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
Friday, October 13, 2006
Thomas Sowell :: Townhall.com Columnist
Frivolous politics: Part IV
by Thomas Sowell
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


Choosing candidates to vote for at election time is not like choosing a buddy or choosing some sports or entertainment figure to idolize. Nor is it a verdict on someone's qualities as a human being.

Theodore Roosevelt was a very honorable man with high intelligence and high ideals but he did much harm and the country would probably have been better off if he had never been President. The same could be said of Herbert Hoover.

It is not necessary to denigrate individuals in order to criticize their policies. Unfortunately, there are too many voters -- in both parties -- who act as if choosing whom to vote for is like choosing sides to cheer or boo at a sports event.

But elections in an age of international terrorism and with the shadow of a nuclear Iran looming ahead are much too serious for self-indulgence in idolizing or demonizing individuals.

Some Republican voters are apparently thinking of staying home on election day because they certainly have no one in their party to idolize and the Democrats haven't had enough power to do anything to be demonized for.

Democrats of course have plenty of Republicans in power to demonize, starting with the President and the Secretary of Defense. It is doubtful whether anyone has ever filled either of those jobs without making mistakes but serious proposals for alternative policies would be more adult than demonizing Bush and Rumsfeld.

So many people have pointed out that Democrats offer no alternative policies that this can no longer be just an oversight on the Democrats' part.

It is a calculated strategy, assuming that continuous second-guessing and denunciation of the Bush administration will undermine the Republicans enough in the eyes of the public to win the Democrats enough votes to take control of the House of Representatives this year and control of the White House in 2008.

Every opportunity for in-your-face obstructionism has been seized, whether the issue was serious or trivial.

The mere formality of counting the electoral college votes from the 2004 election in the House of Representatives was held up for hours by Democrats, even though they knew they had no chance to prevent Bush from being declared the winner. And since he was already President, this did not postpone his powers for a second.

Similarly, the confirmation of Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State was held up after Colin Powell was gone and she was already the President's principal adviser on foreign policy.

In other words, nothing substantive was at stake. It was the frivolous politics of obstruction once again, playing to the grandstand.

The current round-the-clock rhetorical orgies about Congressman Foley's sex notes to Congressional pages are more of the same frivolous playing to the grandstand. Foley is gone, as he should be, and if laws were broken, that is what cops and courts are for. But none of that solves any of this nation's problems, at home or abroad.

If you think political spin and political gamesmanship are the answers to this country's problems, then vote for the Democrats.

Some leading Democrats have already announced that they plan to impeach President Bush if they get control of the House of Representatives. In other words, in the middle of a war, they are prepared to bog down the administration in domestic political and legal hassles, putting the winning of the White House in 2008 ahead of winning the war on terrorism.

There was a time when we all understood that, whatever we might think of a President, we still had only one President at a time and that wholesale obstruction and undermining of him was obstruction and undermining of the United States in the face of its enemies.

Shrill obstructionist House minority leader Nancy Pelosi obviously does not share that view -- and if Congressional Democrats win this election, she will become Speaker of the House.

If Democrats win the Senate as well, then they will have the power to not only impeach the President and Vice President, but also the power to remove them from office. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would then become President Nancy Pelosi.

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
1st
Ha ha, I'm first.

1st
Hey FOWG, he who laughs LAST laughs best ;D
Taproot

Pelosi?
I wonder if Pelosi would surrender to Korea or Iran?

Taproot
Yes, but in descending column order, as I read this site, FOWG will always be last!

I don't think the Democrats will win big this season. In every previous election since I've had the right to vote, the Democrats have done worse, not better. Red State America has expanded to about 3 dozen states.

I hope Ann Coulter is wrong and I'm right.

All I can really do is pray. And vote, of course.

It's not just the voters, Tom
Sowell: >>>"Unfortunately, there are too many voters -- in both parties -- who act as if choosing whom to vote for is like choosing sides to cheer or boo at a sports event."

It's not just voters, Tom. Read the email list of "conservative" columns today at TownHall.com. Issues or personalities?

Partisan politics has become an insider game, with a shrinking number of players, on two shrieking teams, playing to an increasingly empty stadium. Winning is no longer necessary -- it's about hating (and beating) the other guy -- which sounds like the death rattle (let's hope) of two-party politics,

The Dems will never impeach Bush -- because Cheney would be even worse, and the risk is too great.

So, like all the rest, Sowell (with admittedly more subtlety) is using the threat of Pelosi as President to "energize the base."

Sorry, Tom. Game over.

Nobody's perfect. But the test of a man -- and of a party -- comes when the chips are down.

The chips are down. The GOP needed to energize it's base ... and cannot ... does not even know how to any more.

Read Novak's column Thursday, on the great GOP porkfest in the military bill.

I suspect everyone reading this knows a simple truth: The GOP COULD have energized its base .. even at this late date ... by FINALLY pulling its collective nose out of the trough, and aggressively (and loudly) cutting all that pork.

But they've simply lost their will.

So, you're wrong Tom, when you state the reasons so many of us will stay home in November -- or vote a third party.

Most of us will stay home ... simply to show the basta**ds we cannot be bought.

They left us no choice.

And don't you DARE blame US if Nancy Pelosi gains in power. That's like blaming the Jews for the holocaust. We're victims too.

to My Opine:
Yes.

Anti-Partisan Righty
Apparently the only issue that concerns you is spending, which admittedly has been a GOP failure. Punishing the GOP for acting like politicians may have some pleasant aspects to it, but ignores the larger picture. Anyone can be a single issue voter, it's certainly easier than addressing a large number of issues before making a decision.
But based on the stances of the two politcal parties that actually have a chance of running the government (history teaches us third parties do not), deciding who is better and thus worthy of our vote must be based on the whole picture of each party.
And don't think for a moment that GOP losers are going to blame their spending, considering that the voters will be replacing them with Pols who are tradtionally bigger spenders. The lesson taken may well be that they didn't spend enough, not your goal for third party/not voting.
My personal take is that the GOP is better on business, judges, taxes and defense, which makes them my choice.

Don't make the big mistake
of just staying home. There is an alternative.

Think about this carefully. On Nov. 7, you can go to the polls and vote Libertarian or Independent. Or just vote on the minor things on the ballot and don't cast a vote for your incumbent or the Dimmocrat.

A ballot like that will be much MUCH more meaningful than just staying home.

And while you're at it. Call or email or FAX your reps and LET THEM KNOW what you are doing and WHY. Otherwise, they may assume all the wrong things.

IT'S ALL THEY HAVE TO OFFER
That's why the jackasses are always trying to stall progress, IE Senator Ted Kennedy, times change and so should politicians. The current political situation could be remedied and avoided in the future with new laws that place term limits on all government positions, including the pompous judges that currently fill our courts.

Visitwww.headsneedtoroll.org and post your views, thoughts and opinions.
Heads Need To Roll

Reread Article 1 Section 3
Mr Sowell,
I agree with your column except one error of fact. The Constitution that I am sworn to defend says that in impeachment trials by the Senate "no Person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present." That is why President Johnson stayed in office despite a 35-19 vote in 1868. I doubt the Democrats will muster 67 seats in January.

