|
Post by rick on Oct 11, 2006 8:24:16 GMT -5
Frivolous politics: Part II By Thomas Sowell Wednesday, October 11, 2006 Some people say that there is no point voting because there is no difference between the two major parties, and the other parties have no chance of winning. However, there is a difference: the Republicans are disappointing and the Democrats are dangerous. Republican voters have more reason to be bitter than do Democratic voters. The Democrats are in Washington pushing for the kinds of things their supporters want: more spending, more immigration, more liberal judges. Republicans are also in Washington pushing for more spending and -- in the Senate, at least -- more immigration. But the Republicans have finally stopped nominating liberal judges, after years of putting liberals like David Souter and John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court. Differences in judicial nominees may seem like a small difference between the two parties. But federal judges serve for life -- and some are a major disservice for life. Crazy decisions are still being made by federal judges appointed by Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter and even Lyndon Johnson. Allowing these kinds of judges to create new "rights" for captured terrorists out of thin air would be an invitation to disaster. Yet more such judges will be appointed by Democrats. On immigration, at least the Republicans in the House of Representatives had the sense and the guts to stop the Senate Republicans from creating amnesty for illegal immigrants. Moreover, on immigration as on spending, where the Republicans are bad, the Democrats are worse. Ted Kennedy and company have fought bitterly against building a fence on the border. As for spending, both of California's Democratic Senators want the federal government to give the taxpayers' money to agricultural producers who lost money because of the recent recall of contaminated spinach that spread sickness and death to people in a number of states. Maybe financial losses will help get some of these agricultural producers to clean up their act before their produce sickens and kills more people. But liberal Democrats want to throw the taxpayers' money at irresponsible behavior, whether by farmers, foreign aid recipients or people on welfare. The most that can be said for the current Republicans is that they want to throw away less money than the Democrats. In general, Democrats are the only real reason to vote for Republicans. When it comes to national security and the war on terrorism, that is a big reason. The same liberal unwillingness to get tough with criminals that has marked the Democrats, and the judges they put on the federal courts, for decades on end has now been applied to the captured terrorists for whom they want to create new "rights" that are nowhere in the Constitution or the Geneva convention. Whatever the Democrats' new-found rhetoric about "supporting the troops," their track record for more than a quarter of a century has been one of consistently voting against military appropriations and appropriations for the intelligence services, as well as hampering the intelligence services with restrictions. On foreign policy, Democrats continue to argue as if talking with our enemies is the magic formula. We should keep talking with Iran while they keep building a nuclear bomb, just as the western democracies kept negotiating with Hitler while he kept building up his war machine in preparation for starting World War II. Today, people ignorant of history -- which includes graduates of our most prestigious universities -- have no idea how close the western democracies came to losing that war and what an unending nightmare it would have been for the world if Hitler and his Japanese allies had won. Nor do most of the liberal Democrats, which is to say, almost all Congressional Democrats, seem to have any sense of what an unending nightmare it will be for western nations if Iran and the international terrorists it sponsors have nuclear weapons. Against that background, those disappointed Republican voters who plan to stay home on election day to protest their elected officials' failings are seeing politics as a way to vent their personal emotions. That is a frivolous self-indulgence in a deadly serious time for this nation. Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of author of Basic Economics: A Citizens Guide to the Economy.
