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
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
Thomas Sowell :: Townhall.com Columnist
Frivolous politics
by Thomas Sowell
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?


With a war going on in Iraq and with Iran next door moving steadily toward a nuclear bomb that could change the course of world history in the hands of international terrorists, the question for this year's elections is not whether you or your candidate is a Democrat or a Republican but whether you are serious or frivolous.

That question also needs to be asked about the media. In these grim and foreboding times, our media have this year spent incredible amounts of time on a hunting accident involving Vice President Cheney, a bogus claim that the administration revealed Valerie Plame's identity as a C.I.A. "agent" -- actually a desk job in Virginia -- and is now going ballistic over a Congressman who sent raunchy e-mails to Congressional pages.

This is the frivolous media -- and the biased media. Republican Congressman Foley was wrong and is out on his ear. But Democrats in both Congress and the White House have gone far beyond words with a page and an intern. Yet the Democrats did not resign and Bill Clinton's perjury, obstruction of justice, and suborning of perjury by others were treated as if these were irrelevant private matters.

Even when serious issues are addressed, they can be addressed either seriously or frivolously. If you are content to see life and death issues of war and peace addressed with catch phrases like "chicken hawk" or to see a coalition of nations around the world fighting terrorism referred to as "unilateral" U.S. action because France does not go along, then you are content with frivolity.

You may deserve whatever you get if you vote frivolously in this year's election. But surely the next generation, which has no vote, deserves better.

Weak-kneed members of both parties have been calling for a timetable to be announced for withdrawal from Iraq. No other war in thousands of years of history has ever had such a timetable announced to their enemies. Even if we intended to get out by a given date, there is not the slightest reason to tell the terrorists that. It is frivolous politics at its worst.

There has never been any reason to doubt that American troops will be removed from Iraq. They were removed after the first Gulf War. Before that, they were removed from Grenada and from other Western Hemisphere countries throughout the 20th century. Millions of American troops were removed from Europe after World War II.

Why should there be the slightest doubt that they will be removed from Iraq? The only question is whether you can run a war on a timetable like a railroad and whether you need to announce your plans to your enemies.

All this rhetoric about a withdrawal timetable is based on trying to make political hay out of the fact that the Iraq war is unpopular. But all wars have been unpopular with Americans, as they should be.

Even World War II, won by "the greatest generation," was never popular, though the home front was united behind the troops a lot better than today. The last shot of that war had barely been sounded before the cry arose to bring our boys back home.

The exuberant celebrations across this country when World War II ended showed that we weren't looking for more war or more conquests. We weren't even trying to hold on to all the territory we had conquered. There has probably never been a time in history when a military force in the millions was disbanded so quickly.

Even after the first Gulf War, with its quick success and low casualties, the biggest ovation that the first President Bush got when he addressed Congress afterwards was when he announced that our troops would start coming back home.

Those who discuss the current war in terms of frivolous talking points make a big deal out of the fact we have been in this war longer than in World War II. But, if we are serious, we would know that it is not the duration of a war that is crucial. It is how many lives it costs.

More than twice as many Marines were killed taking one island in the Pacific during World War II than all the Americans killed in the four years of the Iraq war. More Americans were killed in one day during the Civil War.

If we are going to discuss war, the least we can do is be serious.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of The Housing Boom and Bust.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Thomas Sowell and Townhall.com's daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
Vote Sowell in '08
We need to hear "President Sowell..." and "...the Sowell administration..." on the news sometime in the future.

Support our President
Woodward quotes President Bush in his latest book "I will not withdraw even if Laura and Barney are the only ones supporting me" Support the President and

show him he's not alone. http://www.LAURAandBARNEY.com

Sonny Lykos
Yes Sonny, that must be it. Since I don’t believe that Sowell possesses “so much wisdom and so much ability to convey that wisdom could be found in one man (other than our Jesus).” As The Black Cherokee put it, I must ‘not have the capacity to either recognize or appreciate exceptional intelligence, wisdom and an uncanny awareness of what should be "common sense”’. Yet in that same comment to Cherokee I said Sowell makes an excellent point. Perhaps you should sacrifice some of your capacity to recognize and appreciate in order to increase your skills in comprehension and logic.

A Third pary Vote is NOT a WASTED vote
I also used to think that if I voted for any 3rd party candidate that I was wasting my vote since they stand little chance of winning. However I no longer feel that way. A vote cast is still a VOTE and still marks the ballot with what you the voter wants to happen. If we quit worrying about "wasting" our votes and voted for the candidate of priciples and integrity that stands for what we believe in -- we could all stop worrying that we wasted a vote because we would get the candidate we voted for into office! Further, those losing the vote would get the message that we are sick and tired of their superficial and trivial treament of their grave responsibilty to LEAD our nation.

The Black Cherokee et al
I'd vote for Sowell in '08 even if he were running as a Democrat. (My wife disputes me on this but I insist that I did vote for a Democrat...once...in over forty years of voting.)

I originally found TownHall via a search for 'Sowell' after I gave up on newspapers. I just wish he wrote more frequently.

Clyde9 wrote:

"The "dismissal of White House travel office staff," wouldn't have been a big deal if the Clinton had just replaced the people who worked there -- as he had every right to do because the travel office staff served at the pleasure of the president.