Adult? More ADULT?
"It is doubtful whether anyone has ever filled either of those jobs without making mistakes but serious proposals for alternative policies would be more ADULT than demonizing Bush and Rumsfeld."

Sorry, Dr. Sowell, the adults have long ago left the building. Remember the people who cluttered up and obstructed your attempt to get a University education -- and maybe you, like I, carried the flag for generations that didn't even get to finish high school -- by screaming from soapboxes, beseiging the buildings, poking signs in your face and urinating in the President's wastebasket? These are the people that want to be in charge.

Those who spent their University years sniffing each other's underwear want to spend the next four years, or however long they get until the next domestic terror strike, sniffing each other's underwear and running that underwear up the flag pole.

Those who spent the Original Sixties screaming "Peace! Love! Dope!" and who now are pretending to Wax Indignant about the people who marched beside them now selling dope to their children and writing them smutty e-mails, want to spend the next four years trying to make you believe that one can simultaneously deny you the right to keep homosexuals from becoming Boy Scout leaders AND scream indignantly when those Boy Scout Leaders write your sons smutty e-mails. And all this while the real enemy is strolling into your daycare centre with the latest fashion in exploding underwear that nobody bothered to sniff....

This bunch of Perennial Teenagers based their fevered dream of Nirvana when they Got To Be In Charge on the fantasy that, just like their University days, Mom and Dad would continue to pay while they marched, streaked, trashed and screamed their way through the world.

Mom and Dad apparently have gone to Galt's Gulch and the only people left are the teenagers -- both those who tried to obtain an education and move on to productive work, and those whose duty was to obstruct them.

You can't vote for adults. There aren't any. But remember what University was like for you and vote for the teenagers that remembered why they were there.

Dr.Sowell
With all these well written articles, I'm thinking...... Maybe Newt Gingrich for the Republican nominee ??? he seems to be someone with strong convictions and the Real conservative agenda. O.K., Now let me hear from all you readers out there.

Pelosi as President?
Win or lose, I don't think we have to worry about President Pelosi. As I recollect the Constitution requires 3/4 for the Senate to impeach a president. I do not believe that there are enough Senate seats up for grabs to make this feasible. But the thought of Pelosi as Speaker is more than scary enough.

Hate to admit it but
I agree more than disagree with Anti-partisan this morning.

A Republican pollster called me recently and said, "We have to unite"; when I asked him, "Unite in what?" he could not give me an answer.

Like Anti Part. says, "(They don't) even know how to anymore."

Talking to your Democratic Representativ
I emailed my Democratic representative to castigate him for his many No votes on bills before the House protecting property rights, etc. In each email, I told him that his NO vote was why I would not be voting for him this November. I told him that he certainly knew how to vote the Democratic party line. This guy was a judge in North Carolina before he went to the House and he still voted against the bill that would squelch the Kelo decision. Anyway, I also complained that I never received a response from him no matter how many times I emailed him, while I always received a personalized response from my two Republic senators. So, I finally got a response from Butterfield. He printed out my emails (which were sent from the Military.com legislative center, because I am retired Air Force), and sent a letter that asked me to explain why I was so against him. My jaw dropped. Since when did I need to explain to a judge that voting for anti-constitutional laws in the name of party loyalty was wrong? Democrats are clueless. Anyone who professes to be a Republican and has a temper tantrum and votes for these clowns will get, in the words of Thomas Jefferson, "The government they deserve". However, that means the rest of us will get it too. And I don't want to live in a country where Reid and Pelosi Rangel Franks Hitlary et al can talk even more than they already do. So, Republicans, pull up your socks and do the right thing. Vote Republican, and start communicating with your elected member. On a regular basis. The squeaky wheel gets the grease.

impeachment
Democrats in the House only need a majority to impeach, the Senate needs 2/3 of its members to remove from office. Nevertheless, impeachment by the House serves as an embarassing form of censure aimed at the President (remember, Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were both impeached, but not removed).

A common bit of confusion, but you need to get this right to seriously discuss the consequences.

bennyboy
As much as I tend to agree with Gingrich's rhetoric, his actual behavior leaves much to be desired. For one, his past is almost as full of unethical behavior as Bill Clinton's.

Past presidents
You mentioned T. Roosevelt an Truman, you neglected to mention FDR. He started us out on the road to socialism. He made us all enemies of the state and actually suspended the constitution. (this site has the information taken from the congressional library - http://home.bellsouth.net/p/pwp-luv2gov

He is why we have so many regulatory codes and need all the bureaucratic paper work just to have a small business.
Voting? We need an ID to see a doctor, fly on a plane, cash a check, apply for a job, rent an apartment yet we won't allow laws passed to allow an ID to vote!

I hope everybody
rereads the final paragraph of Sowell's epistle where he posits the real posssibility of the dems winning both chambers where then, after both Bush and Cheney are impeached, Speaker of the House Pelosi (gasp!)becomes President of the U.S.

That's more terrifying than when as a young lad watching "Chainsaw Massacre" in a seedy urban movie theatre, some bozo came running down the isle with a real one at full throttle, and I bolted from the theatre.

Sowell demonstrates how the dems covet power. Like some sweaty-palmed, lip-licking pervert slouched in a dark corner, they're waiting to pounce. And it ain't gonna be pretty. You'll have not only Pelosi, but Charley Rangel, John Conyers, and Barnie Frank all packin' chainsaws chopping away at each of the programs that placed impediments in their vision of a secular-progressive (O'Reilly's words), socialistic society.

I've already voted absentee in my home state of Florida. There was not a dem on the ballot for any office that I could hold my nose and vote for. I hope y'all vote the same in November.

President Pelosi?
The horror, the horror . . .

Look at the bright side.
If the Democrats DO gain the majority (though I still doubt they will), they will then have to discover some policies. They can't just continue to scream "WE HATE REPUBLICANS!"

Unfortunately for Democrats, and fortunately for this country, the Democrats have shown no sign of their ability to concoct anything remotely resembling a policy. In other words, any majority they get will be very short-lived.

Jersey Devil
Jersey Devil writes: Friday, October, 13, 2006 7:07 AM

>>>"Anti-Partisan Righty
Apparently the only issue that concerns you is spending, which admittedly has been a GOP failure."

Tht would be very convenient for your argument --- but actually a pretty dumb assumption by you.

But don't worry: unlike yourself, I won't judge your entire political philosophy by a single posting.

>>>"Punishing the GOP for acting like politicians may have some pleasant aspects to it, but ignores the larger picture. Anyone can be a single issue voter, it's certainly easier than addressing a large number of issues before making a decision."

Then again .. the further I read, the funnier this gets.

>>>>"But based on the stances of the two politcal parties that actually have a chance of running the government (history teaches us third parties do not), deciding who is better and thus worthy of our vote must be based on the whole picture of each party."