|
|
|
Post by rick on Oct 11, 2006 21:02:14 GMT -5
North Korea would not have the technology today if the Clinton administration would not have given them the nuclear fuel and technology in return for a promise not to use it for nefarious purposes. Clinton was duped. This is what appeasing and playing nice with lunatic dictators reaps. Typical liberal naivete. There would not even have been a bomb to test if the technology was not given by Clinton. And now, the party who charged Bush with cowboy diplomacy and "going it alone" in Iraq now wants no part of multilateral diplomacy when dealing the that little pot-bellied dictator. CLINTON'S LATEST GLOW JOB by Ann Coulter October 11, 2006 With the Democrats' full-throated moralizing of late, I'm almost tempted to vote for them — although perhaps "full-throated" is the wrong phrase to use with regard to Democrats and sex scandals. The sudden emergence of the Swift Butt Veterans for Truth demonstrates that the Democrats would prefer to talk about anything other than national security. Unfortunately for them, the psychotic Kim Jong Il seems to be setting off nukes, raising the embarrassing issue of the Clinton administration's 1994 "peace" deal with North Korea. At least with former Rep. Mark Foley, you could say the Democrats' hypocritical grandstanding was just politics. But in the case of North Korea, Democrats are resorting to bald-faced lies. Current New Mexico governor and former Clinton administration official Bill Richardson has been on tour, bragging about the groundbreaking Clinton administration negotiations with North Korea — keeping his fingers crossed that no one has access to news from 1994. In 1994, the Clinton administration got a call from Jimmy Carter — probably collect — who was with the then-leader of North Korea, saying: "Hey, Kim Il Sung is a total stud, and I've worked out a terrific deal. I'll give you the details later." Clinton promptly signed the deal, so he could forget about North Korea and get back to cheating on Hillary. Mission accomplished. Under the terms of the "agreed framework," we gave North Korea all sorts of bribes — more than $5 billion worth of oil, two nuclear reactors and lots of high technology. In return, they took the bribes and kept building nukes. This wasn't difficult, inasmuch as the 1994 deal permitted the North Koreans to evade weapons inspectors for the next five years. Yes, you read that right: North Korea promised not to develop nukes, and we showed how much we trusted them by agreeing to no weapons inspections for five years. The famed "allies," whom liberals claim they are so interested in pleasing, went ballistic at this cave-in to North Korea. Japan and South Korea — actual allies, unlike France and Germany — were furious. Even Hans Blix thought we were being patsies. If you need any more evidence that it was a rotten deal, The New York Times hailed it as "a resounding triumph." At the time, people like William Safire were screaming from the rooftops that allowing North Korea to escape weapons inspections for five years would "preclude a pre-emptive strike by us if North Korea, in the next U.S. president's administration, breaks its agreement to freeze additional bomb-making." And then on Oct. 17, 2002 — under a new administration, you'll note — The New York Times reported on the front page, so you couldn't have missed it: "Confronted by new American intelligence, North Korea has admitted that it has been conducting a major clandestine nuclear weapons development program for the past several years." So when it comes to North Korea, I believe the Democrats might want to maintain a discreet silence, lest anyone ask, "Hey, did you guys do anything with North Korea?" But by Richardson's lights, the only reason Kim Jong Il is testing nukes is because Bush called him evil. He said, "When you call him axis of evil or a tyrant, you know, he just goes crazy." This is the sort of idiocy you expect to hear from an illiterate like Keith Olbermann, not someone who might know people who read newspapers. Richardson also blames the war in Iraq, bleating that the poor North Koreans feel "that there's too much attention on the Middle East, on Iraq. So it's a cry for attention." If Kim just wanted our attention, he could have started dating Lindsay Lohan. But Richardson says Kim "psychologically feels he's been dissed, that he's not treated with respect." Damn that Bush! If only he had ignored the crazy Muslims and dedicated himself into sending flowers (and more nuclear reactors!) to North Korea, we could be actively helping Kim develop his nukes like the Clinton administration did. As Richardson said, Kim "wants us to negotiate with him directly, as we did in the Clinton administration." To go on TV and propose negotiating with North Korea like Clinton did without ever mentioning that North Korea cheated on that agreement before the ink was dry would be like denouncing American aggression against Japan in 1942 and neglecting to mention Pearl Harbor. Anyone who is either that stupid or that disingenuous should not be allowed on TV. When pressed by CNN's Anderson Cooper about the failed deal, Richardson lied, claiming the 1994 deal prevented the North Koreans from building nukes "for eight years" — i.e., right up until the day The New York Times reported the North Koreans had been developing nukes "for the past several years." Kim is crazier than any leader even South America has been able to produce. In fact, he's so crazy, we might be able to get the Democrats to take action. Someone tell Nancy Pelosi that the "Dear Leader" is an actual pederast. Then we'll at least be able to read his instant messages. COPYRIGHT 2006 ANN COULTER DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE 4520 Main Street, Kansas City, MO 64111