"The problem was that they tried to justify this firing by trumping up charges against those people who had served under previous presidents of both parties."

More conservative BS. Dale was corrupt and everybody knew it. There was a whistleblower letter sent to GAO in 1988, which was basically ignored by both Reagan and Bush I administrations. Look into it. Start here: http://archives.cjr.org/year/96/2/travelgate.asp

Flagwaver

First off, you didn't answer the question, which was about "what the Clintons did in that transaction." Perhaps because investigation after investigation cleared them of any wrongdoing?

Secondly, you list a part of how the story changed, but not to "being described as an attack on the Clintons by the 'vast right wing conspiracy,'" but rather to "how the heck did that stain get there?" Do you have anything at all related to the coverage of the story in the media?

Third, I wonder if you could tell me which crimes you think a President should be impeached for, and how long before he takes office should be open season? Do the statutes of limitation matter at all?

Fourth, using the indomitable Ms. Coulter as your source doesn't impress me, as she has such a history of getting things wrong. As a matter of fact, in your quoted passage, she says: "The Senate Whitewater Committee turned up a series of favors Mr. Clinton performed for Madison Guaranty while he was governor of Arkansas... [including] signing special interest legislation intended to benefit Madison." This is simply not true. Please refer to the Majority Report Of The Special Committee To Investigate Whitewater (many of whose conclusions are suspect, but that's another matter), Part 3: The Arkansas Phase, which you can find here: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/WW/white.html.

Fifth, I don't understand the point of your second paragraph - what, did Coulter think that we should have impeached Hillary so that she couldn't be first lady any more?

Sixth, about the Starr investigation. What he should have done was inform the judge in the Jones case that he had evidence that Lewinsky was suborning perjury, and indications that the President and Mr. Jordan may also have done so. He may or may not have done so - that judge would of course have informed him that Tripp's tapes were inadmissable because they were illegally obtained. Since he couldn't pursue the case where it made sense, he chose to entrap the President (very well, I might add).

"However, the msm has consistently characterized Mr. Starr as digging into the personal life of Bill Clinton; the facts are that Mr. Starr simply did what any reputable, nonpartisan prosecutor would do when pesented with evidence of a criminal conspiracy."

Six months before Tripp produced the tapes, Whitewater investigators were reported to be interviewing Arkansas State Troopers about Clinton's personal life. That doesn't fit your definition of "digging into the personal life of Bill Clinton"?

"Just because you don't like that he did his job does not mean...that the media did not do everything in their power to ignore the facts of the story, and instead focus on the prosecutor and his 'motives'."

And just because you say the media did everything in their power to ignore the facts of the story doesn't make it so.

Look at it this way - between 1992 and 1998, when Starr's eventual report began to take shape, were there any negative stories about the Clintons in the "main stream media"? I'd say there were quite a few, but since I don't have a Lexis susbscription I can't tell you how many. Lots. Hundreds. Thousands? Nah. Hundreds and hundreds and hundreds.

And all of those articles, all of that negative press for the Clintons, were related to matters that were investigated ad nauseum, and resulted in how many indictments against the Clintons? Zilch. How hard was the "main stream media" working to protect the Clintons then?

"Maybe if Mr. Clinton had not been involved in a criminal conspiracy to obstruct justice and suborn perjury he would not have disgraced himself and the office he held in the manner that he did."

Nah, he disgraced himself before Linda Tripp. But I think the "disgracing the office" line is overblown (so to speak).

"Consider yourself 'shown up'."

No thanks. To answer my own questions, the Clintons did nothing wrong in the whitewater deal, and the connection between Lewinsky and the Clintons' Whitewater investment was that they both sucked.

.

Mike R wrote:
"The Black Cherokee: I have been rebuked in the past when I suggested that the veneration of Sowell by his fans borders on worship. Thank you for proving me right. "

You're welcome.

Apparently you do not have the capacity to either recognize or appreciate exceptional intelligence, wisdom and an uncanny awareness of what should be "common sense", that is, other than what you consider to be your own.


It's the Justices Stupid!
As always, I am left wondering if anyone could say it better than Mr. Sowell. Only Uncle Walt, Williams that is, could even come close. But the primary reason conservatives need to stick with the "lesser of the two evils", that being the GOP, is to continue the refacing of our federal courts, specifically the Supreme Court, until there are super majorities in favor of the ideas first put forth by our rebellious forefathers. If the left is able to win the presidency even once over the next two or three elections, they will be able to stall a return of the intended United States of America indefinately, and continue to forge our beloved homeland into a socialist state.

Travel Office
The "dismissal of White House travel office staff," wouldn't have been a big deal if the Clinton had just replaced the people who worked there -- as he had every right to do because the travel office staff served at the pleasure of the president.

The problem was that they tried to justify this firing by trumping up charges against those people who had served under previous presidents of both parties.

