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
Monday, October 16, 2006
Star Parker :: Townhall.com Columnist
Must things get worse in order to get better?
by Star Parker
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?


A survey just released by the Pew Center shows that 51 percent of Democrats are enthusiastic about voting in 2006 as opposed to 33 percent of Republicans. This is almost a mirror image of what the picture looked like in 1994.

A Pew Center poll also shows a precipitous drop in support for Republicans and the Bush Administration among white evangelicals. It's now a little over 50 percent, whereas in 2004 it was closer seventy-five a percent.

Given the realities staring us in the face, none of this is a surprise. I know that these polls reflect the facts accurately just from reading my mail.

Republicans and conservatives are fed up with their party and their representatives. But can it be that anything is better than what we now have?

I've gotten letters telling me that I've sold out because I've written that we should not abandon the Republican Party because at least there is a chance of fixing it. What do we gain by allowing Democrats, who are wrong on everything, to regain power, just to express anger at wayward Republicans?

I'm as mad as everyone else. In fact, I think I've been madder _ and mad longer _ than everyone else.

I've been arguing for years that although the current administration pays lip service to traditional values, it has missed the central point that limited government is the other side of the same coin as traditional values.

Big government and a moral, traditional, and genuinely free society simply cannot go together. It's worth remembering the observation of British historian Lord Acton that "power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

The correlation between the amount of power that we put in the hands of politicians, and the tendency of those politicians to become corrupt, is a human reality, not a partisan one. We can expect it from Republicans as well as Democrats.

Given the failure of the current Republican regime to limit government, and to actually find reasons to grow it, what we're seeing today should come as no surprise.

Nevertheless, I still will argue that we shouldn't take our eye off the ball. Conservatives need to stay focused on what we, and all Americans, need _ traditional values and limited government _ and continue to push positively toward this end. Despair is no answer and will only make things work.

With all the comparisons to 1994, it shouldn't be forgotten that Republicans ran in 1994 on a positive agenda _ the Contract with America. Americans voted for something in '94.

I'm adding nothing new to point out that there is no Democratic agenda in 2006. There are only Democrats looking for power and trying to grab it by taking advantage of Republican incompetence. Unfortunately, not a challenge.

We ought to think back further than 1994 and go back to 1976 when Jimmy Carter was elected president. There are a lot of similarities between what is happening now and the picture then.

The country was still traumatized by the aftermath of the Vietnam War, by having a president resign as result of the Watergate scandal, and what was then called the "energy crisis."

Carter was elected to bring fresh air to Washington. He sold himself as a man of the people who would bring decency back to Washington. Fed up Americans voted for him in hope that he would indeed bring back the fresh air that they wanted to breathe.

Unfortunately, like all so-called populists, what Carter really believed in was government and not people. To deal with our energy problems, he created a new Department of Energy. To deal with our education problems, he created a new Department of Education.

Four years later, we had double digit inflation, twenty percent interest rates, a doubling of energy prices, and Americans held hostage in Iran.

The country had to go through even greater trauma than it was in in 1976 in order to open the door for the Reagan era four years later.

Do we have to go through this again? Is the only path to electing Republicans who really believe in traditional values and limited government to throw out the current rascals, lock, stock, and barrel, and elect Democrats who will show us how bad things really can get?

There is no question that current Republican leadership has lowered the bar. But let's not forgot just how free this country is. We ultimately get the leadership that we want and are willing to tolerate.

I think conservatives let our elected Republican officials off too easy these past years by tolerating an excessive growth of government that itself was symptomatic that there was a problem.

The answer is to get refocused, clarify our principles, and fix the party.

The question is if we'll have to do it sitting on the sidelines while the Democrats turn what is bad into what is worse.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Star Parker is the founder and president of CURE, the Coalition for Urban Renewal & Education, a 501c3 think tank which explores and promotes market based public policy to fight poverty, as well as author of White Ghetto: How Middle Class America Reflects Inner City Decay.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Pew?
Who believes Pew surveys? Wait until 11/7 and see what shakes out. Keep the faith and keep emailing your friends about their right and responsibility to vote.

Fix the Party -- TOSS OUT INCUMBENTS
Subject sez it all.

And if you can't stomach voting for a Democrat in order to *not* vote for an incumbent Republican, then vote third party.

But we can *NOT* fix the party so long as the current set Pork-wielders are in office. I don't expect them to change, except to get worse. It's time for that fresh air Ms. Parker alludes to. This Congress smells of sweaty old pigs.

tenacity
This seems to be a central theme in countless columns and posts. Every time I read a column like this I'm taken back. I don't understand the strategy of this school yard mentality. "You didn't play the game the way I wanted so I'm taking my ball and going home!" Throw the bums out and replace them with..... bigger bums??? Yea, that makes a lot of sense. That's a winning strategy for sure.

If conservatives want to have a government that reflects their values, they're going to need to be in the fight for the long haul. Yes, in the short term, we are voting for the best of the worst. If we want to win in the long term, perhaps the mindset in the current election should be to assist the demise of the democratic party by keeping them out of power. Having done that, then we can aggressively target republicans that need to go and support a more suitable candidate to run against them. You can win a war without winning every battle. Let the bums in office think they're being rewarded for bad behavior. Who cares! Eventually, they'll get the point. I think endorsing a liberal agenda at this juncture will only embolden liberals (both dem and repubs) and will further stifle conservatives leadership.


We're Trying Toss Them Out
I voted in the primary - I voted against Arnold Schwarzenegger. But he won anyway, so there.

Not all Republicans are conservatives. I don't know what they are. Someone should study this issue.

People, Learn How the System Works
before you use it.

The primary is where you vote your heart, the election is where you vote your mind.

The primaries are over; it's time to take a cold, calculating English stance on how to exercise the only influence you will have on government for the next two years. Either ensure the future election of the Hildabeest after they impeach Clinton, or vote Republican and keep these truly frightening liberals from running the country.

I do not want spilled American wasted in Iraq as it was in Vietnam with a DNC pullout.

I do not want the return of high taxes and the death of the economy.

I do not want sex parties in the Oval Office.

I do not want a government hostile to everything Americans believe.

I voted against the incumbents in the primary; that is all I can do. If you did not vote in your primary, then you better vote your party because you're the one who let us pick your candidates for you.