|
|
|
Post by rick on Oct 18, 2006 11:20:19 GMT -5
By Tony Blankley THE WASHINGTON TIMES Published October 18, 2006 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- John Stuart Mill once famously called the British Tories "The Stupid Party." From time to time since then, the Tory's American cousin, the Republican Party, has also earned that moniker. Now may be one of those moments. If current polls and anecdotes are to be believed, there may be a million or two conservative Republicans who are planning to not vote this November. Of course, Mill also said that : "A person may cause evil to others not only by his actions but also by his inaction, and in either case he is justly accountable to them for the injury." Apparently, these anticipated conservative non-voters are annoyed with Republican imperfection. They are disheartened, disappointed, disillusioned, distempered, dismal -- and thus plan to dis the party that better advances conservative principles in government. They appear to have fallen victim to the false syllogism: 1) Something must be done; 2) not voting is something; therefore, 3) I will not vote. Of course the fallacy of the syllogism is that the second category could be anything. For example, number two could as well read "eating dog excrement is something." I rather suspect that they will feel about the same afterward, whether they chose the non-voting option or the scatological one. They are both equally illogical -- and repulsive -- and would deserve the moniker, "Stupid." Here are some tell-tale signs of the sort of person who would vote (or not vote) to cause the election of a party which would act to defeat every value and interest he holds dear (merely because the party that will at least try to advance most of those issues has not done as well as he might have hoped): 1) When offered by a car dealer 25 percent off on a car, he insists on paying the full factory recommended retail sticker price -- because he is damned if he will accept 25 percent when he deserves 30 percent off. 2) When the prettiest cheerleader asks the nerd to take her to the prom, he turns her down -- just because he can. 3) When stopped for doing 70 in a 65 zone, he tells the trooper that's not possible because he had the cruise control set on 90 -- he just resents being falsely charged. 4) When diagnosed with a serious illness, he promptly cancels his medical insurance -- in order to save the cost of premium payments to help pay for the upcoming hospital stay. A conservative would have to be just that stupid to stay home on Nov. 7. I have heard it put around that the Republicans need a couple of years in the wilderness to regain their conservative bearings. While turning over the Congress to the Pelosi/Kennedy mob for even two years would be recklessly irresponsible -- particularly during a dangerous war -- there is no assurance the wilderness years would last only twenty-four months. In 1954, the Democrats, led by the great Sam Rayburn, retook the House after control had see-sawed back and forth for ten years (1944 -- Democrat; 1946 -- Republican; 1948 -- Democrat; 1950 -- Democrat; 1952 -- Republican; 1954 -- Democrat). Mr. Rayburn (one of the shrewdest politicians ever to play the game) was so sure that the Republicans would take back the House in the Eisenhower re-election year of 1956, that when he became speaker after the 1954 election, he didn't even bother to move his furniture back to the better office suite occupied by Joe Martin (the Republican speaker who returned to minority leader status after the 1954 Republican loss.) They decided to keep their previous office spaces rather than go through the bother of moving across the hall. As it turned out, the Republicans didn't re-take a majority of the House for forty years (the Gingrich-led election of 1994). So for forty years the Republican minority leaders got to keep the better office space (that looked out over the majestic National Mall), while the Democratic Speakers for forty years got a view of the parking lot. I don't care who has the better office space in the future, but any conservative ought to be very concerned about who has the political power in Washington. The Democrats have virtually promised to scandalize the Republican administration (with subpoena and impeachment-seeking oversight hearings) for the next two years -- in preparation for defeating the 2008 Republican presidential nominee. Moreover, every Democrat who beats a Republican in three weeks will have two years to feather his or her nest, and use the powers of incumbency to defeat his 2008 Republican challenger. Even more important, in a closely fought 2008 presidential election, every extra Democratic incumbent senator, congressman and governor makes it just a little more likely that the Democratic presidential candidate may win that district or state. All those freshly tuned new Democratic machines will help get out Democratic Party votes for the top of their 2008 ticket. This current conservative petulance -- if it actually occurs on Nov. 7 -- will increase the chances of electing Hillary or worse (if such a thing is possible) in 2008. There is no rational policy or political basis for conservatives not voting. I'm not sure the country can take the current Democratic mob in power for long. A realist once observed that the history of mankind is little more than the triumph of the heartless over the mindless. The Democrats are obviously heartless. Conservatives must guard against falling into the category of the mindless. Ignore your heartfelt peevements, use your brains and vote.
