefore Obama must immediately withdraw his candidacy for President and the DNC shall substitute a qualified candidate. The case is Berg v. Obama, No. 08-cv-04083.

Berg stated that he filed Requests for Admissions on September 15, 2008 with a response by way of answer or objection had to be served within thirty [30] days. No response to the Requests for Admissions was served by way of response or objection. Thus, all of the Admissions directed to Obama and the DNC are deemed “ADMITTED.” Therefore, Obama must immediately withdraw his candidacy for President.

OBAMANOMICS 101: Harvard Law
*
Corporations, their employees, stockholders, and pensions___BAD! Lawyers, especially Harvard Constitutional Lawyers__GOOD!

No more stock market, no more investing, no more 401k's; only the government_____and Lawyers.

Now You will give your money right to Barack, so he can invest it for you, in a very safe, sound, and fiscally responsible vehicle____

Social Security.

Now that we're going to be Socialists, we need Security.

Now dosen't that sound like a Good Idea.

Who Is This Lone Stranger? 1
LIST OF CHARGES OBAMA REFUSED TO RESPOND TO IN U.S. FEDERAL COURT: http://obamacrimes.com/

OBAMA - Admitted:

1. I was born in Kenya.
2. I am a Kenya “natural born” citizen.

3. My foreign birth was registered in the State of Hawaii.
4. My father, Barrack Hussein Obama, Sr. admitted Paternity of me.

5. My mother gave birth to me in Mombosa, Kenya.
6. My mother’s maiden name is Stanley Ann Dunham a/k/a Ann Dunham.

7. The COLB [Certification of Live Birth] posted on the website “Fightthesmears.com” is a forgery.
8. I was adopted by a Foreign Citizen.

9. I was adopted by Lolo Soetoro, M.A. a citizen of Indonesia.
10. I was not born in Hawaii.


Who Is This Lone Stranger? 2
LIST OF CHARGES OBAMA FAILED TO RESPOND TO IN U.S. FEDERAL COURT:

11. I was not born at the Queens Medical Center in Hawaii.
12. I was not born at Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women and Children in Hawaii.

13. I was not born in a Hospital in Hawaii.
14. I am a citizen of Indonesia.

15. I never took the “Oath of Allegiance” to regain my U.S. Citizenship status.
16. I am not a “natural born” United States citizen.

17. My date of birth is August 4, 1961.
18. I traveled to Pakistan in 1981 with my Pakistan friends.

19. In 1981, I went to Indonesia on my way to Pakistan.
20. Pakistan was a no travel zone in 1981 for American Citizens.

21. In 1981, Pakistan was not allowing American Citizens to enter their country.
22. I traveled on my Indonesian Passport to Pakistan.


Who Is This Lone Stranger? 3
23. I renewed my Indonesian Passport on my way to Pakistan.
24. My senior campaign staff is aware I am not a “natural born” United States Citizen.

25. I am proud of my Kenya Heritage.
26. My relatives have requested changes to the portion of my birth certificate that identifies my first name.

27. My relatives have requested changes to the portion of my birth certificate that identifies my last name.
28. My relatives have requested changes to the portion of my birth certificate that identifies my place of birth.

29. I requested changes to the portion of my birth certificate that identifies my first name.
30. I requested changes to the portion of my birth certificate that identifies my last name.

31. I requested changes to the portion of my birth certificate that identifies my place of birth.
32. The document identified as my Indonesian School record from Fransiskus Assisi School in Jakarta, Indonesia is genuine.

33. I went to a Judge in Hawaii to have my name changed.
34. I went to a Senator and/or Congressman or other public official in Hawaii to have my name changed.

35. I had a passport issued to me from the Government of Indonesia.

Who Is This Lone Stranger? 4
LIST OF CHARGES OBAMA FAILED TO RESPOND TO IN U.S. FEDERAL COURT:

36. The United States Constitution does not allow for a Person to hold the office of President of the United States unless that person is a “natural born” United States citizen.

37. I am ineligible pursuant to the United States Constitution to serve as President and/or Vice President of the United States.
38. I never renounced my citizenship as it relates to my citizenship to the country of Indonesia.

39. I never renounced my citizenship as it relates to my citizenship to the country of Kenya.
40. I am an Attorney who specializes in Constitutional Law.

41. Kenya was a part of the British Colonies at the time of my birth.
42. Kenya did not become its own Republic until 1963.

43. I am not a “Naturalized” United States Citizen.
44. I obtained $200 Million dollars in campaign funds by fraudulent means.

45. I cannot produce a “vault” (original) long version of a birth certificate showing my birth in Hawaii.
46. My “vault” (original) long version birth certificate shows my birth in Kenya.

47. The only times I was to a Hospital in Hawaii was for check-ups or medical treatments for illnesses.
48. Queens Medical Center in Honolulu, Hawaii does not have any record of my mother, Stanley Ann Dunham (Obama) giving birth to me.


Who Is This Lone Stranger? 5
LIST OF CHARGES OBAMA REFUSED TO RESPOND TO IN U.S. FEDERAL COURT http://obamacrimes.com

49. Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women and Children in Honolulu, Hawaii does not have any record of my mother, Stanley Ann Dunham (Obama) giving birth to me.
50. I was born in the Coast Province Hospital in Mombasa, Kenya.

51. I represented on my State Bar application in Illinois that I never used any other name other than Barack Hussein Obama.
52. I went by the name Barry Soetoro in Indonesia.

53. My Indonesian school records are under the name of Barry Soetoro.
54. I took an Oath to uphold the United States Constitution when admitted to the State Bar of Illinois to practice Law.

55. I took an Oath to uphold the United States Constitution when I was Sworn into my United States Senate Office.
56. I hold dual citizenship with at least one other Country besides the United States of America.

Hollis writes "...conservatives worry
that the election is already lost..."

Conservatives lost this election in January. Now we're left with the possibility of a soft socialist or a marxist. I will vote for neither.


Hollis continues "... to throw away your vote on a third-party candidate who cannot win, on the assumption that a couple of years with a super-liberal government will turn people’s heads around."