Vote a straight GOP ticket or go to heck along with the USA.

Change
Republican politicians, like all politicians, listen to two things: votes and money. If they continue to get both, in primaries and/or general elections, why would they change anything?

Just something to think about.

Term Limits
Term limits might cost us the few good Congressmen we have. I am not certain that is the way to go but I am certain a Line Item Veto would get rid of a lot of vote swapping and pork.

If we let the Democrats take power they will flush the Constitution down the toilet and change election rules so we will never get them out.

MyOpine
A CONSTITUTIONAL line item veto might indeed get rid of pork. But none is proposed. Instead, they offer the president submit changes to a bill and then Congress can sign off on it, and they call that a line-item veto.

Umm, no it's not. The president already has the power to propose legislation. The president can already do a two-step process!

1) Veto the bill
2) Resubmit it to Congress minus the pork.

And they all know this! Ask yourself, why, if every president has always had this power since the first morning of the Republic, it has not been done.

MyOpine
I hope snotonmyscreen doesn't mind me borrowing his line, when I respond to "Term limits might cost us the few good Congressmen we have," with "there goes that innocent people notion again".

I think forcing candidates out after a short time will make any representative body adhere better to the will of the people. The question is fine-tuning.

A one term limit means that every elected official can do whatever they want once they get elected. This is good or bad, depending on the character of the individual. Two terms means that half of their time is spent accountable to the electorate. Three terms, it's two thirds. Unlimited terms: they are always accountable to the electorate.

Rather than impose term limits, which get rid of accountability, why not make strategic moves to eliminate the power of incumbency to secure a higher turnover rate while keeping reps accountable?

The Foley Factor...
Personally I'm sorry the Foley fiasco happened. The Republican party will use it to explain (and maybe, actually believe) their coming ousting as the majority congressional party. Despite statements of the party elites, the Republicans were going to be removed from power without the Foley thing. I'm not a believer in public polling by media types but for those who give credence to them, the Foley escapade is not a measurable factor people are using in deciding who to vote for. Its ALL about turn out...who, and how many. When this election is given a post election analysis it will show (in my opinion) that the Democrat base turned out in numbers. Also that the Republican faithful will be at the polls in numbers. The Christian conservatives won't be, and there-in lies the tale of the Republican defeat. That was going to be the case with out the Foley debacle, and will remain to be the case. But, by using the Foley incident as an excuse for their lose, the party will have learned nothing from the election results or the reason they lost power, thus condemn themselves to being out of power much longer than might have been the case otherwise.

TERM LIMITS
If you don't believe politicians continuing on a track that is left unchecked and allowed to remain in office indefinitely turning into powerful career politicians eventually ticking off the wrong people, pick up a copy of a book titled "Term Limits" written by Vince Flynn for some exciting reading. The book has been around for awhile, but it certainly fits in with the debate circling around today about whether or not the idea to impose term limits on all politicians should become mandatory. The characters in this book certainly shook up Washington, and at the same time took out politicians who walked the streets of Washington a little to long, became to powerful and wore out their welcome.


Visit http://www.headsneedtoroll.org and post your views, thoughts and opinions.
Heads Need To Roll

Big government
Parker's column has some very good points about the problems of "big government" and the dangers of putting too much "power in the hands of politicians." However, I question the premise of her article implicit in its title. Sure, Democrats are the party of Big Government, but Republicans have become the party of BEHEMOTH, TOTAL GOVERNMENT. One can certainly make that case regarding spending, where the rate of growth has never been worse than under recent R control. But the real danger has been in the runaway unchecked powers being concentrated in the office of the President. The founders would be rolling over in their graves to learn that we now have legalized indefinite imprisonment without charge or any legal recourse in secret prisons by federal police agencies. I just don't think most Republicans are stopping to think about what they are doing.

Those who ignore history . . .
Personally, I shudder at the thought of another disaster like the Carter years, but the swing voters - the so-called "moderates" - who are really the ones who decide elections in this country seemingly cannot understand the consequences of giving power to leftist radicals. I'm afraid another Carter-type disaster is required to re-educate them. I truly hate using this worn cliche, but those who ignore (or are ignorant of) history are doomed to repeat it. The problem is I see no Ronald Reagan riding to the rescue.

We have term limits
They are called elections. If you don't like what your reps are doing, vote them out. The problem with formalized term limits is the pension plan our brilliant legislators have voted themselves. Mandatory term limits will put the government in the position of school districts and GM - paying more in pensions than salaries.

Bottom line is that the people get the government they deserve. I constantly write to praise, criticize, nag or point out things my congressional delegation may have missed. The responses I get (sometimes actual personal responses to well written letters or e-mails) tell me that I can at least get their attention. Maybe folks should spend at least as much time writing their reps (fed, state and local) as writing on these forums and maybe those people would get the message. You can bet the leftists are writing their congressman because they tend to be very shrill. Perhaps it is time the "silent majority" spent as much time letting our voice be heard in Washington as we hear it on talk radio and read it on Townhall et al.

Term Limits
Just for the record, we instituted term limits in California and the State Senate and Assembly is now overwhelmingly dominated by the nutcase left. When one nut terms out, he's replaced by a nuttier one! This last election, not ONE SINGLE SEAT in the entire California legislature changed hands from Democrat to Republican (or vice versa). Forget term limits as a solution. In fact there may be no solution. When voter apathy and ignorance are the rule, the people get the government they deserve.

MODERATES??
I don't believe such an animal exists. It's an MSM manufactured phrase that some give creedence to. In the Republican party such so called 'moderate' beasts in reality are liberals. In the Democrat party its the same. And, in my opinion the power to swing an election does not reside with them. If you doubt it check the results of the oncoming election...the majority of the christian conservatives will not be voting to send any Republican candidate back to washington, and the Republican party is going to be thrown out because of it, no matter what the so called 'moderates' do or don't do. If that proves true, then the 'power' to swing elections really doesn't reside with the 'moderates' but to the committed. Christian conservatives are, in fact, the largest voting block in the Republican party...with its support elections are won...without it, lost. For '06, Republicans will in fact lose...

Vote in the primaries??
Jerubaal, not all congressional districts have a primary challanger to an incumbent....now what?