|
|
|
Post by rick on Oct 20, 2006 12:44:58 GMT -5
Department of Peace and Nonviolence Act — H.R. 3760: Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) and 74 Democratic cosponsors propose a new “Department of Peace and Nonviolence” as well as “National Peace Day.” Cosponsors include three would-be Democratic Chairmen: John Conyers (Judiciary), George Miller (Education and the Workforce), and Charlie Rangel (Ways and Means). Gas Stamps — H.R. 3712: Jim McDermott (D-WA) and eight Democratic cosponsors want a “Gas Stamps” program similar to the Food Stamps program to subsidize the gasoline purchases of qualified individuals. Less Jail Time for Selling Crack Cocaine - H.R. 2456: Charlie Rangel (D-NY) and 23 Democratic cosponsors want to eliminate mandatory minimum sentences for possessing, importing, and distributing crack cocaine. John Conyers, the would-be Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, which has jurisdiction over the bill, is a cosponsor. Voting Rights for Criminals - H.R. 1300: John Conyers (D-MI) and 32 Democratic cosponsors, and H.R. 663: Charlie Rangel (D-NY) and 28 Democratic cosponsors would let convicted felons vote. Rep. John Conyers is the would-be Democratic Chairman of the Judiciary Committee which would consider this legislation. Expand Medicare to Include Diapers — H.R. 1052: Barney Frank (D-MA) supports Medicare coverage of adult diapers. Barney Frank is the would-be Chairman of the Financial Services Committee. Nationalized Health Care - H.R. 4683: John Dingell (D-MI) and 18 Democratic cosponsors want to expand Medicare to cover all Americans. John Dingell is the would-be Democratic Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee who along with cosponsors Charlie Rangel, would-be Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, and Henry Waxman, would-be Chairman of the Government Reform Committee, would have jurisdiction over the proposal. Federal Regulation of Restaurant Menus — H.R. 5563: Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) and 25 Democratic cosponsors authorize federal regulation of the contents of restaurant menus. Taxpayer Funded Abortions & Elimination of all Restrictions on Abortion, Including Parental Notice - H.R. 5151: Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) and 66 Democratic cosponsors want to overturn even minimal restrictions on abortion such as parental notice requirements. The bill would also require taxpayer funding of abortions through the various federal health care programs. John Conyers, the would-be Chairman of Judiciary Committee which has jurisdiction over the bill, is an original cosponsor. Bill of Welfare Rights — H.J. Res. 29-35: Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-IL) proposes a Soviet-style “Bill of Welfare Rights,” enshrining the rights of full employment, public education, national healthcare, public housing, abortion, progressive taxation, and union membership. On some these measures, Rep. Jackson is joined by up to 35 Democratic cosponsors, including would-be Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers. Justice for the Unprotected against Sexually Transmitted Infections among the Confined and Exposed Act (JUSTICE) Act (Lee, D-CA)—H.R. 6083. Requires community organizations to be allowed to distribute sexual barrier protection devices (e.g. condoms) in federal prisons. Also prohibits a federal prison from taking adverse action against a prisoner who possesses or uses a sexual barrier protection device. Crack-Cocaine Equitable Sentencing Act (Rangel, D-NY)—H.R. 2456. Eliminates the mandatory minimum sentence for crack-cocaine convictions. Tupac Shakur Records Release Act of 2006 (McKinney, D-GA)—H.R. 4968. Enshrines copies of government records concerning rapper Tupac Shakur in a specially created collection at the National Archives. Antibullying Campaign Act (Nadler, D-NY)—H.R. 3787. Creates a new federal grant program aimed at reducing bullying in public schools “based on any distinguishing characteristic of an individual.” States’ Rights to Medical Marijuana Act (Frank, D-MA)—H.R. 2087. Allows physicians in states with medical marijuana laws to prescribe marijuana without violating federal law. Department of Peace and Nonviolence Act (Kucinich, D-OH)—H.R. 3760. Establishes a U.S. Department of Peace and Nonviolence, as well as a Peace Day. The department would promote “human rights,” international conflict prevention, nonviolent intervention, structured mediation, and peaceful conflict resolution. National