That's not why I plan to vote for Baldwin (or possibly Barr)

I plan to vote for one of them because I agree with their policies much more than McCain's. McCain has stabbed conservatives in the back many times - chiefly McCain-Feingold, but the list is long.

The last 8 years has shown that the GOP in congress will roll over for a liberal POTUS - moving the country rapidly left. True, W gave us tax cuts and two good SCOTUS justices, and defended the country. But other than that, the country moved left faster under W than during Clinton's last 6 years with the GOP fighting him on everything.

So I say vote for whatever limited-government 3rd party is on your ballot for POTUS, but your GOP senator so they can mount filibusters against the worst of Obama's initiatives.

Those conservative votes against McCain will be counted and noted when the GOP leadership is considering future nominees.


Hollis: "what’s to stop Obama from ‘suspending’ elections?"
Oh please. give me a freaking break.

Oh - and as for gun control, limiting the same of guns and ammo is one thing - but if they actually try to take away legally purchased guns and ammo, there will be a civil war, and we conservatives will win. Obama & company know this.

OncealwaysaMarine, and you other
"Obama was born in Kenya" floggers:
You do realize that because his mother is American, that Obama was a natural-born citizen no matter where he was born, right?

If his mother filed a birth certificate with an embassy or consulate, that makes it easier to prove - but he would be a natural-born citizen even if she did not file it.

The only way you can get what you're after is to show that neither of his parents were Americans.

You're chasing a red herring.

Why not focus on Obama's disreputable associations, marxist beliefs, involvement in voter fraud, complete lack of relevant experience, and freedom-damaging policies?

The typical answer I get to that question is "we're doing both". But you are undermining your own credibility for criticizing Obama on important issues by focusing on his place of birth.

This is not the time to vote 3rd party!
Voting Barr or anybody but Mccain is a vote for Obama. Mccain needs every vote to win. Don't choose now to teach those idiot repubs a lesson. An Obama presidency is too much of a consequence.

Obama is going to be 1000 times worse -- MORE spending, MORE illegal immigration, WORSE handling of the war, MORE abortion, MORE gay marriage, worse Supreme Court appointments, MORE TAX increases.

Anybody saying they are voting for Bob Barr on this site is a troll trying to get "undecided" voters to waste their vote. Remember 1992? Ross Perot did not win. He was the spoiler who TOOK VOTES AWAY from the Republican (GB) which ultimately gave us Bill Clinton/Monica/Hillary, et al. VOTE BARR, GET OBAMA. Simple as that.


Remember 1992? How about 1994?
Bush 41 revealed himself to be a moderate - raised taxes when they did not need to be raised - and lost in 1992 because of it. Obviously the mild recession didn't help... The GOP got a clue under Gingrich, ran a conservative agenda, and blew away the Dems in the 1994 congressional elections.

We got 6 years of good conservative government from it - no thanks to Clinton.

Then W takes over and the GOP doubles the size of government.

What I really want is a conservative president, but we're obviously not going to have one this time, so I will vote for my GOP senator, but register my dissatisfaction with the GOP by voting for Baldwin.

McCain is a better man than Obama, but when the dynamic with congress is considered, I'm not convinced the country will end up any less socialist with McCain than Obama.

If not now, when?
If this is not the time to vote 3rd party - when the GOP is running the most liberal candidate in at least 60 years - when will be time?

ah. That's what I thought.

SOME PAY BACK
If you wish to see a change of direction in these obvious left leaning broadcast companies ....then boycott the products that are advertised on these stations....it's that simple. Loss of revenue means loss of support. They're all businesses and need capital to operate and pay staff, and they all have bottom lines and stock holders to placate. They are already experiencing losses in their ratings as reported two days ago... the boycott would just add that finishing touch !

Voting
Chris - AL

You are an idiot. Do you really think that you loonies giving 1 to 2%
of the vote to some other candidate will "show" the Rep. party? You
just refuse to consider the importance of stopping Obama. You are
certainly not our idea of a good conservative, nor even of a logical
thinker or educated person.

Thanks for doing your part to ruin our lives, telling yourself how
clever you are. NOT!!

''Blue State'' conservatives...
--
...- such as those of us encumbered by that horde of friggin' Mets fans in North Jersey - can vote any damned way we please without this bushwah about "casting a vote for the Maroon Messiah."

These frantic McCainiacs don't get it.

The Electoral College works in most states on a "winner-takes-all" basis, and unlike my friends in the Commonwealth across the Delaware, even somebody registered in Philadelphia *will* have an effective vote should he choose to cast his ballot for Crash Test Johnnie.

I won't.

On the other hand, if *I* (and charming, enthusiastic, renny) vote for The Enemy Ace, it will be as if we had sat at home watching re-runs of *Mr. Smith Goes to Washington* and guzzling Miller Highlife in a low-life manner.

In the Garden State and in many other of these several states, a vote for The Admiral's Baby Boy is *USELESS*.

What purpose does it serve?

First, America conservatives have a duty to let the Rockefeller Republicans know that we are done with them, that we hate them, and that if they were drowning in liquid excrement, we wouldn't so much as chuck them a wad of toilet paper.

Second, whether Barr is a real libertarian or not (he's not; I supported Mary Ruwart), a vote for that has-been instantly adds to a coherent voice supporting the call for the restoration of constitutional government -

(( which a vote for McCain-Feingold emphatically does *NOT* ))

- and a return to the principle that the officers of our government draw their pay *only* for the purpose of protecting our libertries, not restricting our freedom of political speech *OR* socialistically striving to "share the wealth."

So if you're in a Blue State, do *NOT* endorse the Rockefeller Republicans' mock candidate for the presidency.

Remember, you're not *officially* getting raped unless witnesses hear that you screamed and struggled at least a little.

--

Every dire Obama prediction can happen.
In his July 2 speech in Denver Obama claimed: "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

This is confusing. I thought the liberal point of view was that we spent too much on the military. Now Obama wants to quadruple what we spend on the military and add a civilian national security force equal to the military in size and expense. That means he wants to spend eight times what we are presently spending on the military and a national police.