Some still
have the needle in the arm...take it out and realize politicians buy America every two years. Politics is a profession that gives individuals the right to steal from you, me, and all of America. The old idea that servant status was part of representing constituents never enters the thought process of politicians today. Vote the sorry incumbents out...random selection of citizens off the street would improve our government exponentially.

Camel
We could all begin to provide the answer to the problem this year … first, let me tell you a story. Once upon a time there was this camel that put its nose under the tent to see what was happening in there … Oh, you’ve heard that one?

There is such a camel. He’s OUR camel. He’s the Libertarian candidate for Tom Delay’s seat in the House of Representatives and he can win.

Go to the Libertarian Party website http://www.lp.org/ and find out if you really are a libertarian. From your posts I’d say that many of you are. Next go to Bob Smither’s website http://www.smither4congress.com/ and find out how you can help. Maybe, if we can get our camel’s nose under the congressional tent, the day will come when we get the whole camel in there. What a day that would be!

It's broken at the primary level
And that's the case for the Democrat party too, but it seems to be worse for the Republican party.

There are 2 problems I see:

1) The primaries are driven largely by special interest groups and extremists who are easily manipulated by rhetoric and big money.

2) Corporate interests providing money to candidates that aren't the best choice - sometimes by a long shot.

In short the solution lies in a more cognisant approach to primary elections and better reforms and adherence to existing election reforms.

Aslo, all the politician's rhetoric in the world can't substitute for good-old home town research. We should be screening out bad eggs early on based on things like rumors and what their employees and ex-girlfreinds say and instead of with what religion or belief system they espouse.

quote, Etc.
"We have term limits - they're called elections."

President Josiah Bartlett

if you don't vote

1) don't bitc.
2) you dishonor the sacrifices of those who died and continue to do so so you can
3) you oughta be ashamed of yourself
4) I'm doing some canvassing here in Maine and I read letters to the editor in the local rag and there are some STUPID people out there but their vote is just as valuable as mine.

So I repeat my advice - hold your nose and vote Republican - unless the dems have someone you think is a better candidate. To vote is a right and it is a responsibility. How many of our troops have died in Iraq so they could vote there?

Gerrymander
The biggest problem I see is that the politicians are allowed to choose their voters, instead of the other way around. As long as the politicians get to "gerrymander" districts, we will NEVER solve the problem. It's simply impossible.

When control of congress hinges on a few races in the whole country, and very few seats change parties, that tells me that the game is rigged.

Am I the only one tired of this?
"A Pew Center poll also shows a precipitous drop in support for Republicans and the Bush Administration among white evangelicals. It's now a little over 50 percent, whereas in 2004 it was closer seventy-five a percent."

I know this is a refrain constantly played in the MSM, but the last time I checked Bush wasn't up for re-election this year, next year or any year after that. So could we please stop using polling data about Bush's popularity to project Congressional election results? Or even better, just stop using polling data altogether?

I realize that it would be preferable if Bush were held in higher regard, and that there is an argument to be made about riding the POTUS' coattails, and of course that worked well under Reagan when we had Republican supermajorities in both Houses - oh wait, never mind.

Sorry, but specious reasoning first thing in the morning makes me grumpy, especially from someone from whom I expect considerably better.


Where GOP went astray

.....Star...

.....when Bush went to Pa. to campaign for Arlen Specter against Toomey a popular conservative with a lot of support...the writing was on the wall...

....when I learned that the GOP ran attack ads against a conservative challenger to Lincoln Chaffee in RI and they refused to support Katherine Harris in FLA...I wrote to Ken Melhman and asked why...the response I got was that the party needed an "R" in those seats and that support went to those who had the best chance to win...

.....I wrote back that the party had chosen expediency over long term principle...Lincoln Chaffee was pro-choice...against tax cuts...voted against the war and the Patriot Act...voted against Alito for the Supreme Court...but we supported him because he had an "R"?....would we support Fidel Castro for that seat if he had an R by his name...

.....when party affiliation means more than the candidate's character....when the party becomes overloaded with RINO's and voters can't tell the difference between parties...then we will lose the base and the election...

.....maybe a GOP meltdown in '06 will set up a return of Newt Gingrich in '08 and an epiphany for the party bigwigs who think they can sell their soul for a vote.....BBdoc

Critique of the Carter years
You can say a lot of bad things about the Carter years but claiming that they were worse than Vietnam and Watergate combined is the very definition of hyperbole.

I've already voted
in my home state of Florida. I voted straight Republican because in each case, notably for Governor (Crist) and House member (Jeff Miller),there was no democrat who voiced a political position with which I agreed. All the dem candidates wanted to increase taxes, or pass laws to give gays special rights, or were soft on national defense, or in some way wanted to expand the power of government to the detriment of the individual. These are non-starters for me, no matter how ineffective the repubs collectively have been.

However, I believe that for the Repubs to be successful on November the party, probably a year ago, should have embraced an issue that would have captured the imagination of the voters, and that is the FAIR TAX ACT. This is an issue that could blow the dems out of the water and make them a minority party for a generation, yet the repubs could'nt, or wouldn't, pull the trigger even though polls showed that 70% of the public was for it.

They didn't and now they will probably lose the House, and possibly the Senate, on November 7th. Quite possibly, a disaster awaits us a result.



No good choices
I'd vote Republican if I didn't have to vote for incumbants.

hntr
Loved your reference to Vince Flynn's "Term Limits." The main character, of course, is super agent, Mitch Rapp, who literally takes no prisoners and does not suffer fools lightly. It is, indeed, a great read.



baseballdoc
Don't forget that the RNC has basically abandoned Sen. Santorum in Pennsylvania and Mike Dewine in Ohio; they have let it be known that they will not be buying any ads to support the candidates in those races. The moment that Santorum and Dewine fell behind in the polls, the GOP scuttled them and left them to fend for themselves. Anyone that has visited my blog knows how I feel about this GOP tactic; suffice it to say I think that too manyin the GOP 'leadership' have a loser's mentality.

The primarires are the place to send a message, and if we voted our principles over our party, it would not matter whether or not the national party backed a candidate or not. We vote for the people we want in our own districts; as the saying goes 'all politics are local' and we in our localities could change the direction of the party if we would commit to doing so. But too often we fall into the trap of feeling that we are powerless and allow the 'big whels' to ru us over.

It Seems All The Columnists
..at least those on this side of the aisle... are falling in line with the RINO's.