Health Insurance Act (Dingell, D-MI)—H.R. 15. Institutes a new 5% value-added tax on property and services and creates a board to oversee payment to any individual for medical services not covered by Medicare. Freedom of Choice Act (Nadler, D-NY)—H.R. 5151. Creates a right to unrestricted pre-viability abortions, and late terms abortions for the life and health of the mother. End the War in Iraq Act (McGovern, D-MA)—H.R. 4232. Defunds the War in Iraq, forcing immediate troop withdrawal. Public Interest Lawyer Assistance Relief Act (Andrews, D-NJ)—H.R. 1753. Forgives the law school debt for attorneys working for a tax-exempt organization or the government. A Living Wage, Jobs for All Act (Lee, D-CA)—H.R. 1050. Builds on and strengthens FDR’s “Economic Bill of Rights,” creating rights to “decent” jobs, income for individuals unable to work, a “decent” living for farmers, freedom from monopolies, “decent” housing, “adequate” health care, Social Security, education, work training, collective bargaining, a safe working environment, information on trends in pollution sources and products and processes that affect the well-being of workers throughout the world, voting, and personal security. The bill also requires the Attorney General to create a registry of all corporations convicted of violating state or federal law. Social Security Forever Act (Wexler, D-FL)—H.R. 2472. Imposes a new income tax on workers, employers, and self-employed businessmen to fund Social Security. Health Security for All Americans Act (Baldwin, D-WI)—H.R. 2133. Requires states to create programs to ensure universal health coverage, and allows states to force employers to pay for health insurance for their employees. Universal National Service Act (Rangel, D-NY)—H.R. 4752. Makes it an obligation of every U.S. citizen, and every other person residing in the U.S., between the ages of 18 and 42, to perform a two-year period of national service, either as a member of an active or reserve component of the armed forces or in a civilian capacity that promotes national defense. Living American Wage Act (Green, D-TX)—H.R. 5731. Mandates that the federal minimum wage be equal to or greater than 112% of the federal poverty threshold beginning in 2007, and states that the minimum wage should be revised every four years. Media Ownership Reform Act (Hinchey, D-NY)—H.R. 3302. Restricts ownership of radio and television stations, forcing some owners to divest their holdings, and regulates broadcast content. Universal Education Act (Kind, D-WI)—H.R. 3930. Creates a Universal Education Corporation that provides taxpayer dollars to foreign countries that enter into education reform agreements with the U.S. Medicare for All Act (Dingell, D-MI)—H.R. 4683. Increases taxes on workers and employers to offer to all citizens, and other individuals legally present in the U.S., Medicare benefits equivalent to the health care plans federal employees receive. Menu Education and Labeling Act (DeLauro, D-CT)—H.R. 5563. Regulates what certain restaurants must print on their menus. Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States regarding the right of all citizens of the United States to a public education of equal high quality (Jackson, D-IL)—H.J.Res. 29. Creates a constitutional right to equal public education. Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States regarding the right of citizens of the United States to health care of equal high quality (Jackson, D-IL)—H.J.Res. 30. Creates a constitutional right to equal health care. Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States respecting the right to decent, safe, sanitary, and affordable housing (Jackson, D-IL)—H.J.Res. 32 and Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States respecting the right to a home (Rangel, D-NY)—H.J.Res 40. Creates a constitutional right to housing. Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States respecting the right to full employment and balanced growth (Jackson, D-IL)—H.J.Res. 35. Creates a constitutional right to full employment.
|
|
|
Post by valporun on Oct 22, 2006 16:27:55 GMT -5
Hey Rick, I know the political stories are meant for the off-topic board, but do you seem to have some political axe to grind or do you feel like you have a personal political statement that has to be heard all the time? Its just how I see you post here..I'm not offended by it at all as you have your political opinion and I have mine, but I'm sure there are other off-topic issues you could address here.