Who is the “we” who set the national security objectives he refers to? What are these objectives?

Why do we need a civilian national security force? Is this to protect us from outside threats or to protect the government from the American people? Is it to keep the American public in line? Will this replace our local police departments that are answerable to our local governments?

This sounds very much like one of the steps a person or party in power would take in preparation for the establishment of a communist police state.

This is one of those plans that Obama has for America that he lets slip now and then.

Greater detail about the dire consequences of this plan are at my Townhall blog "In the Land of the Free," http://chuckhakes.blogtownhall.com titled "How to Make America a Communist Society." There is not enough room for all of the concerns in this blog response.

Chuckles

Simple 3rd party candidate election math
Consider, if you will, one of the states in the United States of America. Call this state Lalaland. It's one of Obama's 57 states.

Lalaland has 1 electoral vote. Lalaland has 100 voters. 49 vote for Obama. 51 would potentially vote for McCain, thus giving Lalaland's 1 electoral vote to McCain.

However, 3 voters decide that McCain is too liberal to suit them and decide to "teach the Republicans a lesson" by voting for a 3rd party candidate instead of McCain.

This makes the election outcome 49 Obama, 48 McCain, 3 someone else. The winner-take-all electoral vote goes to Obama, who will bring more liberalism than McCain could dream of.

I don't intend to insult anyone's intelligence with this little example but I thought a clear example of the arithmetic might be instructive to a few, in a constructive way.

If you are going to save America from Obama, McCain is your only choice.

Chuckles

Polls are just as dishonest as the MSM
The polls are run by liars these days, as well. Gallup said there are currently about 35 dems for every 30 republicans, but these polls are intervieweing as many as 44 dems for every 26 republicans.

A large part of the total of currently registered democrats are coming from the fraudulent ACORN thugs. They registered 1.3 mil, only 450,000 appear to be real people. And those registrations still make up the 35% gallup declares.

Then there are the 'operation chaos' republican voters who changed to democrat voters to vote for Hillary in the primaries. And there were lots of republican women who really wanted Hillary to win in so doing, and will not be voting Obama, despite their registrations, but they are included in the stats that make the dem voter ID of 35%.

Then there are the 40% of Hillary primary 18,000,000 voters who will not be voting Obama because ACORN thugs stole the caucuses and the DNC gave Hill delegates to Obama. 40% of 18 mill is 7,560,000. Some will write in Hill, untold numbers ARE voting for McCain/Palin. Many of these Hill supporters are telling pollsters they will vote Obama only because they want him lulled and then crushed. Yes, they are that angry with him for what he did, and how he treated Hill.

Then there are the 60% of people called who will not talk with pollsters. Then there are the pollsters who are calling and asking if you want a tax cut, and if you say yes, they say you are Obama supporter even if you scream "No" they hang up on you.

Almost 75% of Americans say they are conservatives. This includes repubs and dems. Gore didn't do it, Kerry couldn't do it, and Clinton would not have if Perot hadn't taken votes both times he ran.

The polls are lying. Obama is going t lose.

Great Lib...

Thanks for the Lincoln reference...

President Obama would simply quote the Great Liberator, Abraham Lincoln, who asked what would be gained if he ‘los[t] the nation, and yet preserve[d] the Constitution?’”

Obama's mother not old enough
No, even if Obama's mother was a citizen, she was not old enough to have granted him citizenship if she gave birth in Kenya. She had to have been an American citizen a certain number of months post her 18th(?) birthday, and she did not meet that requirement. More importantly, Obama's citizenship was given up when he became a citizen of Indonesia, and we don't know if he ever got it back, or just moved back to Hawaii like it didn't matter.

B.O.'S PATERNAL GRANDMOTHER ON TAPE
WorldNetDaily has a story about a tape that Attorney Berg has access to of an audio interview with B.O.'s paternal grandmother.

She confirms his Kenyan birth.

Here's a question for everyone: which MSM network (CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, etc.) will be the first to break away from the rest and finally admit that this story exists?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId =78931

Liberty was lost

In answer to Linclon's question...Liberty. Liberty was lost and continues to be lost because the 10th Amendment was trashed.

Pelosi doesn't care what we tolerate
Pelosi doesn't give a rat's posterior what we will tolerate, no leftist does. They see us as idiots beneath their contempt, and they will give us what they think is best for us. If you think Pelosi cares if we scream our heads off, you are dreaming; as long as her commie district keeps sending her back, she is in donkey butt heaven and could care less. Don't count on our outrage reaching her ears for any effect.

DON'T waste your vote to teach the republicans a lesson for nominating McCain. It could have been the democrats who got him nominated anyway, they have been crossing into our primaries for years. YEARS. This is where Rush got the idea for operation chaos that repubs should cross over to vote in Hill as the most beatable dem. Perhaps even Bush got nominated by the help of dems. have you ever thought of that? We need to do something about this unfair primary nominating stuff, but that can take place later.

FOR NOW, don't waste your vote. TEACH the LEFTIST MARXIST dems a lesson this time, vote McCain/Palin, please don't let that commie cr*p get hold of the white house, the two houses, and the judiciary. we could never take a free breath again.

Payback to MSM and NYT
Payback is already taking place to the MSM and NYT. Couric lost half a mil, went from 6.4 mil viewers to 5.9. the other two major losers lost about the same amount of viewers in the middle of an election, when news viewership generally goes up. It IS going up, bot on Fox News.

The New York Times lost 51% of its profit last quarter or month, however they rate that, and its bonds or stocks just went to being rated as "junk" on the stock exchange.

We are voting with our remotes, let's keep it up (or down.

Clear Reminder
Thank you, Laura, for reminding me (and no doubt, quite a few others) that the notion of 'sending a message' by putting our votes elsewhere, isn't going to work. That was a huge argument in 2006, as Conservative disgust for the Republican party took them down in both Houses. Had we not done that, or only lost one House of Congress, we might be able to afford the Democrat affirmative action for the Presidency. But we can't afford to indulge that racism-driven agenda at this time.