NOW YOU'RE TALKING!

THEY'RE BOTH KINDA USELESS.

LEMME SEE IF I GET YOUR POINT.

IF I LIVED IN 1930s GERMANY, THEN I SHOULD SUPPORT THE ELECTED VICE-CHANCELLOR -- AFTER HE BURNED THE REICHSTAG -- BECAUSE HE'S THE ONLY ONE WITH A "REALISTIC CHANCE" OF ACTUALLY GOVERNING.

Thank you for playing.

There's your sign.

(Think this bozo even got the point?)




NHsoldier
NHsoldier writes: Friday, October, 13, 2006 7:22 AM
"Mr Sowell,
I agree with your column except one error of fact. The Constitution that I am sworn to defend says that in impeachment trials by the Senate "no Person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present."

Blessed are those few with literacy.

But I was saving that for this afternoon. You're ruining my fun. :-)



To bennyboy re Gingrich
Mr. Newt is one of the few sources of "new idea" thinking these days (some good, some not as good) and would definitely shake things up in DC.
I see that as a positive thing.

However, I suspect that his negatives are as high as Madam Clinton, so he would be starting from a disadvantaged point, and is probably unelectable.

P.S.
Re the impeachment threat...do we really believe that the Dems would like to have a President Cheney? And if if they went after both the Prez and the VP, I can't imagine it being accomplished in their two years time left in office.

Bipsy
Bipsy Quee writes: Friday, October, 13, 2006 8:20 AM

>>>"Hate to admit it but I agree more than disagree with Anti-partisan this morning."

Thanks. I appreciate that.


>>>"A Republican pollster called me recently and said, "We have to unite"; when I asked him, "Unite in what?" he could not give me an answer. "

Can I quote you? :-)

(I will anyhow)

>>>"Like Anti Part. says, "(They don't) even know how to anymore."

Did you ever see me write that my first presidential vote was for Goldwater? -- who helped found something that no longer exists.

Do you understand why Bill Buckley -- yet another founder -- has been ripping Dubya to shreds until recently?

I think you do. And I credit Novak for tipping the scales for a lot of people.

Even funnier ... I think Sowell's column just may have the opposite effect from what he intended.

Yes, we Goldwater voters know that it was Tom Sowell with Milton Friedman, back during the very late 1950s, in the original "Free To Choose" PBS special.

Milton and Barry knew enough to keep Principles above Party.

For those knee-jerk Republicans who don't get it (or anything) ... we need to punish the neo-con/liberals, drive them out from the GOP leadership.

(Even this atheist sees the analogy with Christ driving the money-changers from the temple.)

Do it NOW my friends ... THIS YEAR ... the "message" you're sending .... Duh ... is to a better Presidential candidate in 2008.

Tell him or her you're waiting. Then go out and rebuild the party.

--------

P.S. Anyone recall the 1992 election? George Will wrote a brilliant column (to me, his only one), trying to reduce Perot's protest vote with a write-in vote for someone else.

Will said a message had to be sent -- but Perot was the wrong message, to the wrong audience.

A message should be sent to the GOP. But the message should be ... Jack Kemp.

(The Jack Kemp of 1992)

No Kemp this time .... send that message to the neo-cons and hope one arises.


P.S.

OF COURSE I wrote in Kemp!



A Contest!

Let's try this.

How to send a message this year, the right message, with a write-in.

State the name, and your argument.

I say "Ronald Reagan" -- needs no argument.

(In most juridictions, you need to plug in your local paper, to watch and report your write-in campaign -- a better use of your time for the next few weeks than sparring on TownHall.)

(I'm inviting Will to follow this page.)


more comments...
CDR Will... When faxing/emailing your reps, it wouldn't hurt to copy party and congressional leadership as well. They have as much or more to lose than your local representative if you "go off the reservation".

thelgd... He mentioned TR and Hoover, probably because they were not democrats to make the point. They were both certainly honorable and smart and had the best of intentions. Yet they both did things as president that ultimately harmed the country. FDR and most of the other 20th century Dems certainly did harm, but there is some doubt as to the question of their honor and ideals.

JohnL... the next presidential election ought to be interesting. I'm not sure there is any prominent person out there who would have the support of a majority of Americans today. Moderates are only going to get a fraction of their own party and precious few of the opposition party. Those who are more in line with their party's true ideology are going to have trouble getting moderates to agree with them and and are going to enrage the opposition party. Unfortunately, politics has become a beauty show with 30 second soundbites and news has become discovery of personal flaws or gaffs made by celebrities, including politically powerful and political wannabes. And in spite of (or perhaps because of) election finance reform, there is more money than ever and it is not apparent where it is coming from.

Yes
This series by Sowell is working hard on a very important situation. I too especially liked the first part of this installment. It reminds me of the Sowell of 20 years ago. Though many have said already, it can’t be said enough; vote and contact your representatives. And don’t worry about Pelosi. There is no way she can be elected President. Hillary Clinton is another matter. Never underestimate her skills or thirst for power.

rightly said
One of the more tamer dialogues of comments. Still after reading some other threads, Sowell's comment could apply to those commenting:

It is not necessary to denigrate individuals in order to criticize their policies.

FeedFwd

Has EVERYONE forgot "the Reagan Lesson"??


FeedFwd writes: Friday, October, 13, 2006 11:20 AM

(regarding next Presidential race)

>>>"Moderates are only going to get a fraction of their own party and precious few of the opposition party. Those who are more in line with their party's true ideology are going to have trouble getting moderates to agree with them and and are going to enrage the opposition party."

Hello? Reagan got elected on a promised THIRTY PERCENT TAX CUT -- actually delivered 27% (for a few years).

In that same election, Libertarians reached their high-water mark, despite a MUCH smaller party, by promising a FIFTY PERCENT tax cut (military spending was the only major difference).

And, of course, the Reagan Democrats.

It ain't about being moderate -- it's about framing the issues properly.

Go back and learn how it's done.


Ooops ...

Clarify -- that's NOT the so-called "big tent Republicans" -- who never managed to create one.

Reagan created a big tent, without even trying, entirely on principle.

One big lesson.

The Libertarian made Reagan appear moderate ... and Reagan was libertarian enough to grant legitimacy to the Libertarians.

It was the finest era for limited government .. which says that the GOP's libertarian wing has been FAR more successful than the social conservatives.

And neo-conservatism/liberalism/imperialim has been the LEAST successful ... just compare 1994 with 2006.

Reality bites.


I just do not understand
....how anyone thinks things will improve with the Dems in charge. We have totally lost our focus as it is in what our country once was. The best way to get rid of the Republican politicians we don't like is to elect someone else during primaries and of course really fight for term limits.

To Anti-Partisan Righty
I really enjoyed your flaming me, it immediately proved my point. Your reasoning was "flawed", and the ad hominum attack was all I needed to start feeling better about:
My choices
Your incapacity to discuss ideas
I am also a Reagan Republican, and his guiding principle was to face down the Soviet Union. His critics (liberals and Democrats) claimed we would end up at war with the communists, but Reagan realized we already were at war with them and we had to win.
Now we are at war with Islam, and again the Democrats want to hide from the fight.
Love him or hate him, at least Bush knows who the enemy is.

i agree with Righty
Kemp would be fantastic...probably not going to happen though.