Clyde9

In re: BSDetector
Whitewater:
"The Senate Whitewater Committee turned up a series of favors Mr. Clinton performed for Madison Guaranty while he was governor of Arkansas, concluding that 'substantial evidence supports Mr. McDougal's claims that he had clout with the governor.' These included sending valuable state leases to Madison, and signing special interest legislation intended to benefit Madison." High Crimes and Misdemeanors, pp. 171

"Finally, whether or not McDougal's retainer payments to the Rose Law Firm were intended as a bribe, the arrangement led to the peculiar situation of the governor's wife lobbying the governor's appointees on behalf of Madison Guaranty. The retainer also gave Hillary the opportunity to perform much of the legal work that enabled McDougal to pass bad loans, bankrupting the S&L and costing the taxpayers $60 million. The transaction at the heart of Castle Grande-one of Madison's most fraudulent schemes-hinged on a document drafted by Hillary Clinton. As we will see, it is undisputed that Mrs. Clinton drafted a document used to defraud the RTC." High Crimes and Misdemeanors, pp. 172-173.

As for the Starr turn to Lewinsky, it became part of the broader investigation of the Clintons when Bill Clinton attempted to get Monica Lewinsky to lie about her affair with him to cover himself in the lawsuit filed by Paula Jones. And contrary to the conventional wisdom, Mr. Starr sought out neither Linda Tripp nor Monica Lewinsky. Ms. Tripp brought her evidence of Mr. Clinton attempting to obstruct justice and suborn Ms. Lewinsky's perjured testimony in the Jones case to Mr. Starr. When presented with the evidence, Mr. Starr could not simply ignore the crime that was being committed, he was duty bound as a prosecutor to act.

However, the msm has consistently characterized Mr. Starr as digging into the personal life of Bill Clinton; the facts are that Mr. Starr simply did what any reputable, nonpartisan prosecutor would do when pesented with evidence of a criminal conspiracy. He follwed up on the evidence given him and pursued it inorder to thwart the conspiracy. Just because you don't like that he did his job does not mean that he did anything wrong; it also does not mean that the media did not do everything in their power to ignore the facts of the story, and instead focus on the prosecutor and his 'motives'. Maybe if Mr. Clinton had not been involved in a criminal conspiracy to obstruct justice and suborn perjury he would not have disgraced himself and the office he held in the manner that he did.

Consider yourself 'shown up'.

bennyboy

I invite you to present something substantial, rather than just saying I'm wrong. Here's what I said:

"The Starr investigation made quite a leap when it went from investigating a failed land deal in Arkansas to digging into the President's affair. Or is there some Lewinsky-Whitewater connection that I wasn't told about by the leftist media? Please, educate me. Show me up."

Please, bennyboy, educate me. Pretty please. Show that you have a brain in your head.

Then I said:

"Please, please, cite any source that shows the media wasn't sufficiently reporting the events of the Clinton administration that led to indictments."

Pretty straightforward. Can't do this either? Then how about this:

"Can you teach us exactly what 'the Clintons did in [the Whitewater] transaction'?"

Surely you can handle this one. This is a softball, right?

.

AudiR10 - Frivolities
Good post!!! I know it's a ways back...but it had me rolling on the floor because I couldn't disagree with it.

I concur with COLOSSUS...
...although I would not want you cooking pot at my house....

To BS detector
Your blog name is a misnomer. You're spreading it around.. instead of "detecting it".. Thanks, Dr. Sowell, again and again...I love to read a literate and intellegent article. Kudos to Jacques A. NRA lifer...(I love reading your comments), MikeR, et al.

Snooper
Snooper, you can have all the brain dead around Uranus you want, don't want em round mine, sounds way too painful.
Gotta be a better place than that to send em.

BUSH IN THE GARDEN OF GOOD AND EVIL…
George Bush is the first American President expressing Christian certitude. God even speaks to George, and as he relates God told him to go to war with Iraq. If true, presumably God would have also told him how to win the war without all the mistakes, suffering and death.

The world has seen Christian certitude before and it’s not a pretty picture: papal infallibility when the Pope had armies, the Inquisition (intolerance at home) and the Crusades (intolerance abroad). When the Crusaders captured Jerusalem in 1099, they slaughtered all its inhabitants. When the Arab leader Saladin recaptured the city, he spared all the Christian inhabitants. So the Middle East is already primed for another war with Christian invaders; and accordingly and as the latest NIE confirms, the war in Iraq has increased the number of jihadists and terrorists worldwide and made America less safe.

Our brave, innocent young men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan are fighting for a better world, but a leader ignorant of history and cultures can easily cause the opposite. The stupidity of World War I and of Wilson, Lloyd George and Clemenceau caused terrible consequences for another 70 years after the end of that war. Afghanistan is the right war, certainly a just war and the whole world agreed and was on our side, and if we would have concentrated our efforts there we probably would have wiped out Bin Laden and those responsible for 9-11 by now. Iraq is the wrong war even if hopefully we win it, and Iran will be another, but larger wrong war.

The leader of Iran comes off as a whacko, however, the Iranians and the rest of the world view George Bush in the same way, so there is a common starting point. Real diplomacy involves talking with your adversary one-on-one without preconditions, and Russia and China have forced Bush to make a positive step in that direction. And there’s a lot to discuss with Iran: the CIA in the 1950s, the Shah, the 1979 hostage crisis, sponsorship of terror, Israel and justice in the Middle East. But if past is prelude, then Bush’s diplomacy with Iran will be perfunctory and manipulated (as it was with Iraq), and probably God has already spoken to our President and told him to go to war after the November 2006 elections (as he did with Iraq in 2002-2003). When Bush finally increases the level of hatred against the United States to where it engulfs Pakistan, then we face nuclear terror, and Biblical Armageddon becomes real, a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Back at home, Christian certitude is present in Bush’s politics of division and hate. Nonbelievers of Bush’s Christian values and policies are viewed with contempt, instead of as fellow citizens in a pluralistic democracy. Civility has gone out of our civilization, and this type of Christian Right hate is now completely out of the closet with Ann Coulter’s latest book, which has been repudiated by few if any on the right who claim to practice the Christian message of love. The Foley-Hastert scandal further shows the actual evil of their "perfect" practice of Christian good.