|
|
|
Post by rick on Oct 23, 2006 12:15:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by rick on Oct 24, 2006 12:01:30 GMT -5
A blank check from America? By Thomas Sowell Tuesday, October 24, 2006 Media pundits have just about given this year's election to the Democrats -- at least in the House of Representatives and perhaps in the Senate as well. They might even be right, for a change. Some are saying that this could be like the 1994 midterm election shocker when the Republicans seized control of the House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years. If so, the Democrats will win by following the exact opposite strategy from that which brought the Congressional Republicans to power in 1994. The Republican strategy, crafted by Newt Gingrich, was to spell out their stands on key issues and to promise to bring those issues to a vote in Congress. They called their agenda "The Contract with America." It is now clear to all that this year's Democrats are deliberately avoiding spelling out any coherent policy program of their own. Their strategy is to second-guess, denigrate and undermine Republicans instead of offering an agenda of their own. Rather than having a contract with America, they are seeking a blank check from America. Moreover, they may get it. How did the Republicans manage to bring themselves to this dire condition, just two years after winning both Houses of Congress, the White House, and most of the state governorships? It wasn't easy -- and it wasn't new. It was the same thing that caused the first President Bush to lose his bid for re-election in 1992, after having had sky-high approval ratings in 1991. It was betraying the trust of supporters. Back then it was the betrayal of the "No new taxes" pledge. More recently, it was the even worse betrayal of trying to legislate amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants, combined with insulting our intelligence by saying that it was not amnesty. Add to this the Republicans' runaway spending and the fact that the war in Iraq has been going badly, and you have all the ingredients of a political debacle. One of the ironies of this election is that it is the Republicans in the House of Representatives who seem most likely to pay the biggest price for the disaffection of Republican voters -- when in fact it was the House Republicans who stopped both the Senate Republicans and the White House from making mass amnesty the law of the land. Senate Republican leaders deserve whatever happens to them. If this election were about the fate of one political party rather than another, it would hardly be worth thinking about. But elections are not about which politicians get to keep their jobs, though the media cover the news as if the political horse race is the issue. Elections are about the fate of 300 million Americans and the future of this nation. (Mine) That fate hangs grimly in the balance as two irresponsible regimes in North Korea and Iran seek to gain nuclear weapons. Neither leader of these regimes can be deterred by threats of nuclear retaliation, as the Soviet Union was deterred. Both are like Hitler, who was willing to see his own people decimated and his own country reduced to rubble rather than quit when it was obvious to all that he could not win. If you can imagine Hitler with a few nuclear weapons to use to vent his all-consuming hatreds in a lost cause, you can see what a nuclear North Korea or a nuclear Iran would mean for America and the world. It is obscene that our media should be obsessed with some jerk in Congress who wrote dirty e-mails to Congressional pages -- and was forced out of Congress for it -- when this nation faces dangers of this magnitude. It would be worse than obscene for some voters to cut off their nose to spite their face by either staying home on election day or actually voting a blank check from America for a party with a decades-long history of irresponsibility on national defense. Even today, Democrats are arguing for more talks with North Korea and Iran, as if talk is going to stop such regimes from going nuclear, any more than talks with Hitler in the 1930s deterred him. This is no longer about hawks and doves. It is about ostriches who bury their heads in the sand -- and about those voters who are prepared to give a blank check to ostriches. Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of author of Basic Economics: A Citizens Guide to the Economy.