From his radio program, Bill Bennett apparently knows him personally, said he has no intentions of ever running.

Impeachment
Unfortunately, winning an impeachment is not the goal of the Demon-crats, although they would like that outcome too! Their goal is to cripple Bush's ability to fight the war on Islamofacists, deal with N. Korea, China, France and any other ant-American entity that needs attention. They simply want to obstruct everything hoping against hope to find a candidate in '08 that they can get elected by pulling even more wool over the eyes of gullible citizens that don't even know who Pelosi or Hastert are! Notice: a poll I saw yesterday stated that 43% don't know who Pelosi is and 44% don't know who Hastert is. "Fat and stupid is no way to go through life." Unfortunately, too many in this country have become complacent with the comforts of life and simply want to keep their heads firmly in the sand as long as they don't have to think about it.

to Aunty-Partisan Righty
Two other points just occurred:
Will you be happier with the Democrats running the show?
Would you be as rude in person, knowing it might not just be electrons coming back at you?

I doubt it in both cases.

Why limit ourselves to just 2 choices?
I keep reading comments that compare the Democrats and the Republicans insofar as their platforms as though they are the only choices we voters have. Why do we constantly limit ourselves to these two parties when there are other parties in existence known derisively as "Third Parties"? By limiting our vote to ONLY the Republican or Democrat candidates, we are limiting our voice in directing the course of the nation.

Early in our nation's history the Whig Party was considered one of our nation's "heavy-weights". In the mid-1800s, once Americans decided that the Whig Party had lost its relevence, it "fell off the radar screen" and ceased to exist. Why did this occur? Because Americans decided not to vote for Whig Party candidates anymore.

At this point in time, we are faced with two gargantuan political parties--both of which are essentially socialist in nature--whose primary goal is perpetuating themselves by refusing to acknowledge the bounds placed on their powers by the U.S. Constitution. If Americans are happy being ruled by a Leviathan imperial government, "aggressive abroad, and oppressive at home" in the words of George Washington, and essentially unconcerned with the voices of the citizens, then we can continue to vote each election cycle for "the lesser of two evils" and keep the Republicans and the Democrats in power.

On the other hand, we can choose to either a) withdraw from the voting process and allow whatever will be to be, or we can b) throw our support behind candidates/parties who are neither Republican nor Democrat but rather see eye-to-eye with our personal political philosophies, and withhold our vote from the unresponsive Big Government "professional politicians".

Personally, I have been a registered Republican since 1964, but this year I withdrew my consent from the Republican Party and have registered as a member of the Constitution Party. Sure, people say my candidates have no chances of winning, but they do have a chance if enough of us voters refuse to accept the business-as-usual approach to American politics.

The catch is that the "Republi-crats" can pull enough levers to keep Third Party candidates off the ballot in some states. Is this what the Founding Fathers had in mind for our Republic? I doubt it. But look what happened when the Reform Party came out of nowhere to accumulate 18% of the vote with its candidate Ross Perot. I must admit that I didn't vote for him, but I doubt many Americans thought Perot would accumulate 18% of the vote. I voted for the Republican candidate ONLY because I wanted the Democrat candidate to lose!

We The People can still make surprising changes in the political landscape when we "flex our muscles", but we have to stop thinking "inside the box" of the two party system and start looking at the alternatives. Then we have to support that alternative with our vote.

Anti...
I don't entirely disagree with you. We are reaching the point that Toqueville and others have observed where most of the people are paying no taxes or are deluded into believeing they aren't. Tax cuts are important to the ones paying the taxes, but if they aren't a majority of the voting population, how are they going to make it an issue. That is the consequence, intended or not, of a progressive income tax. Reagan was successful because tax rates were higer, buit more importantly, because a greater percentage of voters payed them. How many dead, illegal and ignorant "motor voters" are going to sweat tax rates and tax cuts. Withholding, another abomination has resulted in some people believeing they are getting less from the government than they used to get because since their tax rate is lower, they get a smaller refund. Go figure. The crazies are running the asylum and the unqualified are being allowed to vote.

Furthermore, I personally despise most moderates. They fulfill the old adage that if you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything. Thankfully, in my state and my congressional district, the choices are clear and I don't face the moral dilemma that many of you do. I will be voting libertarian or independent for governor and pretty much republican for most other races.

I'm sorry
Not to get off topic, but after reading Mr. Sowell's fine article and quite a few of the posts on here I had a sudden mental image. The image consisted of the dems as Gollum. Always pining after it's lost precious and scheming how to get it back. That would, of course, make the reps Frodo. Which also seems apropos except for one thing: There isn't going to be any Gandalf coming to save their arses so they better figure out what the correct course of action is all on their own. It would help immensely if the rep leadership would start reading and heeding some of the more astute columnists here at TH.

downhill
This column started well with the importance of holding elections on issues rather than likability, but it went downhill pretty quickly from there. The nadir was the patently false claim that some democratic leaders planned to impeach the president. Some democrats have talked about holding hearings on different issues. It is not clear that they mean to hold as many as the republicans held during the Clinton years. But the claim that there is an announced plan to impeach Bush is just nonsense.

Voter ID
Thelgd
You are being mean to Democrats.
You want to deny their pets the right to vote.
You want to deny their dead relatives their rights to vote.
You want to deny Democrats the right to stuff ballot boxes. You are just being mean!
You probably even want to deny non citizens their right to vote in our elections.

Jersey Devil?
Go Flyers!

Reality bites, we have two choices
We have only two choices, the Republican candidate or the Democratic candidate. We can make our protest votes for the third or fourth party candidates, but that is just tossing our vote away. I would love to see three or four viable parties in this country, and until we see major splits in the two major parties, thus forming the nucleus for new parties, we'll be stuck with the Demopublican crowd.

I can't see "sending a message" other than via email to my representative and senators. Refusing to vote, or not voting for the congressman, and/or senator but voting for all else sounds more like abdication to me.

The greatest incentive to me is not a promise of fiscal constraint, or limited government, although I would find that very enticing, but to do my utmost to prevent Nancy Pelosi and the liberal Democrats from surrendering in our war on terrorism.

MyOpine
You are SOOOO right. Voter ID would not allow Democrats to vote...FRAUDULENTLY. Voter fraud is rampant in this country. You need an ID to rent a video, to get a driver's license, to collect government aid, to write a check at a store, for almost everything we do in public life, but VOTE? You're being racist!! What?

Democrats have been cheating in elections for DECADES. The Republicans need to get some stones and pass voter ID laws. Then the country will see how RAMPANT fraud has been on the D side for years.