“Good and evil” is a concept common in religion, morality and ethics. Obviously the whole world needs more good and less evil. But is there a practical definition that everyone can agree on and that lends itself to objective measurement. How about: GOOD is something that makes the many human lives better and no or few lives worse, while EVIL is something that makes many lives worse, and no or few lives better. Some obvious good in this world: Habitat for Humanity, St Jude’s Children Hospital, etc. Evil under this definition would include a considerable number of Hollywood movies, a lot of poison on TV and violent video games.

Measuring George Bush’s actions by this definition with objective facts, our good Christian President does mostly evil: from Iraq to Katrina mismanagement and incompetence to “no child left behind” (children in extreme poverty up 20% since Bush took office) to the $3 trillion dollar tax giveaway to the rich. Particulars on the last item: supply-side (trickle-down) economics is a bogus theory promoted by those who benefit from it. In a mature capitalist system, supply side never rules, it’s always the demand side of the equation that governs growth and well-being. Think about the 1930s Depression, General Motors had plenty of supply, but demand evaporated.

Previous U.S. recessions have been cured with only $200 billion in tax cuts targeted to the middle class, because the consumer (the great middle class) spends that tax cut and primes the economic pump. But George Bush has raised the debt that your children and grandchildren will have to pay from almost $6 trillion to almost $9 trillion for this current recovery, which is uniquely without wage gains, and which has shrunk the middle class that makes America strong and great. Corporations (the supply side) are now loaded with cash, but there’s no place to spend it because they don’t see any demand. So many corporations are using that cash to buy back their stock -- WOW, isn’t supply side wonderful in how it fulfills America’s needs? As the rich-poor divide increases, we’re headed toward previous shining examples of trickle-down economics: South America of the recent past and feudalism in the Middle Ages (South America and feudalism also had no wage gains). This is such good evil by our Christian President and his myriad of engorged friends.

I see a dark future for the country we all love. Even our Constitution is at risk when a President says he speaks directly to God (witness how God/Allah influences and corrupts Islamic attempts at democracy). The Constitution guarantees freedom to all, and freedom for all from tyranny. Our precious Constitution binds us together as a nation, and allegiance to it is the definition of patriotism.

NRAlifer
And "A Republic, Madam, if you can keep it"

First time in my NRA life membership i am fearful for the future of our country. We are getting exactly the government we voted for, with enough of the people voting for how much they can get out of DC to keep people like Byrd and Stevens in office. No wonder the less senior pols scramble to deal out pork. They see its what keeps the old timers in their cushy sinecures. JFK got elected on Don't ask what your country can do for you..... I was not a fan while he was in office, but he looks awful good compared to ALL of the current crop. Maybe it was the idealism of the voters back then that made the difference. They actually wanted good government, not their share of the graft.

Frivolous voters = frivolous politicians
The politicians and media are only giving the crowd what they want: scandal, intrigue, and easy answers.

Neither party is serious about a wide range of issues. Since Dr. Sowell already covered the Democratic contribution to political silliness, let's examine the Republican side of it, too:

Immigration: The Republican strategy is to build a fence and politely ask illegal residents to leave. President Bush may not even sign the fence into law, at that(http://hotair.com/archives/2006/10/09/is-bush-going-to-veto-the-border-fence/).

Will the fence stem the flow of illegal immigrants? No, it will make the trip across the border 30 seconds longer. Any real solution to the immigration crisis has to include enforcement of employment laws on the employer side. The fact that no Republicans (who so enjoy talking about supply and demand) are willing to take this simple step shows the Republicans true priorities. They care more about Walmart's access to cheap labor than the skyrocketing crime in the border states.

Iraq. The Republicans have a semi-serious solution for the war, purely by accident. If a Democrat had started the war they'd no doubt be clamoring just as loudly as the Democrats to "get out of Iraq, now!" But where do the Reoublicans stand on winning the war, besides assurances that we won't give up? I believe we need to stay in Iraq and finish the job. The Republicans half-agree with me. What exactly is the Republican plan to win the war - besides simply staying there?

The Democrats exit-strategy plans would spell disaster for Iraq. The Republican do-nothing plan - I call it do-nothing because it has done precisely that since Saddam was captured - only puts American lives at stake for dubious gains. Are our troops there to win a war, or are they there to provide security for American rebuilding firms?

Finally, since we're on the subject of sex-scandals, Republicans have no place to criticize the Democratic response to Mark Foley. Well, they have a right, but it's tough to take them seriously after what they did to Clinton. Yes, Clinon lied. It was despicable and cowardly and immoral - and 1000 times less serious than Foley propositioning underage boys, and then having the House leadership possibly cover for him.

I'll be voting Libertarian next election. That's the only real alternative to the frivolity of the Republicans and the Democrats. Yes, the Democrats may win. I'll be rooting against them, if only because I was raised in a Republican house. But I know that, whatever mischief the Dems may get into, it can only be as bad as the mischief the GOP indulges.