McCain*Palin 2008

Chuck in lalaland:
Here's the problem with your analogy: "The winner-take-all electoral vote goes to Obama, who will bring more liberalism than McCain could dream of."

McCain loves the adulation of liberals and the media, loves to cross the isle. If he is president, the GOP in congress will give him what he wants (a la Bush), while the Dems will only let the liberal portion of his agenda pass.

Obama plans to move the country more left than McCain, but he would have congressional GOP to deal with.

So the critical thing is to retain the ability of conservatives to mount a filibuster against Obama's worst initiatives.

This country will become more socialist no matter whether McCain or Obama wins.

Christine
Get a grip on yourself. You desperately need to stop getting your news and opinion from Fox News and World Net Daily. Try to grasp that your own personal wishes and fantasies do not constitute information.

Remember Karl Rove just before the Democrats blew the doors off Republicans in the mid term election? When asked about the polls that showed a Demcorats landslide, he said "you can have your math, but we have the real math". He was dead wrong. And so are you.

The pathetic desparation of conservatives was amusing for a while, but you people are starting to sound crazy.


"Dupes"? John Quincy Adams
on Third-Party Voting:

“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.”

I guess Adams, the son of one of the Founding Fathers and our sixth President, was a man who “didn’t love his country” and was too stupid to realize that his vote “for principle” was actually a vote for the 19th Century equivalent of Obama. I guess Adams was too dense to grasp that he was supposed to “support his party first”, otherwise he was “throwing his vote away”. That there are “only two viable parties”, though in his lifetime he was actually – at one time or another – a member of five. That he was making himself “irrelevant”.

Yeah, he was just a fool. We can dismiss him.



I don't think he agrees with you, Laura Hollis.

Just wondering
if what we have to tolerate when Barack Obama is "tested" is the institution of some kind of marshall law or the the civil defense corp that Barack Obama has talked about wanting to establish.

Ref: "What, precisely, is Biden insisting we would have to tolerate? "

3d party candidates - bad news
Thank you for detailing what it really means when you vote for that third party candidate. My husband and I will be voting for McCain/Palin but will be pulling the lever on the Conservative line to do it. I voted for a third-party candidate once and will never do it again. My vote helped elect Bill Clinton. I wish I had read this kind of column before that election!

Well, Anne

The election of Clinton led to the Contract With America 1994 sweep of both houses of Congress predicated on true conservative principles, the first time the GOP had been able to do that in over 50 years. And CONGRESS is where the power lies.

That gelded Clinton, forced him to govern from the Right, and blocked any leftist agenda from being enacted.

Sounds like a pretty good result to me.


Anne, don't be ashamed of your 3rd
party vote. I'd rather have Bill Clinton with a conservative congress to stop him than (either) George Bush with a liberal congress to bankrupt the country.

Don't misunderstand - I'm no fan of Bill Clinton...

What I'd REALLY like is Reagan as POTUS and Gingrich's 1995 conservative congress. Then we might actually be able to shrink the federal government - move back toward its constitutional limits - get rid of unnecessary and unconstitutional federal beaurocracies and agencies.

But, that's obviously NOT going to happen for at least 4 years.

Don't Be a Media Dupe
Good one, Laura! The kind of article that will hopefully be a wake up call to all those lethargic, can't make up their little minds, fence sitters and "independents" (code word for lilly-livered narcissists).

We the people are supposed to guide our own destiny with interest and active participation in the politics of the country. Prudence and a conservative stance are required. We vote for politicians who do our bidding not the other way around and a sense of entitlement at the expense of others is not a consideration. “Keeping our powder dry” for future emergencies is essential; another words a healthy reserve in economic and military might is necessary. We the people are doing none of these things and we make ourselves very vulnerable to our enemies and we are mortgaging our futures on borrowed moneys that we don’t control. It’s time to get our internal house in order. Get back to basics like balanced budgets and fiscal responsibility in our own homes and in government. Secure our borders, throw all the blood-sucking vermin out of the country, bring back the manufacturing base, bring our military home, and restrain our diplomatic efforts to a minimum…we are not the world’s policeman and it just invites more animosity from all the deranged but envious mobs outside our borders. We have to stop the hemorrhaging of all that is dear to this nation starting with ourselves and demanding accountability and restraint from the political office holders. That is a nation of strength; the one we have now is an obese Baby Huey waiting to be knocked over with a feather (one of its own at that).

This is still America
I DO NOT CARE WHICH AMERICANS ARE SUPPORTING TAKING AWAY CIVIL RIGHTS IN THE NAME OF BARACK
OBAMA. NOR ALL THE DOMESTIC TERRORIST HE HAVE LINED UP TO ENFORCE MARSHAL LAW, IN THE NAME OF THE OBAMA NATION.SOME 900,000 ILLEGAL VOTER REGISTERATIONS THAT WAS CLAIMED TO BE FIRST TIME/NEW VOTERS. SOME TURNED OUT TO BE NOTHING MORE THAN ADDRESS CHANGES AND OTHERS FRAUDULANT REGISTRATIONS THAT WAS REJECTED FOR VARIOUS REASONS. OBAMA WILL HAVE THIS ORGANIZATION RUNNING ELECTRAL COLLEGE SYSTEM.

DanNV: national emergency
I sympathize with your assertion that we wouldn't just roll over and allow it, but really, what would you do? What *could* you do?

I remember when Congress passed and Jimmy Carter signed the Federal Emergency Management Act -- yes, FEMA -- and I said at the time to any who would listen that that was the tool that would eventually be used to erase the Republic in all but name.

(Which, by the way, is what I especially enjoyed about the first X-Files movie: they made FEMA the instrument of the villains, and that was seven years before Katrina.)

Recall the traditional aim of African rebels who simply wish to replace a hated dictator with a dictator of their own: "One man, one vote -- once."


OncealwaysaMarine: the backwards B
While I agree that, had this happened to an Obama supporter, we would not be hearing the end of it. Even if it were only *rumored* to have happened to an Obamaphile, it would be reported just as widely and with no less credulity than was the phony "kill him" non-scandal.

That said, I think there's a reason for this not being picked up even by the conservative media: nobody believes it.