Very odd
Very odd indeed when one can be so certain of the corruptions of an adversary yet think it impossible for an ally. My understanding of history has revealed election fraud and corruption since the first election when our hallowed forefathers started the whole process. That leads me to believe that it is integral to human nature and politics.

But life is full of odd things. This all important vote is open 18 year olds, but not beer. You can be fighting for you country in Iraq, but you can’t buy a beer. You can get married or sign a binding contract launching yourself into a life time of debt, but you can’t buy a beer. Yes, you can vote for one fool or another, but you’ll be arrested for drinking that beer.

PS speaking of beer, a false ID was easy to obtain so I could buy some; but a false signature? I could never pull that one off and I have to sigh when I vote.

Kemp?!
You gotta be kidding.

For the record, Anti-part, I never vote FOR the Republican candidate; I always vote AGAINST the Democrat candidate. (Except once when I voted against Olympia Snowe in my home state. ;P)

Impeach President Bush?
I doubt the Democrats have the votes to successfully remove President Bush should they take over the House in Nov.
Anybody can impeach,but not remove.It is too difficult and therefore rare.

Anyway,the voters decide in the end.If they don't approve of frivolous charges and impeachment hearings,then they have another choice coming up in 2008.Voters can record and remember the congressmen who supported impeachment and remove them from office.It is that simple.

It ALL boils down to the will of the people,not the media's spin or any particular politician or party position.

A security officer(unarmed) with First Response,Inc.of Beaverton,Oregon named BAKER used to argue on-site all night for months this last Winter about cabals,conspiracies,and media control of the voter's minds.(Dave Folio the owner,not surprisingly,refused to authorize Baker to obtain an armed license).His decision was not a conspiracy,rather a choice.We all make choices where we will work or what we will continue to do,and how we vote.

Nearly everything which has to do with government is driven by some kind of conspiracy,according to Security Officer Baker.(Does this speak to the intelligence of security officers in general?).It was Baker's knee-JERK response to explain any and all current events.

Such people STUBBORNLY argue the same claptrap because it frees their pea-brains from having to analyze facts for alternative explanations.

Fact is people,not the media,are fully and completely responsible for all their choices and what/who they want to believe or disbelieve.Everybody in America has a choice.Security Officer Baker chose to be a stubborn mule.However,such choices don't mean any kind of conspiracy is occurring.


Not silly political choices
I haven't read much about David Scondras: A Democratic former city councilman was arrested in a sting for soliciting sex from someone who he thought was 15 years old. The Republicans are getting beat up about the page scandal, but I'm not hearing much about a 60 year old man saying that 'prejudice exists against men who like to have sex with young boys.' This comes from police taperecording. Anyway I think this story has legs and ought to be explored.

Show Them And Stay Home ?
Pelosi and the Dems are owned by the far left and Soros. And so far left they have become socialists, or worse.

Let’s “fix” the feeding trough Republicans and stay home or vote for the Dems who never visit that trough, right? Yep. We’ll fix the Republicans! In the process, we can all kiss America and our own azzes good bye!

As for me, i’ll vote for a lousy, greedy Republican over a sleazy socialist Democrat every day.

Newt for President?
I would love to support him for president! But he has 0 chance of winning unfortunately. He would get clobbered in the general election. If Dick Morris is right then Condi Rice will announce her canidacy late in the game, when the GOP realizes she's the only who can beat Hilliary. But it's all wild speculation at this point. And Morris seems to backing off that prediction despite his Book "Hillary vs. Condi"

Marion

Good question ....

Marion writes: Friday, October, 13, 2006 12:45 PM
>>>>"I just do not understand ...how anyone thinks things will improve with the Dems in charge."

A possible misunderstanding -- Nobody but Democrats (and independent lefties) believes things will get any better, IMO.

I suspect it's varying degrees of -- in the short term, it can hardly get MUCH worse.

>>>>>"We have totally lost our focus as it is in what our country once was."

Yep.

>>>>"The best way to get rid of the Republican politicians we don't like is to elect someone else during primaries and of course really fight for term limits."

Actually, Republicans have been the biggest abusers of term limits ... most on timing and location, but still part of the overall Washington corruption.

I lived in Washington State when term Limits passed at the state level. Remember the Republican who finally ousted former Dem House Speaker Tom Foley?

It was George Nethercutt, during the 1994 sweep, who --- like so many Republicans that year pledged to serve no more than two or three terms. Then, also like so many Republicans, Neathercutt simply ignored his campaign promise.

In other words, it's probably unsafe to mention term limits regarding Republicans. Once in power, Republicans promptly trashed their interest in term limits. (Should have been our first clue.)

There's also a constitutional issue. Washington State actually has a "hardcore" libertarian Supreme Court Justice, Richard Sanders. He voted with the majority, in overturning Washington State's tem limits (a lawsuit by Tom Foley).

Sanders short explanation is actually engraved on a plaque in my office: "While I personally support the principle of term limits, I cannot find anything in the state or federal constitutions to justify them."

This from probably the strongest state Justice in America on property rights, gun rights, individual liberties and pro-life ... no lefty.







Jersey Devil
Jersey Devil writes: Friday, October, 13, 2006 1:05 PM


>>>"To Anti-Partisan Righty I really enjoyed your flaming me,

I responded in kind.

The final sentence was a bit too harsh. For that I apologize.

>>>>"it immediately proved my point."

How so?

>>>>"Your reasoning was "flawed",


In what way?


>>>>"Now we are at war with Islam, and again the Democrats want to hide from the fight.
Love him or hate him, at least Bush knows who the enemy is. "

Go back and see how I supported my critique of your posting .. instead of merely dismissing it with assertions.

Bush is a fool -- having dragged us into a war we cannot win, for reasons that made no sense -- claiming to wage a worldwide war on terror, when we cannot even keep the peace in Baghdad -- and the consensus of our own intelligence agencies is that the threat of terror has INCREASED under Bush.

Don't take this personally -- and don't falsely accuse me of flaming you again -- but I'll take Bill Buckley's word over yours: with a record like Bush's, the head of any other major state would have been forced to resign.


Jersey Devil
Jersey Devil writes: Friday, October, 13, 2006 1:20 PM

>>>>"to Aunty-Partisan Righty"

Uhhh, your spelling of my handle reveals your true nature -- and shows your previous claims to have been a lie.

On with the show ....

>>>>"Two other points just occurred:
Will you be happier with the Democrats running the show?"

Right. And you conclude that because I voted Goldwater, Reagan and Kemp.

Here's your sign.

>>>>"Would you be as rude in person, knowing it might not just be electrons coming back at you?

If your arguments were as ridiculous -- and if you STARTED our dialogue by judging (insulting) my entire political philosophy from a single posting --- I would respond as directly.

But I'd spell your name correctly.

>>>>"I doubt it in both cases."

I'm sure you would.

Goldwater. Reagan. And Kemp.

You think they are Democrats .. and you'd vote for Hitler for the same reason you'd have wanted me to.

But I shall not judge your entire political philosophy from one (or two) postings here ... because that would make me a bigot.