|
|
|
Post by rick on Oct 25, 2006 7:47:25 GMT -5
Eight reasons conservatives must vote on November 7th Why People of Conscience Can’t Afford to Facilitate a Leftist Victory By Michael Medved Wednesday, October 25, 2006 For months, we’ve been hearing about the sour mood of U.S, conservatives, with left-leaning activists and liberal commentators savoring (and promoting) the possibility that many of their opponents on the right will express their frustration by abandoning the GOP on November 7th. As Election Day approaches, however, the evidence accumulatesthat dissatisfied and restless Republicans have begun to come home, recoiling at the very real prospect of Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House and second in line to the Presidency. Nevertheless, those of us who travel in conservative circles can still hear some grumbling and gnashing of teeth, accompanied by tired (and tiresome) arguments on behalf of desertion from the field of political battle. By now, we all know the lines: the Washington Republicans have become indistinguishable from Democrats (they’re all “Republicrats” and “Demicans”--- yuck, yuck, yuck!); they need to be punished for overspending and failing to halt abortion, immigration, deficits and stem cell research; the GOP deserves blame for waging a cowardly, politically correct, inconclusive war in Iraq; Bush and his buddies are deliberately undermining our national sovereignty because they are secretly controlled by the Council on Foreign Relations, Skull and Bones, the Bohemian Grove, the Illuminati and other avatars of the New World Order; and the only way to get Republicans to develop backbone is to hurt them at the polls, sweeping away the current crop of panty-waists and globalists and replacing them with ideologically committed he-men who can reconnect with the American mainstream and then, in some future confrontation, win decisive victories against the newly energized Democrats. Whatever the merits in these claims, most Americans who place themselves to the right of the Kerry-Pelosi-Howard Dean-George Soros Democrats are coming to realize that we can’t afford two years (or more) of leftist lunacy in Congress for the sake of some future (and far from certain) return to power. The current situation presents solid, undeniable reasons that this election amounts to a Very Big Deal and all conservatives of conscience must make a point of voting on November 7th. Herewith, eight concrete reminders of why your participation counts: 1. Judges. On April 20th of next year, Justice John Paul Stevens (arguably the most liberal member of the current Supreme Court, will celebrate his 87thirthday. The actuarial tables suggest that the chances are excellent that he will vacate his high office some time before President Bush leaves the White House – at a time when Justice Stevens is just two months shy of his 89th birthday! No decision will impact the long-term future of this Republic more substantially than the choice of a successor to this veteran jurist. If the Democrats have taken over the Senate, with Pat Leahy of Vermont as the new chair of the Judiciary Committee, the chances of winning confirmation for any justice in the Alito-Roberts mold are nil. Many conservatives felt (rightly) troubled by the aborted nomination of Harriet Miers; but even this sort of “stealth nominee” would find it difficult to escape a Democratic Senate. Whatever our complaints about other aspects of the Bush record, his judicial nominations have been incontestably superb—vastly better than his father’s, than Nixon’s, and even than Reagan’s (remember Sandra Day O’Connor? Anthony Kennedy?). With one more nomination, the high court would enjoy a clear strict constructionist majority (Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito, and……). But sulking conservatives want to give up a once-in-a-lifetime chance to overrule Roe v. Wade and other examples of catastrophic judicial overreach because you’re angry about Mark Foley’s e-mails? And what about all the dozens of appellate and federal district court nominations that will come up in the next two years? These appointments will help to shape the federal judiciary for a generation, with incalculable impact long after any current complaints have been forgotten. 2. Encouraging the Enemy. The only way to win wars is to convince your adversaries that further resistance is useless. Democratic victories in the House and/or Senate would help persuade Islamo-Nazi terrorists that they are, in fact, winning the war for US public opinion. No one questions that the jihadists closely monitor our domestic politics. Why else would they so conspicuously intensify their violent attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan just weeks before a crucial election? They also clearly want Democrats to win, not just because they hate Bush but because they clearly perceive the irresolution, confusion and urge to appease of the liberal faction in the current debates. Even if the Democrats resist these temptations once in power (after all, they would still face two more years of a Bush White House as a block to their more irresponsible impulses) the much-ballyhooed fact of their political triumph would greatly encourage anti-American forces everywhere and thereby prolong this war. 3. Security. When it comes to vigorous interrogation and wiretapping of terrorist suspects, more than 70% of Congressional Democrats opposed even the compromise policies jointly shaped by President Bush and Senator McCain. Liberal leaders have been outspoken in demanding more “oversight” for our dedicated and phenomenally successful counter-terrorist fighters. The possibility of endless investigations, and even prosecution, regarding Guantanamo and other efforts to force information from deadly anti-American combatants, very