Andrew Breitbart last night on "RedEye" cited as precedents those notorious incidents of racism or anti-Semitism that turned out to have been perpetrated by their supposed "victims". One of the Leftists posting on Townhall yesterday invoked Tawana Brawley. And until some evidence backs up this woman's story, I'm inclined to agree with them.

But you're right about one thing: if it's true, it's a non-story. Only if it turns out to be false will it be reported, and if that happens, it will finally distract the moron media from digging through Joe Wurzelbacher's refuse.

Chris in AL: the law in 1961
It is true that Obama's mother was always a US citizen, but it is part of Berg's assertion that the US Code at the time stated that US citizenship is automatically conferred on someone born overseas if one of his parents is a US citizen who has resided in the United States for at least ten years, and here's the kicker, no fewer than FIVE of which must be after the age of 14. Obama's mother was only 18 at the time.

This is not a question that will be resolved by anyone's belief one way or the other. It will be resolved in Federal court by the presentation of the *original* of Barry's birth certificate. The one they're showing on the "Fight the Smears" website is only a copy of a certificate issued long after the fact and showing only the information currently in the Oahu County clerk's database. In the absence of the original document from 1961, it proves nothing.

I think this is a sufficiently important question -- and now a Federal judge thinks so too -- that somebody can get off his fat bureaucratic posterior, waddle down to the vault, and show us the original document.

They *can* do that, right?

Now, I'm given to understand that Berg is a "9/11 truther", so that has to color my opinion of him. But while I might not be willing to accept a lawyer's opinions on physics and metallurgy, his opinions on citizenship and immigration law carry considerably more weight.

SJDoc: yang in the yin & vice versa
Shame on me for ever seconding your remarks, but I was telling my Leftist friends here in Texas the exact same thing in the last two elections.

Federal election law allows for public funds to be allocated to a political party in an election cycle if that party drew at least 5% of the national popular vote in the previous election. Example: Ross Perot's 9% tally in 1996 got FEC cash for the Reform Party in 2000.

Votes for the Democrat are futile in Texas: the last Democrat to win a statewide election, Ann Richards in 1990, died two years ago. So I encouraged my friends to lend their support to something more "progressive" than the Democrats.

While some of them might have followed my advice (I'll never know), the 5% barrier was not broken. I doubt it will be broken this time either, even if every conservative east of the Delaware were to vote for Chuck Baldwin.

(For the record, the Electoral College is "winner take all" in every state except Maine and Nebraska, which allocate one vote for the winner in each congressional district and two votes to the statewide winner. Hence, the McCain people hold out hope for one from Maine's Second, and the Obama people have bought ads in Omaha.)

Chuck in MI: Obama's domestic security
Think France's Gendarmerie Nationale.

Think Spain's Guardia Civil.

Think Mexico's Federales.

Think Iraq's Republican Guards.

Think Russia's Komityet Gosudarstvennoy Bezopasnosty.

Think Farrakhan's "Fruit of Islam".

BrianR on J.Q. Adams
Funny you should bring up Adams.

When he ran in 1824, there were no organized political parties. Rather, it was the contentiousness of the 1824 election and the bad feelings afterward that gave rise to the creation of the country's oldest surviving party, the Democrats.

Four major candidates contended for the presidency that year: Andrew Jackson, John Quincy Adams, William Crawford, and Henry Clay. No one got an Electoral College majority, and they finished in the order that I listed (although Clay got more popular votes than Crawford).

As required by the Twelfth Amendment, the election went to the House of Representatives. Only the top three candidates (Electorally) were to be considered. As it happens, Henry Clay was the Speaker. His positions on issues differed little from those of Adams, so he threw his support that way, and Adams won. Clay was subsequently appointed Secretary of State in Adams's Cabinet.

The Jacksonians denounced this as a "corrupt bargain" and blew Adams out of office in the next election, and the Democrat Party was born. Its opponents coalesced into the Whig Party, a mostly non-ideological group that was united only in its hatred of Jackson. The Whigs' failure to address slavery -- too divisive -- resulted in its being superseded by the Republicans in 1856 and the election of Lincoln in 1860.

So, go ahead and test the math in your state, and enjoy the resulting Obama presidency. A vote for Barr is not a vote for Obama, but it is a failure even to try to stop Obama.

Suit yourself.

the last six posts, mine
What? Am I all alone in here?

Martel, totally irrelevant

And your own use of the WHIGs is a STERLING example of why third parties are actually VERY relevant, as they DID fail on the slavery issue -- just as the current GOP is failing on too many issues to even enumerate -- and they were ultimately replaced by... TA DA ... the GOP.

Frankly, I couldn't care less if Obama's elected; the Dem lib or the GOP lib. Who cares?


I have one simply rule: I don;t vote for liberals. Ever. I don't care what party label they stick behind their names.

So... go ahead and join the rest of the lemmings in the mad dash over the cliff.


to Chuck the Hammer:
yes, you are alone in here.

Chris in AL
LOL.

"Anybody else in here?"

"No!"


BrianR: touché
The GOP does indeed deserve a vigorous slapping around, but using Obama as the instrument thereof is simply too dangerous in a dangerous time.

And if I were a lemming, I'd be voting for Obama. At least I have reasoned my way toward supporting McCain (I sure didn't start there); they meanwhile have only "hope" for "change".


Citizenship Law
Current law says one parent must have lived five years in the USA; two of which after age 14. But I just found out it was changed in 1986, and I don't know what it was in 1961. If, as you say, it was 10 years and 5 after 14, I wonder if there were other clauses for if the parent in question was younger than 19...

Chris
I saw that too. There aren't any such clauses in the current version of the relevant title of the US Code, but I haven't seen the older version. I have to think that Berg wouldn't have gotten even this far if there were.

Martel, it's ALWAYS
"dangerous times".

You want to wait around for a time when the world's a safe place? When will that be? When has it EVER been?

Going back to your earlier example of the demise of the WHIGs, how safe was THAT?

Slavery was the issue, and the Civil War was the result.


You have to keep your eye on the larger picture.

BrianR, beg to differ
"it's ALWAYS 'dangerous times'."