The Republicans actually BELIEVE that you will vote for them because your only other choice is a Democrat!

This is ELECTION DAY BLACKMAIL and I will vote for Francis the Mule before I vote for Dumbo.

Schrew them. They are no longer running to any type of Republican/Conservative platform. They are running on, "Vote for Me or get Him." But they vote just like 'He' does. If I am going to be stabbed in the back, at least let it be someone from the alley and not my 'friend' next door....

What next?
I think the base cause of the current problems result from a growing lack of voter knowledge. IMO 1/3 of the voters are hard core left, 1/3 are hard core right and will vote accordingly. At least they know why they are voting. While the last 1/3 are for the most part loons. These are the “moderates” or “undecided” that have no idea how to vote or why. Yet they do vote. They are easily swayed and are the main target of the MSM. These folks are made up of the “me-first” generation(s), just look at what happened in NOLA with Katrina, they are still looking (and getting) hand-outs from the Gov. And have no idea how to fend for themself.

The reason for these folks, IMHO, comes down to our education system. I think everyone on here knows that from K-12 and beyond, students are feed a steady diet of left wing propaganda instead of such things as American History, Civics, etc. The first step of the left was to remove discipline from the schools and turn it over to the students and the courts allowed it. This didn’t happen over night and won’t be repaired soon, so everyone better suck it up and start paying attention to who they are voting for. If our education system is not returned to educating, then we will always have these same problems.

Staying home is not an option and while the lesser of two evils is not good it’s better then the most evil. Then working at the local level to get good candidates on the ballots in the primary, people that will solve some of our problems, so evil will not be the

Term Limits
I don't like the idea of mandatory term limits in Congress because it simply makes the value of special interest groups, PACs, etc. that much more valuable. Theoretically, any group willing to put enough money into a candidate or seat can own that candidate/seat for years.

The problem is that the candidates actually want to get elected. We ought to simply find someone who doesn't want the job and elect them. They would do the best they could just to get through it, heck, if they didn't pass any laws we would probably be better off.

I don't like R's, D's, I's or any of them. None seem sincere or honest. Until we demand more out of our parties by getting involved and making the changes at a grassroots level, we're going to get crappie candidates and worse government.

jerubaal
There were no Republican challengers in my local primary. Now what have you to say? Neither in the House or Senate. Neither in many local offices. And that's all beside the point.
You always hear that the people control the government through the vote. Now you want us to throw our support behind those who have turned their backs on that part of the constituency that got them elected in the first place. How in the world does that utilize the "vote" as an instrument of good government. You act like all of history will be decided in the next two years and if so being that we just cannot abide a couple years of Democratic rule in the Legislative branch. I've been saying for months that if you think Bush is such a real Republican, what are you so afraid of. He will be their check. You know, like in checks and balances.
Abstaining is the only real choice, seconded by voting some third party. The Republican party no longer respects the power of the voters. It's time to change that. And the Democrats will learn the lessons too, the ones that aren't brain dead.
Don't overestimate the power of just one part of a bicameral legislature. Vote your conscience not your party, especially when your party has abandoned you.

Great idea but how
The only thing that will get these peoples interest in Washington are 3 things. Money, votes, and power. I can only offer one of those things and thus I will take away my vote until we have good people to represent us.

I am sick and tired of choosing the lesser of two evils.

Republicans . . .
have certainly screwed up things, to a degree.

Does that mean we should all run out to the polls in November and vote DEMOCRAT? Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face . . .!

I may disagree with some things my Rep (Ron Paul, R-Tex) says and does, but he's a whole lot better than any socialist Democrat!

Oh and one more thing
If having the Democrats in power for one turn of the election cycle is such a scary thing, then why haven't the Republicans been as effective as you fear the Democrats will be when they held ALL 3 parts of the legislative process; both the House and Senate and the Executive?
It's like you are saying the Democrats would be much more effective if in the majority than the Republicans have been.
Really! This is such a silly notiion.
We have to teach the elect that they MUST do our bidding, or else. Anything less is just being party lemmings.
We are certainly strong enough to do that and then hold the Dems at bay for awhile. Aren't we?

Blackmail is not an option...
Voting for a third party does not automatically make for a Democratic gain. Personally, I'm drawing a line in the sand here and now by voting Libertarian. I live in Missouri so this will have an effect on the Jim Talent Senate seat.

When the Republicans start campaigning for 2008, the headline issue had better be drastic cuts in Government Spending and the elimination of the Department of Education and the National Endowment for the, ug, "Arts".

As was pointed out earlier, small government goes hand in hand with freedom, and the problem won't be solved at all by returning the traitors to their seats just because we "fear" what the D's will do.

Once, we roared like lions about our liberty...

...now, we're hearing the bleating of sheep for safety and security from the big bad Democrats.

I will be proudly voting for the Libertarian party in the election and if it means the Republicans lose to the Democrats, well, then so be it.

President Bush will still be appointing Judges for the following two years *AND* he has the power to veto legislation in order to keep Democratic excesses under control.

I see no other time better than the present to ROAR LIKE LIONS this election.

Big government...
Stephen Dow writes:
"The founders would be rolling over in their graves to learn that we now have legalized indefinite imprisonment without charge or any legal recourse in secret prisons by federal police agencies. I just don't think most Republicans are stopping to think about what they are doing."

Yes, they likely would wonder how we lost the stomach to execute traitors and our enemies. Probably not what you were thinking, though, eh?

DavidMac... You are lucky to be represented by Ron Paul, IMHO!

Mike writes:
"It's like you are saying the Democrats would be much more effective if in the majority than the Republicans have been."

Exactly! Republicans generally play by the rules or at least play nice, worry about public opinion (their followers are generally more demanding than Dems), and have to battle the MSM. Dems have proven to ignore the rules, operate without honor or shame and actively leverage the cheerleading MSM. Dems probably would be more effective as a majority party than Repubs. Advertising for liberal policies is inherently easier, too. "We promise you anything you want and you won't have to pay! We'll just tax the rich and evil corporations. If it feels good, just do it!" Conservatives require one to accept limits on behavior and to work to earn a living. Personal responsibility, how fun is that?