NRAlifer
Wait! Now you are saying that the phone tapping, and secret prison stuff was bad. I though you were for giving up a few liberties in order to save the country from terrorists.

Then you talk about us be open about our part in a conspiracy because if one of us is in a position to be caught then chances are all of us will get caught.

I’m not sure I get the implication. Wait here’s a catchy one: 23 ski-doo!

I wish we had such good choices
as Dr. Sowell for president. Unfortunately, we don't.

I wish an American would run for president.

Flagwaver wrote:

"Somehow, the Whitewater investigation went from being about what the Clintons did in that transaction to being described as an attack on the Clintons by the 'vast right wing conspiracy'."

Can you teach us exactly what "the Clintons did in [the Whitewater] transaction"?

"And the Lewinsky matter turned from Bill Clinton having his way with a White House intern and later suborning her perjury, to being about some sexual witch hunt conducted by Ken Starr."

Actually, the Starr investigation made quite a leap when it went from investigating a failed land deal in Arkansas to digging into the President's affair. Or is there some Lewinsky-Whitewater connection that I wasn't told about by the leftist media? Please, educate me. Show me up.

Please, please, cite any source that shows the media wasn't sufficiently reporting the events of the Clinton administration that led to indictments. Excuse me for not just blindly taking your word for it.

.

Dr Sowell
Yea, Dr. Sowell in '08

Great post and much wisdom.

Ed

Who is better?
Dr. Sowell is better than anyone in the running now. That says way too little though.

jerubaal 7:51
Best analogy i've run across in years. What guts those guys had. Can we do less, and face a mirror?

Lon
The msm may not have underplayed the Lewinsky and Whitewater matters, but they sure changed the focus! Somehow, the Whitewater investigation went from being about what the Clintons did in that transaction to being described as an attack on the Clintons by the 'vast right wing conspiracy'. And the Lewinsky matter turned from Bill Clinton having his way with a White House intern and later suborning her perjury, to being about some sexual witch hunt conducted by Ken Starr.

The stories were covered, but they were rarely covered honestly and factually. The msm spun the terms of the debate and completely changed the stories.

jacques albert
Thanks for explaining. I don’t like chicken hawk taunters. I don’t like taunting. I don’t like the term chicken hawk. I don’t care who went to war and who didn’t. But say, you use real big words like some kind of college guy. I bet you’ve been to college. Around here college = bad. Since [you = college] and [college = bad], do [you = bad]?

To Mach--d'accord!
Mach:

RR had a Democratic Congress to deal with--plus the necessity to provide big entitlements carrots to try to spend the money necessary for sticks to defend the homeland, as you say. So good point, Mach.

By the way, do you still dress your best for reading the Roman historian Titus Livius (Livy) in the evening? I (at least figuratively speaking) do--the ancients will never die--says the laudator temporis acti (praiser of past times and deeds). Thanks again, Mach.

Cheers,

Dr JA

Frivolous Media?
I really doubt that. I believe that the media knows what it is doing and has been on a mission since the 2000 elections. All of their hype is aimed at the so-called “undecided voter”. You know these folks that have no idea how they will vote until they enter the polling place.

So we are now presented with unending polling to keep them, the “undecided voter,” informed. And of course the polling data shows that the Democrats are about to win both the House and the Senate, so Republicans might just as well stay home. The pundits are all over the TV, and I note that all the Democrats know exactly what the Republicans should do or have done, but never have any idea what the Democrats should do.

Please note the current poll on this site. It seems to say if those polled here could vote today, they would vote Republican - 67%, Democrat - 6% and 27% would stay home (undecided so who knows?) It just goes to prove that the polls are only as good as the sample(s) taken.

Great article, keep them coming..

Correct As Usual
It was a mistake for the U.S. to give back all that it had won in WWII. Had we been like the empires before us, we would not be sitting on a global empire, imposing the awful, intolerable rule of the U.S. Constitution on the world.

My discontent with Republicans began with the nonsense over the border. Instead of real conservatives coming out and passing laws granting automatic amnesty to anyone who commits a crime against an illegal, they actually have to *debate* about securing the border. Bush rises to the level of insulting Americans while praising foreign criminals.

Republicans control Congress, but they won't ram through legislation. Such as legislation making it legal for our troops to treat Iraqis and terrorists however is necessary to win the war. Instead, Bush wants to make our troops the *servants* of desert trash, handing said trash democracy on a silver platter.

My discontent with the Republicans is that they are not conservative enough. My frustration is that there's nobody who's really conservative I can turn to. And they know it.

Response to the stay home crowd
To those of you like Lone Wolfy who are upset with Republicans over spending or immigration policy I can understand your frustration and not wanting to reward "bad behavior". However, do you really think that any of these issues will get better under the Democrats? Let's face facts it will just get much worse. Plus the Democrats will cripple the President over the next 2 years with his war effort. As the old saying goes - don't cut off your nose to spite your face.

Also keep in mind that in the 8 years Ronald Reagan was President federal spending nearly doubled. Yet he's hailed as a conservative hero. He understand there were bigger fish to fry - the communists. Today the bigger fish is the terrorists.

To Mike R
Your last alternative reading is correct, paisan--it's called contextual interpretation--intention derived from what has been said earlier--vous y etes?