Not always: for example, 1992. Having swiftly booted Saddam out of Kuwait and with the collapse of the Soviet Union, both the previous year, Americans felt safe enough to elect the fat, lecherous, four-flushing hillbilly. Voters still felt safe enough the next time around not to bother replacing him with the war hero widely derided on the Right as the "tax collector for the welfare state". This period was called then and now "the holiday from history".

Further back, there was the 1920 election, which was won by the candidate promising a "return to normalcy" after the First World War, and the two elections following it, which were conducted in a world that had actually gone to the lengths, albeit entirely fancifully, of outlawing war as an instrument of policy.

Before that, you'd be hard pressed to identify an election from 1868 to 1912 wherein the times actually were dangerous or with a candidate whom anyone had any real reason to fear, although I'm sure that people came to blows countless times over "free silver".

An Election officer's training for D-Day
Laura is absolutely right on-this election is so critical, we can take nothing for granted. The scary times are now and we are looking at the slippery slope. During Elections training yesterday (at the Reagan Library no less!), we were given a sample provisional ballot (for those folks who aren't registered and will just walk-in and request to vote). I noticed there was a section at the bottom of the form that says "US citizen-check box-Yes or No". I asked the Inspector, "what if they cannot fill in any ID info or check off 'No' next to US citizen"? He said we still have to let them cast the vote! Supposedly, when the county workers (many are illegals too)get these (millions?) of ballots here in California, we have to trust they will do the 'right thing'! Guess who the illegals are told to vote for?

Charles Martel - Who the hell...?
--
...is more "progressive" in these United States than the Mulatto Messiah's National Socialist Party?

Writes the Hammer:

"So I encouraged my friends to lend their support to something more 'progressive' than the Democrats."


Y'mean Nader? Cynthia McKinney? Gloria La Riva? Róger Calero? Brian More?

They're not running Ted Kaczynski this year again, are they?

Gawd, where does the list of subsidiary "Liberal" wunkus-and-wiener presidential candidates end?





======
"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child - miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosphy of sniveling brats."

-- P.J. O'Rourke

BrianR - On Whigs and Republicans
--
Writes BrianR (to Charles Martel):

"Going back to your earlier example of the demise of the WHIGs, how safe was THAT?

"Slavery was the issue, and the Civil War was the result."


Er, no. The issue was rather more immediately and thoroughly the Whigs' (and concatenatively the Republicans') adherence to Clay's "American System" of protectionism, inflationism, and political pork.

(( See John Ford's 1939 movie, *Young Mr. Lincoln*, in which Henry Fonda's character gives his Whig congressional candidate stump speech as follows:

"My politics are short and sweet, like the old woman's dance. I'm in favor of a national bank, of the internal improvement system, and high protective tariff." ))


To repeat: inflation, pork, and protectionism.

A "national bank" - like the present Federal Reserve System - exists for no other purpose than the issue of counterfeit (fiat) currency as a method by which Hamilton's "national blessing" (an ever-growing national debt) could be monetized.

The defense of chattel slavery - an institution in which the average southern soldier and his family neither participated nor took profit from - was much less the motive for resisting Northern conquest than their perfect understanding that the tariff-imposing Republican government in Washington City held a knife at the throat of every man, woman, and child in the largely agrarian states.

Those bluebellies occupying Fort Sumter were a bunch of tax collectors, BrianR.

Haven't *YOU* ever felt the urge to shoot at a tax collector?




=====
"Be wary of strong drink. It can make you shoot at a tax collector and miss."

-- Robert A. Heinlein

SJDoc: that was then, this is now
I was referring to 2000 and 2004, not 2008.

Indeed, I have often, though quietly, asked of Nader's run this year, what could he possibly think that he is offering to "progressives" that they are not already getting with Obama?

No, there is nothing to Obama's Left except *honest* Socialists. But that is as much a burden as an advantage. Bill and Hillary may be required to campaign for The One, but a lot of people who voted for Bill in '92 and '96 and even many who voted for Hillary only a few months ago see Barry for the dangerous radical that he is, and they're willing to put up with the more tolerable McCain in the reasonable expectation that that gives Hillary a good shot in 2012.

I can't say I relish the prospect -- I'm being polite -- but I'd rather have her then than him now.

SJDoc: your 10:26
Well said, though I would not conflate the meanings of "counterfeit" and "fiat".


Oh, please, Martel

Now you're just being silly.

You know perfectly well what I'm saying, and your post is just plain childish.

There's no such thing as a "safe" time to restructure the political system; by its very definition, the restructuring itself is a matter of uncertainty and insecurity.

However, you go right ahead and vote however you wish. That's the beauty of the system; you can do that.

In the meantime, I'll vote for none of the liberals on offer by the two major parties, and cast my vote for a "third-party candidate", taking support from the Adams quote, which is just as applicable today as it was the day he wrote it.


SJ, stop being a boob

I know that'll probably be hard for you, as it seems to be an established behavior pattern.

No one cares about your nit-picking BS, least of all me.

Go troll somewhere else.

This is; BARACK and BARNEY'S ECONOMY
*
FREAK!N BULLSH!T..........
_
Bunch a Homo Democrats led by Barney Frank, who aren't able to stand up like a man and take responsibility!
YEAH, rewrite history.......AGAIN

Link on this and see the "Real" Barack in action;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqbgcejIT_k
OR THIS:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PG29uP3mvUc

PICTURES and WORDS DONT____L I E!!!!!!!
If you watch these two video's and still think he's the MESSIAH______YOUR ON CRACK !
_

BrianR, obstinately foolish
Yes, I knew perfectly well what you were saying. It's just that what you were saying reflected a profound blockheadedness.

The "safe" election years that I cited were all *after* the Civil War and were so labelled because of the absence of significant domestic or foreign threats.

In case you haven't noticed, we are staring down the twin barrels of economic setback and foreign threat. Now is no time for trusting the keys to the family car to a teenager drunk on his own self-esteem.

And while I frequently differ with SJDoc, his input is more valued than your own musings, and he merits the epithet "troll" far less than you do. Now hurry along before they miss you over at HuffPo.