Bipsy Quee
Bipsy Quee writes: Friday, October, 13, 2006 6:20 PM

>>>>"For the record, Anti-part, I never vote FOR the Republican candidate; I always vote AGAINST the Democrat candidate."

If you're not indulging in some rather clever satiric irony ... then I take back all the nice things I wrote to you earlier.

But I do understand why you'd vote against Snow in Maine ... heavy snow would make it impossible to visit Franconia Notch.

Sonny Lykos
Sonny Lykos writes: Friday, October, 13, 2006 9:37 PM

>>>>"As for me, i’ll vote for a lousy, greedy Republican over a sleazy socialist Democrat every day. "

Which is why they can increase government four times worse than Bill Clinton ... with impunity (or so they believe).

BrianH
BrianH writes: Friday, October, 13, 2006 9:37 PM

>>>>"If Dick Morris is right then Condi Rice will announce her canidacy late in the game, when the GOP realizes she's the only who can beat Hilliary."

Condi has already been eliminated -- first she denied being warned in advance of 9/11 -- then the Bush administration confirmed that she had been.

Rats. Sinking ship.

"And Morris seems to backing off that prediction despite his Book "Hillary vs. Condi"

The back-stab (regarding an alledged briefing by George Tennet) was quite recent.

Hillary can't win anyhow.

Anti-Partisan_Righty

APR @ 6:32 AM said: "Most of us will stay home ... simply to show the basta**ds we cannot be bought."

True, we like to think that we cannot be bought. If only it were that 'simple'. But then I believe the problem is that all too often those in power are willing to 'sell' us as opposed to 'buy' us.

I call to mind the Democrats in power at the close of the Vietnam War. They sold the country down the river by defunding the military. That left the boys there hanging high. Funny how that war started under a Democratic president with Democratic support and died under a Republican because of Democratic defunding.

I look at the Social Security System in place today that is burdening the country in debt. It was implemented by Democrats.

I look a the abortion issue. The Democrats could never have legislated this abomination but they could install judges to do their bidding. This why they are so divisive when there is an opening in the SCOTUS. They can not let any judge who would overturn Roe v Wade to sit on the bench.

Even now there is no Democratic plan other than get Bush. The purpose is not for the improvement of the country but is solely for their return to power to enact more social programs.

The plan of the Democrats is to divide and conquer. They divide the population into specific voting blocks and force tension where by they can become the saviors of the 'victim' blocks. Under Democrats the Blacks in this country sould be one of the most successful groups with all the perks they receive. Why, then, is there so much poverty in Black America? Could it be that the Democrats have sold the Black on the victim mentality thus paralyzing them from being independent?

They will do everything in their power to divide the Republicans into warring factions so that people like you will not vote. They have sold you on the hopelessness of the political landscape. If they can't get your vote, then the next best thing is to sell you on the idea to not vote.

Do me a favor - VOTE. But because you think the Republicans are so bad, VOTE Democratic. Like Bush said, "If you're not with us, then you are against us." There is no fence sitting in this world. Your non-VOTE is as good as a Democratic vote anyway.

MyOpine
You've got it! The D's master plan. As soon as the D's take over house and senate, they impeach Bush and Cheney for trying to defend the USA. Then Pelosi calls a summit with Iran and NorK and announces she has decided to surrender to one of them, but they are to decide which one. Naturally each will want the glory, so Kim and Akwhatsis will excuse themselves to use the phone and each order the other's country to be nuked. With Iran and NorK having expended their nuclear arsenals, we gain years of safety while they are cleaning up the molten glass. Brilliant!

I will stay home - here's why
Hi,
Mr. Sowell, I am a great fan of your writing, and nearly unanimous in my support for all your positions on politics, so it is odd for me to write you in opposition to your recent "Frivolous politics" columns. My response is long, but your 4 columns were, too, and I read every word.

I am one of the "Stay at home" voters you accuse of playing Frivolous politics, and I would like to tell you the reasons why I intend to stay home, and perhaps persuade you that it is not a frivolous act.

I have voted in every election since Reagan ran against Carter, and never missed a vote since. I have always voted Republican, even when I had to hold my nose to do it - so this is not laziness, and I can assure you - it is not ignorance of the consequences that moves me to stay home.

My decision is based on logic, and a calculated risk, in hopes of a far greater outcome in future.

* This year, Congressmen and Senators will be elected, but not the President, so even with a full sweep, the Democrats will not control this country in War, or even all that much domestically. (The President "can" veto anything substantially against his views, though you wouldn't know it, so far.)

* In the event of a full sweep, Democrats will make fools of themselves for all to see. Deluded into believing they are true gods, they will finally tip their hands to the whole country, and finally be forced state a real position on something - other than that they hate Bush.

* We're all in agreement that the Republicans in Congress and the Senate are out of control, power mad, wasteful, deceitful, and they are going against the wishes of the very people who put them in office on waaay too many policies to mention. Other than degrees, there is no real difference in what will happen, no matter who wins, and since there is No way to remove an Incumbent Republican, except to allow a Democrat to win, I am forced to allow that to happen.

* I will not vote for a Democrat, and it is my hope that in sitting out this one time, rather than voting for the opposition, it will be obvious to Republicans running that I did not switch parties, I simply did not see a Republican on the ballot. It is a calculated risk that the next set of candidates on the Republican ballot in 2008 will be real Republicans, and not just more RINO's.

* The Presidential election in 2008 is wildly more important than one mid-term Congressional election. Current Front Runners are John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, and ever more RINO's. A message needs to be sent ASAP that this will not fly. I will never vote again, if my only choices are for Democrats, or Democrats running as Republicans.

Please know that I am fully aware of the damage the Democrats can do to this country, and am horrified that this is my only option.

I have written to my representatives repeatedly, on Immigration matters, and other policies of vital importance to me, and this country as a whole. I was responded to in a devious manner, with assurances that agreement was held by all. Then I found that voting patterns for my representatives and all of Congress were completely contrary to what I was led to believe.

If the current Republicans win again, while being as corrupt and deceitful as they have been to their constituants, they will be even more emboldened, and my desire for meaningful representation will be completely dismissed from now on. If they win, There will be millions more illegals in this country legally - and voting. There will be no attempt to stop ever more from coming. Taxes will be raised, and the war will continue to be prosecuted with limp wrists, and whiney hand wringing over hurting the terrorists feelings. All those things will come to pass, regardless of who wins this time, so the only thing I can hope for, is the 2008 election candidates.

I firmly believe that these con men need to be removed, to make room for men of honor, who will actually represent the will of the people who elected them. If not out of honor, then out of fear of being tossed out. I don't like it, but I can live with it.

All I ask of you, is that you not treat me as being frivolous, when there is nothing frivolous about my choice,


Sincerely, K.M.


PS You clearly see this scenario being played out in Black politics, so I'm kind of at a loss to see how you can blindly vote Republican, when the Republicans are so clearly taking your vote for granted, and going after those voters who are not Republican. They can take me for granted, thinking I have no choice but to vote for them, or a worse Democrat, but they will have made a mistake. I have a third option. I can stay home.