Dr JA

baseballdr
…Too honest…..Is that possible? I would vote for an honest person… and you would vote for an honest person. ….Does this mean that the majority wants dishonesty……. or does it mean perhaps that this blog of Sowell devotees………… is actually a small minority……………… and the rest of the nation sees………………….Sowell as an aging crank…………………………………honestly………………….…….SHAZAM

media dismissed Lewinsky matter?
Does the charge of media bias really require us to pretend that the media underplayed the Lewinsky matter, or for that matter the whitewater charges etc.?

Frivolous ...
... is the perfect word to describe the Democrats' "issues" in this election, and the "analysis" by their media allies. Thank you, Dr. Sowell.

And, for those who voted Republican, but are thinking of staying home this time (or maybe voting Democrat), a little poem says it all ...

Me and Cy went to the circus.
Cy got hit by a bowling pin.
We're gonna fix that gosh darned circus.
We'll buy a ticket and won't go in!

None of us got all that we wanted from this congress. But, those who stay home are treating voting as an option instead of a citizen's sacred duty. And, those who vote Democrat to express their disapproval are willing to hand control of the Congress to a party with a frivolous agenda in time of war.

jacques albert
I’m not sure I follow your reasoning or your use of certain terms like ‘chicken hawk taunter’. Does that mean:

One who taunts chicken hawks,

A chicken hawk that taunts

Or

One who taunts by using the term chicken hawk?

This would have a great impact on an otherwise tiresome anti-academia comment.

Thanks, Dr. Sowell, comme d'habitude
Here's one war vet and scholar who thinks your criticism spot-on and who's fed up (basta!) with "chickenhawk" taunts coming from left to right (save a few cases). The academic left generally has been faineant and anti-military-- especially since the 60s, when cowardly and craven behaviour tried to dress itself up in "idealist" and "social justice" finery--and has consistently showed itself hostile to reform of its addiction to antinomian social and political causes as well as to slackening its invention of metastasing non-disciplines more political than intellectual (I've listed them on other blogs like ACTA, Frontpage and Critical Mass et alia). But from within the academic "community" a few of us are calling for air and artillery strikes on our own positions, if that's what it takes to root out (extirpate) this vicious anti-military attitude (the OM! . . .Bush=fascist! . . .OM!) in Ivyworld. Remember, you contemptible antinomians, the words of the mighty and wonderfully sarcastic Burke: "Those who destroy everything will certainly remove SOME grievance". . . .Multa cetera desunt. . . .

Cheers for Dr TS, jeers for "committed" academics in general, and sneers for "chickenhawk" taunters,

Dr JA

Sowell in 2008, hmmm, that'll work
Dr Sowell, it most probably has been said, "U ROCK!" (And I must say, you do.)

Sowell in frivolous politics
Normally I decline to engage in "ad hominem" attacks but cannot we agree that those who disagree with Dr. Sowell are brain-dead and need to be parachuted onto Uranus?

I get a big laugh...

...when conservatives come out saying that scandals are frivolous, and we need to look at the issues.

Where were you people when we were spending millions of dollars and thousands of column-inches poring over such critical "issues" as the dismissal of White House travel office staff, the Clintons' money-losing Whitewater land investment, and of course his affair?

.

Sorry, Black Cherokee!
I’ve been screaming (begging, pleading, crying) for Sowell to run for almost twenty years, to no avail. Nevertheless, BC, one more time, with feeling: SOWELL IN ’08!!! Please, Dr. Sowell?

RE: "I mentioned once in this forum that
I would vote for a dem if I could find one." Me too! What ever happened to conservative Democrats? I'll answer my own question: Most of them, especially in the south, have switched to the Republican Party over the past 30 years. As Ronald Reagan famously said, "I didn't leave the Democratic Party - the Democratic Party left me."

BIGbelly
What are you, some kind of commie? Are you saying you’re against profit?

Use some common sense folks
You may teach inept Republican legislators a thing or two, but it the process you will definately reverse the tax cuts,institute gun control, send the message that you liked the roadblocks the dems threw into the reforms attempted, affect the judges that are appointed. If you want the entire judical system to look like the 9th circut go for it. You will send a message that a sleazey congressman should not send nasty stuff over the net, (by the way a much more important question is how he was able to get their emails to track them down). At the same time you will send a message that sexual predation of young people is fine as long as it involves actual sex, preferably in the Oval Office, but no dirty emails.
Instead of punishing the country as a whole for one sleaze ball, work for term limits. Eliminating the need to run for reelection will improve things immensely and there will no longer be a need to compromise to keep an office and power.
Thanks you Dr. Sowell for another great article.

jerubaal...
Good points. The importance of being involved in the primaries cannot be overstated.

hntr admin
The Pentagon, State Department, indeed the whole of government is loaded with leftist sympathizers who can't wait to muck up the works with their drivel. Leaking classified information to treasonous media outlets like the NY TIMES is a good way to do it.

Churchill IS right..!
The simple truth...the Democrats have no issues to fight the republican party with..not the war, because even they, know it must be fought to the end, taxes,and even the immigration thing. So they fall down to smear tactics and the lowest form of slander. Additionally, we will never be forgiven for impeaching Clinton and this is the payback. Dr. Sowell is so right as he borrows a thought from Winston Churchill..."the people will get the government they deserve."