I have to disagree about the Democrats
I think they would be far more effective in advancing their agenda. The ones that are poised to get chairmanships are fire-breathing ideologues like Charlie Rangel. More importantly, though, they don't have to fear their own shadows in the face of a hostile press the way the Republicans do. They know that they can operate with relative impunity and not get called on it in the mainstream media. That is a tremendous advantage.

And don't forget that the Constitution was written to give the Congress the "power of the purse," the ultimate check on the war-making powers of the executive. If they vote to de-fund a military venture, as they did with Vietnam in 1975, leading to the fall of Saigon to the North Vietnamese, then the President is powerless to wage war.

For jimmyrick -- in California
The reason Term Limits don't work (sort of) in California is because the state has been gerrymandered into submission.

It's the only thing California Republicans really fight for -- to keep their gerrymandered districts as much as possible.

You could put Fidel Castro up as a Republican in a Republican district, and/or Adolf Hitler up as a Democrat in a Democrat district, and odds are they'd win.

Swarzenegger tried to get judges to redistrict the state, but that initiative failed. Which is just as well, because I doubt if the judges would de facto be any more impartial than the legislature.

But, at least you *do* get a *different* scumbag. There have been some studies that seem to indicate that the longer a pol has been in office, the worse he gets -- so we can at least cut *that* part down.

Oh, and you travellers should check out this blatent plug for my blog, which has got absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand! :-)

Toss Out YOUR Bum! Mine's Fine
I have voted in every election since 1964 and can't remember an election in which I didn't hear "throw the bums out". But look at the re-election rate; over 90% of incumbents who run again are re-elected. This is a symptom of the subject of this post. Most people are happy with their own representation but think others' are corrupt, incompetent, immoral, degenerate, and every kind of evil that can be imagined. I tend to discount all polls but one recent poll indicates things aren't about to change this year either: 60% of likely voters are satisified with their current representation, 31% are dissatisfied, and 9% refused to answer or don't have a clue.

I would probably have answered with the dissatisfied 31% but will probably vote for Senator Hutchison anyway. Her fence-sitting drives me nuts but the Democrat and Libertarian options are worse. I think I can at least trust Hutchison to vote for confirmation of constructionist judges.

Representative Hall has voted solidly Republican for the last two terms but, as a refugee from the Democrat party, will never be a completely trusted Republican. Again, he'll get my vote but I'll keep my fingers crossed and a close eye on how he votes.

The point? Lots of people say "throw the bums out" but it's not likely to happen.

Fortunately, elections are not the only way we can affect the course of the nation. If you really care, you'll carefully track what your representatives say and how they vote. Then let them know what you think via telephone messages, faxes, eMails, letters to editors or even snail mail. The silver lining here is that the brainless sheep who lap up the garbage from the LLM (Luny Left Media) can't be bothered with this so your opinions are the ones your representation will hear (while they're watching the LLM :-( ).

Riverking...
Who ya gonna vote for gov? Now there is a sad slate of candidates!

UncaAlby
Good points, unc! Here in Sacramento, our perrenial Democratic Congressional seat is occupied, not by Adolph Hilter, but by Doris "Eva Braun" Matsui, who inherited the seat from her deceased (how about THAT for term limits!) husband. Hubby was Nancy Pelosi's chief butt-kisser - excuse me - CHAIRMAN of the DCCC and wifey-poo still echoes every word that spews from Ms. Pelosi's mouth. Mrs. Matsui never met an illegal alien that didn't deserve more rights and privileges than a legitimate American citizen and she can hardly wait for higher taxes so she can subsidize more of them. Due to some incredibly creative gerrymandering, she won the last election with 68% of the vote.

jimmyrick
You and I could have our own blog,just trashing Sacto.
I grew up their,not what it used to be.
Thanks soley to the left,used to a beautiful town.

jimmyrick
You and I could have our own blog,just trashing Sacto.
I grew up their,not what it used to be.
Thanks soley to the left,used to a beautiful town.

Go! Republicans! Go!
The only thing worse than a Republican is a Democrat. In this day and age at least.

More importantly, unless the Democrats can impeach, indict and remove not only Bush, but Cheney and every Republican in line to be President then impeaching Bush is a waste of time. You couldn't possibly convene enough investigations to grapple the enormous corruption from Haliburton's War Profiteering to Jack Abramhoff's Republican influencing. Best to let future elections clear the air.

The Senate won't pass any of Nancy's 100 hour plan. It's all a big waste of time. If by some wacky chance the Democrats take both houses Bush won't sign it. So there goes.

It's interesting the denial Republicans have. There was no compelling reason for a Republican Congress to have put time limits on Bush's Tax Cuts in the first place. And yet every year Bush makes the same appeal to the All Republican Congress to make his tax cuts permanent. Yet they don't do it. Now, Republicans are using the those very time limits as a political scare tactict to say Democrats will raise taxes by allowing the tax cuts to expire. How cynical.

How stupid the Republicans treat the voters.

Nothing is going to change with the war in Iraq if Democrats get elected. Nothing is going to change with respect to tax cuts or spending. I say give the Republicans another 2 years to disgust the American public. AT this point I hold more optimism that some black horse Democrat candidate comes forth in 2007 to run for President then any hope that a Democratic Congress will do anything other than be corrupt and a continued public embarassment.


RINO
Why is it that RINO seems to be most commonly used as a term by posters to define anyone who doesn't agree with them and/or see the Republican party in the same way as they do? This name calling within our own party is indicative of the decline of our solidarity and one more indication that we are on the way down.

I have voted in every election for the last 40 years, even when I had to mail it in because I was deployed. Although I have been known to vote for a Democrat, I almost exclusively vote Republican because it is the Republican, not because I am locked into the "party line" but because Republican candidates generally hold to the same beliefs I consider to be the most important.

I am also one of those Christian Conservatives that some have been saying will not vote, or will not vote Republican, this election cycle. I'm not sure where you are from, or what slanted poll you have been reading, but as for most of us SW Florida Conservative Christians, we will be voting and it won't be for Democrats. For all of you who believe that will not vote, or will vote Democrat, I would like to assure you that we are not as blind and/or stupid as you apparently believe we are. Your statements are not only uninformed, they would be insulting if it weren't so indicative of your lack of understanding of who we are and what we beleive.