I see, Martel

I'm "blockheaded" for pointing out the FACT that there is no "safe" time in history.

Truly one of your most idiotic statements I've seen, and you've written some doozies.

You and SJ are of a pair; a couple of self-impressed nutjobs who mistakenly think you actually have a higher form of intellect. Legends in your own minds.

Oh, you better hurry on, too; I do believe the class in remedial reasoning may have started without you.

OK, Brian, teach us
Here, I'll make it easy for you. What were the threats posed to the United States in any of the following presidential election years?

1868, 1872, 1876, 1880, 1884, 1888, 1892, 1896, 1900, 1904, 1908, 1912; 1920, 1924, 1928; 1992, 1996. I'll even throw in 2000.

After Appomattox, the domestic insurrection was extinguished. In each of the listed elections, the perceptions of the American voter did not include serious foreign threats or fears of economic catastrophe. Before the First World War, foreign threats were seen largely as the futile sabre rattling of distant empires. And while the late 19th Century was punctuated by the occasional "Panic" and encompassed the prolonged argument over whether to back the currency with silver, most recessions were short lived.

For once, instead of name-calling, how about you enlighten us?

Look, pal

I'm not going to give you a lesson in history that your teachers obviously failed you on.

At any given time there's a wide range of dynamic conditions that are threats. The ENTIRE PERIOD of the 1800s was involved with our expansion, Indian Wars, settling the West, fighting Mexico, Civil War, economic crises, etc. That's half your list, right there. If you're too dense to get that, that's YOUR problem.

The first half of the 20th Century was economic crises, organized crime rising, Depression, 2 world wars, etc. The second half was the Cold War and all the little hot wars, among other things.

You think none of that stuff was important enough to influence elections? You think the people at the times when those things were happening thought the world was "safe"? Then you're a fool.


Try it the other way, Martel

You name me one election where the attitude was "Hey, things are great! It doesn't matter who wins! There aren't any important issues to discuss! It doesn't matter who wins, so NOW'S a GREAT TIME to start a third party!"


Get back to me on that, okay?


BrianR, you won't because you can't.
You just can't backpedal fast enough, can you?

Review the list again. The presidential election years I asked about are the same ones I mentioned when I first addressed this: all AFTER the Civil War (which came *after* the war with Mexico, fyi). The list also did NOT include the years of the First World War, the Great Depression, the Second World War, or *any* of the Cold War -- or didn't you notice that?

My degree is in history, with a geography minor. I've taught both at the university level, and am still in regular demand as a tutor.

I know SJDoc's list of credentials to be even longer, since he comes by the "Doc" part legitimately.

You couldn't even recognize how you misunderstood the question. You are simply way out of your depth.

If Obama is an 'empty suit'
He should be easy to persuade. Make a logical and cogent case and maybe he'll listen. Maybe he'll do what you want him to do. If he's an empty suit he isn't going to do anything of his own.

Take him over. Tell him what policies he ought to follow. He's young. He's impressionable. Do a makeover on him. You've got the next eight years to do it in.

BrianR's hyperbole
Third parties are not formed because people think everything is "great". But they tend to do much better in years when people's fears are relatively muted.

I did a little research on this a couple of years ago. Of the top five performances by third parties in the 20th century, four of them were in years that met that criterion. They are as follows.

(1) 1912 Progressive Party, Theodore Roosevelt, 27.39% of the popular vote.
(2) 1992 Ross Perot's independent run which led to the formation of the Reform Party, 18.78%.
(3) 1924 Progressive Party, Robert LaFollette, 16.56%.
(4) 1968 (the only exception to my proposition) American Party, George Wallace, 13.53%.
(5) 1996 Reform Party, Ross Perot, 8%.

Extend that list out to the top 12, and you include John Anderson's quixotic independent run in 1980 (6.6%); four runs by the Socialist Party's Eugene Debs in 1904, '08, '12, and '20 (2.98%, 2.82%, 5.99%, and 3.4% respectively); another Socialist, Alan Benson, in 1916 (3.18%); and Ralph Nader's Green Party run in 2000 (2.74%). Only Benson in 1916 and Anderson in 1980 were in "crisis" years.

All problems seem large when they loom in front of you, but do you think that we'll someday look back at 2008 and laugh?

Chuck the Hammer, by limiting your
analysis to the 20th century, you conveniently left out the last time a 3rd party formed that won the presidency and went on to become a major party. That happened on the eve of the civil war...

The party formed from those dissatisfied with the Whig party, which couldn't decide if it wanted to be just like the other party, or to stand for something.

Hmmmm.

gene in CA: if only
I've never thought Obama was an empty suit. An inexperienced neophyte, a facade concealing a revolutionary Marxist agenda, a hardcore Leftist with a soothing veneer, but never an empty suit.

We will not persuade him. He will not persuade me or anyone like me, though once in power, he won't need to.

Do you really believe that he is open to the common sense of free market capitalism? If so, what could possibly make you think that?

No, I fear that Obama is committed to an ideology that will only deepen, spread, and extend the recession. And having exacerbated the problem, he and Nine-Percent Nancy will then try to New Deal us out of it, with the same predictable and wretched results that FDR had.

The markets see this coming, and as the prospect of Obama's election looms, the Dow drops and unemployment rises. If the tragedy actually befalls us on November 4, the pace of collapse will accelerate as capital seeks shelter offshore and employers close marginal plants and lay off marginal workers while they are still allowed to.

Of course, like Sen. Biden's "guaranteed" Obama-inspired international disaster, this doesn't have to happen. If we wake up to President-Elect McCain on Wednesday, November 5, get thee to the market and buy, baby, buy. The market is only waiting for us to commit to not slashing our own collective throat. How about we don't, OK?

Chris in AL: scroll up
If you scroll up (or start at the top and work your way down), you'll see that I already addressed the creation of the Democrat Party by Jackson and the rise of the Republican Party under Lincoln.

And I didn't limit it to the 20th Century: the list I threw out there begins with 1868.