Thank you Dr. Sowell
for your always wise observations and the clarity with which you present them. You surely are the Hemingway of modern journalism.

One frivolous sentiment frequently offered up by the media and politicians is the word "comprehensive" when dealing with the immigration issue. Everybody , but especially liberal democrats, know this is the buzz word used to gum up any proposed legislation having to do with enforcement on the border. So they throw in things like amnesty programs, and civil rights of illegals, and "we can't deport 12 million people" statements simply to overload the burro on the trek up the mountain. They know that this burro will collapse before reaching the top, there will be no legislation, and the democrat's agenda of overloading the polls with illegals, felons, and other non-registrants will continue unabated far into the future.

French Politics
"Weak-kneed members of both parties have been calling for a timetable to be announced for withdrawal from Iraq. No other war in thousands of years of history has ever had such a timetable announced to their enemies. Even if we intended to get out by a given date, there is not the slightest reason to tell the terrorists that. It is frivolous politics at its worst."

The weak-kneed wonders are practicing French politics - arguing over dates of surrender.

I agree with The Black Cherokee - I'd vote for Dr. Sowell.

LAUGHING STOCK
Being engaged in war with the United States has never been so easy for the enemy since the American media has just about been allowed to broadcast a live feed directly from the Pentagon to the front lines of the enemy, making sure that US opponents have the latest up to date US military plans. As Dr. Sowell writes "Weak-kneed members of both parties have been calling for a timetable to be announced for withdrawal from Iraq. No other war in thousands of years of history has ever had such a timetable announced to their enemies" This certainly is irresponsible of politicians to openly discuss these issues, and equally irresponsible for the media to have access to this type of sensitive information. But the question is, who in the he11 in the Pentagon is allowing this type of classified information to find its way to the media in the first place? And why are reporters being allowed to broadcast strategic military positions over the television for the enemy to see? (remember the Geraldo Rivera debacle) Possibly the time has come as a result of irresponsible journalism that the media should now be censored when it comes to reporting war news, and having very limited access to US military personal who are engaged in war time activities. It probably wouldn't be a bad idea for the Pentagon to start closing their doors a little tighter either. Just as the media needs to be restricted, politicians and politics need to be removed from having any involvement in our military war planning, and US military leaders need to be allowed to do the job that they have been trained to do, and fight foreign conflicts with the full strength and power that the United States military is capable of.
Visit http://www.headsneedtoroll.org and post your views, thoughts and opinions.
Heads Need To Roll

Clarity is so refreshing
Ever since I read " A Conflict of Visions" by Mr. Sowell I have respected his opinion, and looked forward to his writings for their clarity and ability to get to the heart of the matter quickly and accurately. This column is another wonderful example of his ability, and accurately demarcates the differences between the political parties [though, as he often does, he refrains from making it a Liberal vs Conservative argument, preferring to leave appellations out]and gives historical perspective to support his views. Good job!

you got me this time
While I am clearly no fan of Sowell, he makes an excellent point and I must agree.

The Black Cherokee: I have been rebuked in the past when I suggested that the veneration of Sowell by his fans borders on worship. Thank you for proving me right.

Good stuff AudiR10
Although I think they would also object if the rope wasn't made of hemp. (Hemp,after all, has 25,000 uses.)

BTW, Bush was unable to stop N.K. from getting the bomb and he won't be able to stop Iran, either. So, in that regard, he's no better than the Dems.

It looks like the future lies with the Chinese and the Muslims. Take your choice.

AN ADULT>>>
>>>HAS SPOKEN!!! Will we listen? It never ceases to amaze me that so much wisdom and so much ability to convey that wisdom could be found in one man (other than our Jesus). I can only re-iterate -- Sowell in '08.

To the crux of the matter
Once again you demonstrate why you deserve the highest accolades. My hat is off to you, sir.

The Logic of Staying Home
for many is that the Republicans must be taught a lesson if the country is ever to have a prayer. But in the middle of a war, in which our soldiers are dying to defend our country from suicide bombers in the homeland, this is not the time to entrust their lives to the Democrats. in order to make a point. Staying at home is a decision to turn your back on America's best.

It would be like tank crews deserting their posts in Europe in WWII to protest the shoddy make of the Sherman tank. Yeah, that'll teach em alright, but at what cost?

This is exactly
what my latest blog entry is about. Well, not really. Actually, it has nothing to do with it. Nevermind.

Failure to Do Anything But
vote for the Republicans is equal to voting for the worst possible outcome - the Democrats. We're talking about a party led by a man who thought the way to deal with Iran was to put pressure on the Soviet Union - during his 2004 presidential campaign. A man who left his church over a bike path.

Indeed, either vote Republican or you are already frivolous.

The time to voice your objections against Republican spending was in the primary; the time to to choose your weapon was before the fight. But now we're stuck with the arms we chose, and we have to fight with what we have, or surrender to the Democrats.

Nothing could be more humiliating; surrendering your vote to the party of Kerry is just like surrendering America to the French. Don't be worse than a cheese-eating surrender monkey if you ever once had the testicular and mental fortitude to call yourself a Republican.

Frivolous or useless?
Every two years conservative writers tell those of us who have voted Republican in the past to “get out the vote”. We are warned that if we let the Democrats get in, dire things will happen. We are told if we don’t like the stink coming from the Republican tent to just hold our noses because it will be much worse if the Democrats get in.