As for Mr. Foley, those who I discuss this situation with, even some liberals (off the record) know that for every Republican Foley there are multiple Democrats (the names Kennedy and Clinton come to mind immediately). Mr. Foley is not representative of the Republican party so much as he is representative of a lost, weak willed person in a position of power where he can use that power to his best advantage. That type of corruption is not restricted to a party or a position.

RE: I have to disagree about the Democra
"If they vote to de-fund a military venture, as they did with Vietnam in 1975, leading to the fall of Saigon to the North Vietnamese, then the President is powerless to wage war."

You seem to be confused. The Iraq war is budgeted separately every year. Every year the vote in the Senate for the budget is 90+ in favor, and mostly unanimous. On 1,2 or a few against.

JFK started the Vietnam war and LBJ escalated it. Tricky Dick was President when the pull out occured.

Think about it. The Vietnam war started in, what, 1962? and it wasn't until 1975, according to you, the Democrats defunded it? That means Democrats funded it for 13 years or there 'bouts.

Get a grip.




JFK and Vietnam
Actually, Ike got us started in Viet Nam. JFK increased our participation as 'advisors' and then LBJ started the major build ups. I thought we were out of Vietnam in '74. What effect would defunding it in '75 have, or do I have my dates way off?

Grapes...
Is RINO an overused term? Maybe, but I doubt it. I have mostly seen and heard it applied to a select few Republicans for whon it fits. I haven't heard anybody randomly labeled a RINO for some simple or single issue. You have to admit, I hope, that there are several Republicans, mostly, but not exclusively from the northeast who seem to have little in common with the democratic party. Jim Jeffers was one until he had the honesty to jump ship. It is not a good time to change parties when your party is in power and a lot of the RINOs, particularly in the Senate have been around long enough that a change in party would cost them dearly. The fact that they measure the price as they do is a good indication they are not really in the Main Street, main stream Republican mold. Unfortunately, there is an important segment under the Republican tent that harkens back to the Rockefeller country-club Republican era that predated Goldwater and Reagan. Any large political group is going to necessarily have disagreements on certain issues. But some of these guys and gals continue to vote in opposition to the party on issues like tax cuts, abortion, the federal role in healthcare, education, and retirement, judges, and the war. Others like McCain seem to be contrarian for the publicity that goes with being a "maverick". Truth is that most RINOs would be better than most Dems, from a conservatives point of view. Still, a conservative republican would be preferable to a moderate or liberal Republican, dontcha think?

My concern with the "big tent" is similar to the immigration issue. If we get too many moderate to slightly liberal converts from the Dems to the Reps, we may gain in numbers, but dilute the conservative movement. Most RINOs have been around for a long time. But many former Dems are becoming newly converted Republicans. I hope the Republican party doesn't become just Democrat Lite as a result. Some would argue that it already has. WHile the Dems try to self-destruct, Republicans still haven't found somebody who is staunchly conservative and will stand up and say so in the mold of Reagan. Pity!

liberal_dialog : I actually found
something we agree on.
You wrote:

The Senate won't pass any of Nancy's 100 hour plan. It's all a big waste of time.

Keep it up,there's hope yet.

Constitution Party, Anyone??
I read the platform of the Constitution Party and I agree with just about every stance they take. It seems to me that most conservatives would too, so why does that party remain a small blip on the radar screen, given the huge conservative population??

I guess it's because most conservatives have done exactly what I have done for years....avoided pulling the levers for 3rd party candidates for fear of "wasting" my vote.

But all I've ever gotten for that is increased dissatisfaction and the sense that large scale fear of that "wasted" vote over time has been a major factor toward bringing us where we are today....where the whole system is corrupt, unaccountable, and where the major parties are indistinguishable in some key areas.

Maybe I am wasting my vote this time around by going 3rd party, but real change has got to start somewhere. Anyone else with me, or am I the dupe?

Keener
Remember what brought us Clinton' "Perot"
Need I say more.

Go ahead if you like Nancy Pelosi,that is exactly what you will get for a vote split.

Lobbyist Don't Care
The lobbyists are not going to go away. They have allegiance to no party. At least by the day after the election, if not sooner, these same lobbyists will be wooing whoever won. Will they be wooing Republicans who have lost their way, some who are real creeps, some who only pay lip service to traditional values, and some who are real believers? Will they be wooing Democrats, most of whom have absolutely no moral compass or conscious? (one possible murderer, liars, nut-cases, power-hungry, opportunistic and deceptive closet-feminist, secular humanists, cut-an-runners …) For those Democrats whose party platform is based on situational ethics, I’m sure they will come up with a million great excuses why they took the money (IF the media ever makes them accountable). Meanwhile, while we all sit on our hands and watch Rome implode, the arrogant liberal media will make whatever they do look noble.

3rd Party
It's a shame that voting for a 3rd party candidate can't be more productive. There have been a few I could have voted for but didn't because I didn't want to 'waste' my vote and open the door for the Demo.

Hay Jerubaal
I got a turn coat democrat here in Texas, Ralph Hall. Brother I feel your pain in the land of Nod. I don't trust turncoats but he is a real conservative.

Now I know you are from California. Sorry, I feel your pain. I still consider Duke Cunningham a hero.

A Hero, much like the Democrats eulogized Gerry Stubbs, the Homosexual pedophile. But the Duke was a Vietnam combat hero, not a Congressional sexual pervert hero.

The duke took bribes, Stubbs took it were the sun don't shine. One a combat hero, the other of booty bandit. You make the call. In fact with Foley the democrats have made the call.

Dude, the democrat suicide watch starts at 1900 hours, November 2006.

Mike
I'm scared to death of the democrats. One part of the legislature can do enormous damage by threatening to shut down the government through the budget process until the other part caves.

I understand completely your long-term strategic thinking. But I don't think reversing the tax cuts, impeaching the president, and surrendering in the war on terror is going to be good for America.

A vote for anyone other than the GOP puts the Kos Kidz in charge, comrade.

Now, if the GOP had actually raised taxes, turned against the pro-life issue, or increased gun control, and if we weren't in a war, I would agree with you.

Sorry there weren't any challengers in your primary. But that did mean you could have run...

Ziggy
That means you could run...

GI Joe
Thanks for the empathy man.

I feel more sorry for you, though. In California, it's expected. I don't know how mad I'd be to have a turncoat in Texas.