They need to learn that lesson now, and this is the time to teach it.


Two Points...
First, Gingrich is a student of history, and yet he is still an internationalist. That makes him no better, in my book, than Bush, who is also an internationalist (as was his father before him.) So, no, I couldn't say "yes" to 4 more years of internationalist policies.

(It makes me think of the scene in "Moon over Parador" where two guards are looking at two political signs, one for the red party and one for the white party, both featuring the same dictator. One guard says "I think I'll vote white party this year" the other replies, "vote how you want, it's a free dictatorship." )

Second, I'm sick and tired of hearing how Bush dragged us into a war we can't win. WE COULD WIN IT. It is not Bush's fault we're not doing better in Iraq, it is the fault of all those people out there who want us to treat desert trash like Americans. If we sent our military in as conquerors instead of as servants, Iraq would be pacified. It's the AMERICANS who are preventing us from winning.

When I heard that survey claiming 600,000 dead Iraqis, my reaction was, "I call that 'A Start'".
If there were 2 to 3 million dead Iraqis, then Iraqi might well be pacified. If there were an American governor-general in charge instead of Iraqis, it might be pacified. If an Iraqi died every time he seriously annoyed an American, if whenever an IED went off we flattened a neighborhood, Iraq might be pacified. But we can't do that with the liberals (Republican as well as Democrat) back home whining every time we don't treat Iraqis as American citizens. We can't do that until we develop a bigotted attitude. And we've got 40 years of indoctrination to overcome before we can do that.

So intead of whining that Bush dragged us into a war we "can't win", whine that we can't win the war because of whiners who won't let us hurt the enemy. The enemy in Iraq is Iraqis, not "insurgents" or "foreign agents".

I vote for American security above and beyond Iraqi liberty.

So let me start the recovery from liberal indoctrination with this joke:
"What do you call a busload of Iraqis driving over a cliff?"... "A Start".


Working4wages
Without a doubt the pols in DC would benefit from some of the ideas voiced on these blogs, but i don't believe most of them give a rass ats. Every indication is they will continue trying to buy the votes of those who put them in expressly to get rid of pols that buy votes with our money. They are no smarter than the do-gooders who will be trying to make nice rightup until their throats are cut.

Evil is as Evil does
The democratic leadership is evil. No splitting hairs.

They are evil for what they say.

For what they do.

And for what they would do, if they could.

NO REASONABLE PERSON could fail to see and smell the black mass of cancer of the soul, of those democratic leaders that are part of our current political process.



Too much in a hurry
There are good initiatives on the move for dealing with over-spending (Instapundit's for example), These and many other grass-roots movements (eg on border security) are the way forward for dealing with the RINOS.

Trying to fix these problems at an election is silly, short-term thinking. Sure, we all want it now, but that just isn't the way it works. Vote for the best/least-worst now, and then get working for real change where it counts.

Birdman
Birdman writes: Saturday, October, 14, 2006 9:29 AM

APR @ 6:32 AM said: "Most of us will stay home ... simply to show the basta**ds we cannot be bought."

BIRDMAN: True, we like to think that we cannot be bought. If only it were that 'simple'. But then I believe the problem is that all too often those in power are willing to 'sell' us as opposed to 'buy' us.

Good point. It works both way, but now we're into the tyranny of special interest LEADERSHIPS.

Example, the AARP and the AFL-CIO. Here's how it has worked, for decades.

1) The AFL-CIO leadership supports increased Social Security benefits, in return for the support of AARP leadership.

2) The AARP leadership supports increased minimum wages, in return for the support of AFL-CIO leadership.

3) Retirees see the higher SS benefits and reward the AARP with more power. What the retirees don't connect are the higher consumer prices, exchanged by their leadership to get the higher benfits.

4) Workers see the higher overall wages caused by increasung the minimum wage, and reward the AFL-CIO with more power. What workers don't connect are the higher FICAS taxes, exchanged by their leadership to get the higher wages.

5) At the end of the cycle, neither workers nor retirees are any better off (on net), but their leaderships have been granted more political power (to represent them).

Democrats and Republicans play the same game ... a game for suckers.

>>>"I call to mind the Democrats in power at the close of the Vietnam War. They sold the country down the river by defunding the military. That left the boys there hanging high. Funny how that war started under a Democratic president with Democratic support and died under a Republican because of Democratic defunding."

Sure they did. Learn more about Nixon's and Kissinger's role in ending the war.


>>>"I look at the Social Security System in place today that is burdening the country in debt. It was implemented by Democrats."

Sure they did. Now look at all those Social Security tax increases in the 1980s -- during the Reagan years -- which left middle class taxes HIGHER (overall) than before Reagan was elected, and indeed left the very rich as the only ones with a net tax cut.

Look to Dick Army's proposed flat tax ion the past decade, or Bob Dole's campaign tax proposals -- a middle class tax cut, paid for by massive tax increases on SMALL BUSINESS.

>>>"I look a the abortion issue. The Democrats could never have legislated this abomination but they could install judges to do their bidding."

Sure they did. Now look at the majority of Americans, who oppose an all-out ban on abortion.

>>>"Even now there is no Democratic plan other than get Bush. The purpose is not for the improvement of the country but is solely for their return to power to enact more social programs.

Sure they do. Now look at social spending under Bush, which has risen three times faster than under Clinton -- and will get even worse as Bush's prescription boondoggle kicks in, the biggest expansion of the Welfare State since Johnson.

>>>"The plan of the Democrats is to divide and conquer. They divide the population into specific voting blocks and force tension where by they can become the saviors of the 'victim' blocks."

Sure they do. Now look to your entire posting, which shows how gullibly YOU have been manipulated by Republicans -- into the sucker's game of believing your own victimhood.

At the rank-and-file level, who are the bigger fools -- Democrats or Republicans.

>>>"Do me a favor - VOTE."

Do me a favor - stop being a vocal supporter in A Nation of Sheep, cynically manipulated by your own party's leadership.

Rediscover TRUE liberty ... before it's too late.

>>>>"Like Bush said, "If you're not with us, then you are against us."

This is where I came in -- during the 50s -- "America, Love it or Leave It"

THAT is why Republicans will be thrown out on their collective assets in November ... all that goose-stepping ... while (go back to the top and read again) Republicans are no better off (on net) than they are under Democrats.

Time for the Democrat rank-and-file to get bamboozled for a while.

It's a bipartisan shell game -- run by carney barkers -- for the witless.


Brett McS
Brett_McS writes: Saturday, October, 14, 2006 8:53 PM

>>"Too much in a hurry
There are good initiatives on the move for dealing with over-spending (Instapundit's for example), These and many other grass-roots movements (eg on border security) are the way forward for dealing with the RINOS."

Right.

Vote for the Republicans.

Then work your butt off to defend yourself from ... the same Republicans ... in a Nation Of Sheep.

If most of you folks were Jews under Hitler .. you'd be organizing footraces into the gas ovens.