The dire predictions are only based on fear and the liberal delusion that we control the universe. Our nation is not going in the toilet because of the threat of Islam or any foreign threat. Just visit myspace and you will see what we have done to our children and what is important to them. The secular jihadists have already won.

If there were more politicians like Tom Coburn (senator OK), there might be hope for our country. However, these men (who would occasionally constitute a majority), are disappearing faster that you can say knee-jerk liberal.

At some point the number of good men diminishes to a level where God brings retribution. Gen 18:32 And he said, Oh, let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak again only this once. Suppose ten [righteous people] shall be found there. And [the Lord] said, I will not destroy it for ten's sake.

It is interesting that we came to this point in our history by deciding that Jesus was useless and frivolous. Now that we are reaping what we have sown, maybe we should reconsider the value of secularism. Our future in not assured by political victory, it is assured by faithfulness to Him who paid for our sins.

Frivolous non-issues
90% of what the teenagers running the show are obsessed with could be filed under "frivolous non-issue". Can you just imagine some of these obsessive brats sitting in a concentration camp demanding to know if the crust of bread they were thrown contains trans-fats or was made from organically grown grain? Can you see them chastizing the firing squad for offering them a last cigarette? Do you sense the overwhelming relief felt by the prison guards as they club these people into insensibility?

But they do have one consolation as they die under the boot of the much more focused and serious enemy: to the very end, they will have their sexual organs and those of others. They may lose everything else that makes life worth living, but they'll be clutching their wee-wees as they die.

They say nothing concentrates the mind like the prospect of being hanged in the morning. I am of the gloomy opinion that the current generation of politicians will ask indignantly if the rope was made by oppressed minorities in sweatshops, and that it will be a positive pleasure to see them swinging at the end of those politically incorrect nooses.

brilliant article
Thanks for another great, succinct article. And although I agree that government spending is way out of control the most serious issue right now is our national security, especially in light of the recent nuclear testing in North Korea. I wonder how long it will take before the Dems in Congress realize that Foley is an irrelevant non-issue.

Those who ignore history . . .
The liberal media and their willing handmaidens in the Democratic party (or is that the other way around?) have compared Iraq to Vietnam. And in some ways they are right. We have an administration more anxious to win the approval of the media and foreigners than to win the war. War is violent, messy and ugly. Properly executed, it is much more violent, messy and ugly than Iraq has been. Properly executed, it is also shorter. The real lesson we should have learned from Vietnam is that allowing a bunch of leftist anarchists to determine policy and war planning results in abject failure on the war front; and the U.S. abandoning the field, whether to communism or Islamic extremism, will result in the torturous death of millions and the misery of millions more.

Dr. Sowell is right - you can be serious or you can be frivolous. The frivolous may seem popular and may be the path of least resistance and the leftists may have nothing but the best intentions. But the road to he11 is paved with good intentions.

It is good to point out those things
about WWII. People forget or never knew that even THAT war was not "popular" - war never is, it just has to be finished. "When it's over - over there."

Even Cal Thomas and others are writting now that THIS is the crux of this election - the war, and finishing it.

I mentioned once on this forum that I would vote for a Dem - IF I could find a good one. Well, folks, I have searched high and low and NOT FOUND a good one to vote for this election. There are none. Not running.

I would love to vote Constitutionalist or even Libertarian, but am seriously concerned that action only 'throws my vote away.'

I also HATE our TWO party system - but then look at the alternatives in other countries, and am appalled by the chaos of them. So, I will stay a Conservative Republican.

Thomas Sowell...
Oh and by the way, this was yet another brilliant article reflecting the brilliant mind behind it. Thanks again, Mr. Sowell for yet another thoughtful article ... full of wisdom and knowledge.

Thomas Sowell...
Oh and by the way, this was yet another brilliant article reflecting the brilliant mind behind it. Thanks again, Mr. Sowell for yet another thoughtful article ... full of wisdom and knowledge.

machiavelli
I respectfully disagree with you.

When the Republicans lose one or both houses this election cycle...

...let it be known that they lost because of the serious issue of spending. Period.

Hopefully, in 2008, they will have learned that lesson and are prepared to fulfill their 1994 "contract" to reign in government spending.

Serious voters
There may be a frivolous media and frivolous politics, but the American people have been serious. Voters have voted against frivolousness in 2002 and 2004 (a referendum on the war in Iraq) each time the serious polticians won. I don't believe for a second that 2006 is going to turn out any different. So let the media and the Democrats talk about Foley, Cindy Sheehan, Joe Wilson, Paris Hilton or whomever else they want to waste time talking about. The majority of the American people are not phased by this non-sense. When their in the voters both there not going to be thinking about Foley's IMs to a page, but who can they trust to protect this country.

Until the Democrats come up with some ideas besides "Bush Lied Kids Died" it's going to be another victory for Republicans in November. :)

Brilliant as usual!
Your column title describes perfectly what occurs daily on this forum with the Liberals continual agenda to 'Get Bush.' If they think at all about the next generation, it is to leave them a depraved, bottom feeding Socialist culture.

T. Sowell


"You may deserve whatever you get if you vote frivolously in this year's election. But surely the next generation, which has no vote, deserves better."

What else needs to be said?

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.