Re: Must things get worse.....
Ms.Parker is not too far off the res.on this. My thoughts are simply this: How in the he77 do any of you think we win in this election season by losing???? No one remembers who came in 2nd in a Cup race do they? While I personally think the Repubs need a major out-of-frame overhaul, they still are much better than seeing the House&Senate with a majority of D's.

Third Party Thoughts, Etc.
___ First let me thank Star for an excellent and well reasoned column that sparked this spirited debate. Bravo!
___ In New York, the Conservative Party had a neat approach that was workable, after a fashion. If the Republican candidate was a fellow conservative, then they nominated the guy for their ticket too; if not, they fielded a candidate of their own. In this way, they had a lot of clout, since votes for the Conservative candidate would add to the real Republican's final vote tally, but a RINO would have a much tougher time getting elected. It sent a tangible message to the New York Republican Party about about gag limits too.
___ However, the state election laws have been so bollixed by the major league parties that it is virtually impossible to launch a nationwide third party challenge, even with megabucks. Ross Perot, indeed! It is far easier and more effective to clean out the Republican stables with deliberate precision. Call it RINOplasty.
___ YAF, Goldwater, Reagan, Newt and many others laid the bedrock for evolving the Republican Party into the present rough coalition of social conservatives (the so called religious right) and the small-government conservatives (Libertarians & Objectivists). We were joined by former Democrats who felt that principles trumped party labels. George Bush is, as you have all noticed, a social conservative - not a small-gov. conservative. Both lobes of the RP are in agreement about strong a national defense, personal liberty and rational ethics in governance - including the actual rule of law as is plainly set forth in our Federal Constitution.
___ The Democrats, too, have undergone their evolution. Once the party of Populists, labor unions and Dixicrats, they were targeted by the Socialist/Communist alliance for penetration and co-option. Now they are the party of mooches, parasitic labor unions, big overweening government, rule by Judicial whim informed by mob inciting hyperbole. Who needs national defense when Democrats have the UN? Ayn Rand had their number. So do we.
___ Our main problem is not the Democrats & RINOs in politics, but the fact that three of the major organs informing public opinion (mass entertainment, universities & MSM) were also successfully targeted. This triad has been hard at work for statism and the defeat of western values.
___ Politicians DO NOT get very far in front or behind the vox populi. It is profoundly dumb to think that we can rescue our civilization by slamming pliant politicians for being politicians without first getting our fellow citizens on the same page.
___ Think of the government as a tool for social organization, mutual protection and regulation.
In that vein, consider the following:
(1) I am an electrician and own a truck full - I mean really full - of tools. Why? Because function follows form. I have no taste for driving screws with a hammer or breaking stone with pliers. I am very wary of overly complex tools - they are usually expensive and prone to fail or operate in unexpected ways. Multi-function tools are rarely very good at any particular task and are usually awkward to hand. Misuse of some tools, by using them for the wrong task, can kill you. So I put up with the large tool boxes, the weight and the expense of have the right tool for doing the job right firstoff.
(2) Before this career, I was an air defense programmer/analyst. The programs were, for the time, large and complex. IBM was big in software development for its computers at the time. Wanting to optimize the process they conducted a very interesting experiment. They set a large programming project before seven teams of programmers consisting of 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32 and 64 programmers respectively then sat back and watched. Guess who finished first? The two man team barely edged out the lone programmer, followed in order by 4, 8 & 16 man teams who took progressively longer. The 32 and 64 man teams never made it to the finish line at all before IBM lost patience and pulled the plug.
(3) Congress has 435 Reps and 100 Senators who have quite different districts with anything but homogenous constituent needs and desires. The method is debate too often spiced with hyperbole for the talking heads on the six o'clock news cycle. The lines of communication to and from their districts are long and uncertain. The customers for their product are largely out of the loop and often misinformed by agencies wishing us harm or worse. Finally, they pass the buck and the legislation to the executive branch who has the unenviable task of making something that will pass for lemonade.
Naturally our old nemesis, Murphy makes mischief with his law of unintended consequences. Many oxen are gored. The court system steps up to bat, etc. Then back to the legislature for a little tweaking here and there until we wind up with a tax system defined by 66,250 pages of obtuse prose.
(4) Then the people arise in rage and demand explanation from their congress critters. And what do they say? Well, they don't rat themselves out and admit that most of what they promised is flat out mission impossible given the nature of politics and the limitations of the tool called government. No, they blame the other rascals. Can you spell "Bait and Switch" everyone?
(5) The problem of governance has less to do with the good intentions of our legislature, executive and judiciary than with the inherent limitations of a tool whose primary agency of action is coercion. No matter how good a surgeon is, he will NOT do good inner ear surgery with a chain saw! And no point to getting mad at him for a bad result if WE insist that he give it a try.
___ So, back on point. Voting is only the most obvious of our civic responsibilities. As pointed out in previous posts and columns, an educated and interested electorate is the key. And the key to that is a liberated mainstream media and revitalized educational institutions.
___ The web, talk radio, Fox and the conservative blogosphere are but a beginning that allows us to reach out and, I hope, synergize. There is much to be done. And it won't get done sitting out the Congressional elections.
___We are at war, Folks. And it seems to me that only the Republicans show any interest in defending your life, culture or wallet. And while you are at it, check out who is running for the school board, since they pick the principals, teachers and your kids curriculum. It's not too soon to think about bent twigs and all that.
___ Finally, (sorry for the long post) remember what he old time union leaders had to say: DON'T CRITICIZE, BROTHER, ORGANIZE!"

JFK & Vietnam

.Grapes....defunding the war in 1975 broke the terms of the peace treaty signed in 1973 which guaranteed Saigon American aid, arms and air support in case the North invaded...in other words Congress broke a treaty with an Ally and abandoned them to Communism...etc etc.....COLOSSUS

Good point, Baseball
Sort of reminds you of Britain's lead up to WW2 when Hitler took sly advantage of the war weariness of the English and the French who lost millions in WW1. Hitler pulled a big bluff in the Rhineland and then went on to annex the Sudetenland in 1938. Peace in our time, so sorry Czechoslovakia!
Ironically, this gave Germany control of the robust Czech industrial base and multiplied Hitler's war machine. The products of which killed a lot of Frenchmen, Poles, Danes, Belgians, Englishmen, Russians and, yes, Americans further down the road.
It is often forgotten that, after WW1, Britain and America had essentially disarmed and were not ready for a war in Europe AGAIN. This also informed England's attempt to appease Hitler at Munich. They discovered that denial was not just a river in Egypt. The resulting war cost America over 400,000 casualties. England, France, Poland et al paid even more. What the world lost lost with the 6,000,000 dead in the holocaust and the 20 million others can 't be calculated. European culture has still not recovered. The center of Western Civilization moved west across the Atlantic by default.
My point here: most legislatures in representative democracies do not respond to burning platforms until their pants catch on fire. Very few wanted to hear from Winston about the gathering storm in Europe. Today there are those useful idiots in the Democrat Party (and a few RINOs) who can see no path to power except by denying the gathering storm on our doorstep. The axis of evil starts in China and Putin's Russia. North Korea, Syria, Iran, and the miscellaneous Jihadi groups are serving as as proxies in the the new phase of the resurgent and no longer quite so cold war.