(By the way, I know there's another guy who occasionally posts here under the name Charles the Hammer -- because I already had "Charles Martel" locked up. I haven't seen him in a while though.)

ModMark, I empathize
If the Democrats had nominated someone who wasn't such a dyed-in-the-wool radical, I'd say we had it coming like we did in '06, and we'd have to take our medicine.

But nothing we've ever done has been so bad that we deserve four years (or worse) of Barack Obama.

To extend my metaphor, Obama is not medicinal: he's poisonous.

The time to overthrow the RINOs is when we're safely past this rocky patch. With McCain, we stand a decent chance of getting over this, as confidence in the economy is restored; with Obama, it can only get worse, as capital does the rational thing and runs for the hills.

In Texas, we have a gubernatorial election coming up in 2010. We're all pretty sick of Rick Perry, who by that time will have served longer than any governor in our history, and it is expected that the utterly tepid Kay Bailey Hutchison thinks that she will glide into the GOP nomination with no more than token resistance. I think that she has an unpleasant surprise coming, though I don't want to drop a name yet. But the candidate I have in mind would be, to coin a phrase, "transformational".

Yup, Mr. Irrational Exuberance was wrong
Where is Milton Friedman when we need him? Oh right, he's dead.

With all due respect to Mr. "Irrational Exuberance", it's not the paradigm that failed. That's a convenient cop-out for the guy who should have seen it coming, who probably *did* see it coming, and who was in a position to have said more against it.

The risk-management model is sound; it was the over-extension of that risk into areas that were doomed from the outset that was foolish. How many bad mortgages, written for people who stood no chance of paying them back in a real estate downturn, did it take to cause this? That many.

Every effort to pull back from the brink, every effort to reform the system, was demagogued by the people whose political careers were advanced or ensured by it. Every statesman who rose to warn of the coming disaster was denounced, often with the race card. Republicans who saw this coming were said to literally want to hurt the poor and minorities, and Harry Reid killed McCain's bill in the Senate. They said everything was fine. Of course it was.

Enduring the sub-prime bubble is like swallowing a brick, but if we don't exacerbate the recession by raising Herbert Hoover from the grave, as Barack Obama would have us do, we'll get past this like we did the S&L crisis and the dot.com bubble.

I early-voted yesterday for the guy who saw it coming, who warned his colleagues in no uncertain terms, and who actually tried to do something about it: John McCain.

Perfect? Of course not. But a guaranteed disaster like his opponent? Nope, not that either.

RIDUCULUS
Obama suspending elections? This is a desparate ridiculous statment from a pitiful person.

Tinya: you're right, thanks
I think Biden's guarantee that something very very bad would happen if Obama were elected, and that they would not be seen to be doing the right thing, is a good enough reason to vote for anyone else but Barry.

We stand corrected.

Tinya, think so?
Just this week, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg had his city council overturn a term limits law for the mayor's office that had been passed by voters on two separate occasions, by two different referenda.

Did the VOTERS vote to repeal term limits for the NYC mayor? NO. And he barely got half the city council to vote for it. But half was enough.

And what was his justification? That the current "crisis" on Wall Street demanded his leadership.

As Gotham goeth, so may goeth the nation. Oh, sure - it could NEVER happen here. Just like it's NEVER happened anywhere else.

You - like all the rest of the Obamaniacs, see only what you want to see, even if it means disregarding the rest of human history.

Ignore MSM and Polls--Vote Republican
The MSM media has no more credibility than does the Democrat Party and their Hand Picked Hand Puppet Obama. They are doing everything they can to Steal this election and hand us over to Socialism which would be complete should we Americans be foolish enought to elect this Questionable Candidate, Barack Obama. With a packed congress of Socialists such as Pelosi and Frank and others and a Puppet of theirs, Obama, every piece of legislation that the Marxists are sitting on would be rushed through congress and handed over to their Puppet, Obama to sign into laws. Things like taking away all State's Rights guaranteed by the Constitution, such as eradicating all state laws that put any limits on Abortion, such as Parent Notification for minors. Obama and the Liberal Democrats do not think that parents have any rights over their own children's lives. They want all the Children to Belong to the State. Things like the so-called Fairness Doctrine, which would end free speech on radio talk shows. Things like Abolishing The Right To Own Guns, a second amendment guarantee that we have so that we can defend ourselves from Thugs and Despots. Things like destroying the military and spending the monies now being spent on defense to fund UN initiatives such as World Welfare and expanding American Welfare to Illegal Aliens and others. Also, this Marxist Congress with a Marxist President would pack the courts with Marxist Judges, and the end of American Democracy with Checks and Balances as is our tradition and Right.

Better wake up America, An Obama Presidency is a Clear and Pesent Danger to our National Sovereignty and individual freedoms.

Pffffffft, Martel

All your "credentials" prove to me is the sorry state of our educational system.

I am vastly underwhelmed.


You simply can't answer my question, so try to obfuscate with bluster and BS.

It's like the law school dictum: when the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. When the law's on your side, pound on the law. When neither the facts nor the law are on your side, pound on the table.




BrianR: my, you're dense
You're talking down, but I'm up here, old chap.

Well, that's OK. I really shouldn't have expected any better.

I answered your question, with too many examples, not realizing that all you wanted to accomplish was name-calling and tying up better people's valuable time. You have just become one of those names I'll just scroll past from here out. You have nothing to say.


I Have To Agree
With Ms. Hollis. I definitely see the possibility that, if elected, Senator Obama will, with the best of intentions, take the reins of government away from the voter. Whether he becomes President for Life [a funny term in his case given his support for abortion on demand], or ensures an extreme liberal control of the United States, this IS something he might try. It may not come to pass, for I also saw the possibility with President Clinton. Somehow, I was not worried about Vice President Gore or Senator Kerry. though I probably should have been. This is what the liberal wing of the Democrat party is trying to do. I may be a Constitutionalist, but I am not going to vote for Mr. Baldwin this year, the stakes are much too high. And, in truth, a third party President cannot govern without a significant minority of third party members of either the House or the Senate [preferably both]. I voted for the McCain/Palin ticket, and and urge other voters to do the same.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.