JDW

>>>"Second, I'm sick and tired of hearing how Bush dragged us into a war we can't win. WE COULD WIN IT. It is not Bush's fault we're not doing better in Iraq, it is the fault of all those people out there who want us to treat desert trash like Americans. If we sent our military in as conquerors instead of as servants, Iraq would be pacified. It's the AMERICANS who are preventing us from winning."

Yeah, Chump, that's the problem with a free society.

We have the right to totally ignore fascists like you.

"The AMERICANS are preventing us from winning."????

Listen to yourself. Be ashamed.




KM -- Liberator!

>>"I will never vote again, if my only choices are for Democrats, or Democrats running as Republicans."

That's where it starts.

Watch our Ruling Class closely.

The ONLY time they get scared is when voter turnout goes down.

Robs them of their legitimacy.

Which is why Sowell this time misses the boat entirely.



Too much in a hurry - Anti-Partisan_R
Well, Anti-Partisan, is the Anti-Pork initiaive of Glenn Reynolds et al showing results? I think the signs are that it is, and it has only just started. Same goes for the secure-the-border pressure.

I'm expecting the anti-gas-oven initiative to do quite well, also.

Anti-Partisan_Righty

Stop pretending to being anti-partisan. There is nothing anti-partisan about your rants. Stop pretending to being of the right. IMO there is nothing rightward leaning in your rants.

By all means vote. But do not pretend that you are doing anyone a favor by withholding your vote. Vote Democratic and sink or swim by your choice; or vote Republican and do your best to sway those voted in office to your will. Stop trying to sway us that all is evil and hopeless.

If you are looking for perfection in our elected officials then talk to Jesus. See if He will run. In the mean time do the best you can with want we have.

Better yet, run for office yourself. You could run on the 'bemoan all and do nothing' ticket. Your campaign ads could be all about how bad thing are being handled. But wait, aren't the Democrats already campaigning that way?

Disgruntled Fiscal Conservative

I agree with Dr. Sowell there are weighty matters confronting the US. But I am absolutely not qualified to judge the right course of action in the war on terror. Hezbollah, as an example, appears to have gained purchase in the only other Democracy in the ME because of what appears to be the theft of Shaba farms by clever Israel. The historical depth, current situation, etc., appears to me to be so mind bogglingly complex it is hopeless to sort out. I used to believe the Iraq war was a good idea. Not because of WMD, but because the idea of a democracy in the ME that used the oil for the people instead of weapons and palaces must surely change the landscape. Well, I have to admit I was naive about that.

What I can say, however, is that as an agnostic middle class person, there is little other than the war on terror the Republicans offer me (nor the democrats, for that matter). Consider Republican taxation strategy is to reduce taxes on capital. Death tax reduction, capital gains reduction (not to mention the unrealized capital gains reductions), shutting down corporate taxes all in favor of income taxes, such as social security, the regular income tax, and borrowing (income based since that is how the federal govt. is largely financed). To me this means the rich are getting a free lift since wealthy people gain their wealth largely by capital appreciation, and that is now protected.

Of these, borrowing is particularly eggregious because it has the effect of enslaving our children to our oppulant life style today.

My children are very important to me, and I doubt they will break through into the ownership class of this country. But it seems clear to me republicans and democrats have united to form a two class society in this country: ownership and worker. That's why many republicans didn't want to build a wall. They want to provide their ownership class buddies with cheap labor, and given the welfare state, subsidized with my money. Republicans want to send my jobs to India and China for cheap labor, the stablizing military of the US being the means by which this is possible. Again, my money, against my will.

So in answer to Dr. Sowell, regarding whether it is important to vote republican this coming election, I say it doesn't matter. My kids will be enslaved either way, by Democrats or Republicans, working to pay off an enormous federal debt and trade imbalance in a two tiered society. What does it matter to a slave who is in charge?

This Election & 2008
I will vote for constrained, concervative candidates where ever I can find them for this election. I will start looking for constrained, conservative individuals and start working on them to become candidates in 2008.

Voting the republican ticket in this election will give me members of the CFR (Council of Foreign Relations) Olympia Snowe, and other RINO'S. I won't vote for them. My ballot may have only 5 or six individuals selected but they will all be someone that will support my values.

God bless you all in doing what you are called to do!

Birdman
Birdman writes: Sunday, October, 15, 2006 10:29 AM

>>"Anti-Partisan_Righty
Stop pretending to being anti-partisan. There is nothing anti-partisan about your rants."

Apparently, you have no clue what anti-partisan means. Nor you you understand the difference between mere assertions (personal attacks) and supported arguments.

And, you ignorant slug, I "attacked" both parties equally in the post you are responding to:
Sunday, October, 15, 2006 4:41 AM

>>"Stop pretending to being of the right. IMO there is nothing rightward leaning in your rants."

You're also almost totally ignorant on what the right means -- including the libertarian right, the Old Right and/or the Taft Republicans.

Can you deal with the issues -- or do you just do personal insults when somebody challenges your feeble little arguments?


>>>"If you are looking for perfection in our elected officials then talk to Jesus. See if He will run. In the mean time do the best you can with want we have."

Not perfection, chump, just candidates who actually keep their campaign promises, or have some values.

>>>"Better yet, run for office yourself. You could run on the 'bemoan all and do nothing' ticket. Your campaign ads could be all about how bad thing are being handled.

You lose again, chump.

I HAVE run for office, and i HAVE been elected.

Unlike yourself, and the New Republican Nabobs of Negativity, my ads deal with optimisim.


And of course my ads dealt with how badly things are now being handled ... DOUBLE DUH ... AND HOW TO DO THEM BETTER.
http://www.mikehihn.com

I wals also elecetd to two local offices -- School Board (3500-student district in Ohio) and water commissioner (suburban Seattle).

What have you done, except whine a lot?

And is anybody running on YOUR style of defeatisim, whining that things can never get better, so why bother expecting them to?

Crawl oput of your bunker (mentality) into the light. Then get off your butt and DO something, which will sharpen your thinking.





AR Righty
Calling someone "chump" and an "ignorant slug" is inappropriate. In fact, name calling has long been a favorite of liberals (along with the changing the subject when they lose but I digress).

Make your points but refrain from calling names or belittling people. This helps get your point across better.

I understand your frustration. I continue to see our "conservative leadership" ignore the values they profess to uphold. Yet, sometimes you must vote for the least of two evils. I was tempted to vote against Gov. Perry here in Texas for several reasons but the alternatives are not appealing to me. And trust me I looked into them.

We all must do our responsibility and vote! No excuses! Then, petition our government. And finally, run for office as you have or encourage and support others who will. Oh yeah, and pray! More later.

Some of us have an interesting choice.
My 20+ year incumbent congressman is a Dem. The Rep candidate is a nice looking fresh faced 30 something “kid” who recently moved into the district. As far as I can tell he is just a token and his party doesn’t expect him to win. So here is my question do I vote for the Rep who isn’t expected to win or the Lib who can’t and why?
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.