Vote!
Nothing I hear out there about conservative voter apathy makes any sense to me. We are told that cons are going to stay home in droves, abandoning their Congressmen to the wolves and allowing us to lose the legislative branch. This sounds ludicrous to me. This is nothing short of political suicide. The last time the Dems got control of the legislative branch, they held it for FORTY years, almost destroying us as a nation. All because we didn't get everything we wanted from them. Another poster stated that we need to be in this for the long haul. If the Dems get control, rest assured that they won't give it up again soon. We will be shut out of the process for the next forty years. Wake up and smell the history, people. We are in a war with people who want our total destruction. We aren't going to get a "do over" if we elect appeasers and allow the terrorists a clear shot at our jugular. Get out there and vote!

Voter power isn't all in the ballot box!
My friends who know I'm a non-partisan registrant who avoids voting a party line will laugh at this, but here goes ... Vote Republican because we have more chance of electing candidates who can be reasoned with than if we vote Democrat. Democrats HATE anyone who do not subscribe to their entire agenda. They are incapable of compromise. Third-party candidates are going to lose, so voting for them will be a vote for the Democrats.

If voting Republican means you vote for an incumbent who you feel has violated your trust, so be it, but don't leave it at that. Your vote doesn't just count in the ballot box and belly-aching on this site does not constitute influencing your Congressional delegation.

Write, call, and email your delegates to Congress. Let them know how you feel about the state of the economy, immigration, the War on Terrorism, whatever it is you think is important. If they don't hear from you, they have to assume that you're fine with the way they're spending your money, conducting our international and national affairs and protecting our borders. Go out on Congress.org and find out what bills are coming up and TELL your delegates how you want them to vote. They won't always be able to vote the way you want. Maybe they're hearing from more people who want the opposite vote. Maybe they had to give something up in order to get something the voters of your state say they want. Maybe they know some things you don't know. However, when they don't vote your way, you can communicate your disappoint to them and let them know they risk losing your vote, that when the next primary comes up, you'll be seriously considering voting for their Republican challenger.

People from larger states often think this sort of communication will be ignored, but I'm one who believes that our elected officials will hear us if we speak loudly in unison. It works in smaller states when the residents do it. That's a proven. Larger states can make it happen if you just will stop belly-aching and start writing.

Remember, it is critical for conservatives (or at least conservative influences) to remain in control of our government. We cannot afford another Vietnam and the DNC would give us just that if only to prove themselves right. We do not have to vote out Republicans to send a message to Congress. We just have to start COMMUNICATING with the ones who are already there.

Wise up, people! Don't throw cut your leg off to remove a wart on your toe. Treat the wart and keep the leg. Conservatives in this country need to be circumspect and smarter than the Democrats. If we want a country that still reflects our values we need to maintain conservative control of Congress.

The pen is as mighty or mightier than the vote. Make your desires known in Congress and I think you'll see a sea-change among Republicans to a much more conservative tide. They just need to be reminded of why we elected them in the first place.

Don't blame the Democrats
While I appreciate the tone in which this column was written - so many on this site give the aura of having been written by someone revved up by drugs - I have to take exception to at least a couple of things.

First of all, "What do we gain by allowing Democrats, who are wrong on everything..." Anyone knows that the statement does not stand true for any person or group of
people.

Second, "big government," "a moral, traditional society" and a "free society" are not interconnected either for yea or nay. Big government does not corrupt any
more than small government does. People are corruptible. Acton said that absolute power [tends to] corrupt absolutely. I don't disagree; however absolute power
belongs to dictators or people who have to answer to no one. People in our government do have to answer to the voters. The exception is when the voters get really lazy
and don't ask questions of them or don't make demands of them. That can happen in virtually any institution, including marriage. Whether it is big or small, right or
left is immaterial.

A genuinely free society would probably be the least moral and traditional society. Again, people are corruptible. If there is no one or no entity to put on the breaks on some of the most outrageous behavior then it will happen. That is almost a given. How many people would commit murder if there was no law against it?! I believe the columnist is looking at what SOME OF the liberals think is alright and others of them think needs to be allowed in the name of freedom, and because liberals are more for big government than the republicans that the two are connected. In fact, it is the right, or at least the Christian right, that wants to impose government sanctions on a lot of human behavior and make it illegal.

I would also question just how many people among the right are really against big government. In other words, I wonder if they understand the concept of big government. They seem to equate it with socialism. That is a different animal from a government that serves its people by keeping the air and water and food clean
and safe, that requires safe roads, bridges, transportation, and buildings, that provides schools, fire protection, police protection, and a military, that sets standards in working conditions and in minimum pay, that monitors and secures banks and other
institutions that have hold of our money. Do these people have the foggiest idea how many people in third world countries would give their right arm to have the glory of this kind of big government!

The problem with the present regime and its growth of government is that all the money is going for military purposes of one sort or another, and the only people
we are asking to foot the bill is our soldiers.

What is there about human nature that makes people believe that if only left to our own devices we would be better people and a better society. It is not a Biblical concept nor is it an intelligent concept.

Yes, I know, at least half a dozen people will reply
with arguments about the lazy bums who suck at the
public teat. Well, this is just a guess. But I will
bet that more people in Houston were seriously hurt
financially by the Enron billionaires than by those on
welfare in the same city. I in no way feel obligated
to make anyone (or encourage anyone to become) a
billionaire. I do feel an obligation to see to it that
no one goes to bed hungry.


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.