obviously threatens all progress in the war on terror. Disaffected Republicans must seriously consider whether they want our battle against al-Qaeda to proceed in a more timid, limited and legalistic way, because with Democrats controlling Congress (and specifically its investigative and funding powers) that is precisely what we are going to get. 4. The Economy. There’s no doubt that Democrats will raise taxes – they’ve pledged to do so and no veto threat could stop them, since all they need to do is to sit tight and to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire. It’s not certain that GOP control will bring further tax reductions, or even protect all of those enacted in the last six years, but it is certain that Democrats will move in the tax-hike direction. Combined with Nancy Pelosi’s promise to raise the minimum wage by two-dollars and hour within the first four days (one hundred hours) of taking the Speaker’s gavel, and of sharply increasing spending for federally subsidized college loans, Medicaid and other social programs, the Democratic tax increases could easily provide the economic jolt to bring the current boom to an abrupt halt. The Dems proudly announce they want more governmental “supervision” of the economy – concerning energy, environmental regulations, labor rules, “gender equity,” family leave, and so forth. Conservatives understand that this sort of growth in federal power hardly constitutes a reliable formula for prosperity. And why, exactly, would anyone on the right support the huge boosts in federal college spending that would provide a vast transfer of wealth from ordinary, middle-American taxpayers to universities that represent islands of unreconstructed leftism within the body politic? 5. Immigration. Many conservatives dislike the Bush approach to immigration, with its calls for a guest worker program and earned legalization for some of the illegals already here. Nevertheless, the President and Congressional Republicans did manage to pass “enforcement first” legislation with provisions for workplace penalties and construction of 700 miles of border fence. The Democrats have indicated they will compensate for this common sense victory with a sweeping, overly-lenient, unconditional amnesty proposal far beyond anything authorized by Bush (or even McCain). Immigration reform will almost surely clear Congress at some point, in some form, in the next two years. Why would anyone on the right believe that in working with a Democratic House and Senate, Bush would come up with a stronger immigration bill than he would in working with his fellow Republicans—who are much less hospitable to the “open borders” crowd? 6. Framing the Debate. It’s true that public opinion shapes elections, but elections also shape public opinion. Consider the impact of the strong showing by religious conservatives in 2004: for the last two years, Democrats have been trying to figure out how to make themselves sound more “spiritual” while commentators of every stripe pay new attention to values voters. If, on the other hand, Dems win a sweeping triumph on November 7th, the media will trumpet the long-awaited demise of the era of conservative dominance, proclaiming a new age of secular enlightenment, tolerance, multiculturalism, peace, partying and rock n’ roll. If conservatives feel discouraged now, try to imagine the paralyzing impact on right wing activism of cover stories and media analysis heralding the nationwide defeat of traditional, family friendly politics. There is, very simply, no example in all American history of advocates who managed to strengthen their cause or advance their ideas by losing a high-profile, watershed election. 7. Losing Control of the Party. When a political party gets thrashed at the polls, it never moves in a rightward (or leftward) direction: it inevitable moves to the center. When Goldwater found himself swamped by Lyndon Johnson in ’64, the GOP didn’t go back to strong conservative principles: it embraced the “centrist” (and deal cutter) Richard Nixon. Similarly, the McGovern disaster of ’72, temporarily discouraged the leftist tendencies among Democrats, as they turned to the self-proclaimed moderate Jimmy Carter. It’s illogical to expect that retreat for today’s conservative-dominated GOP would bring a more conservative party orientation: look for new strength to the mushy middle of the party that would blame the stridency of right wingers (particularly the religious right) for the disaster. 8. Losing Structural Advantages. One of the fundamental truths of American politics is that it’s always easier to defend Senate and House seats than it is to knock off incumbents. Particularly in today’s furiously competitive environment, incumbency confers countless financial and tactical advantages; the majority party starts each battle for Congressional control with significant resources that the challengers can’t match. It is always easier to maintain a majority – no matter how narrow – than it is to dislodge one. That’s why Republicans have managed to survive various ups and downs while maintaining control of the House for 12 years; and Democrats kept their House control for an uninterrupted 40 years before that. It’s a naïve fantasy to suggest that it’s a safe bet that after two years running the House of Representatives (and/or the Senate), the Democrats will get driven from power. It’s far more likely that they’d hang on for several more election cycles, while conferring huge (perhaps decisive) advantages to their Presidential candidate (Hillary? Obama? Kerry?) in 2008 and beyond. The considerations listed above deserve attention for anyone still grousing about the many shortcomings of Denny Hastert and Bill Frist and George W. Bush. It’s easy to see that our guys aren’t perfect – but this election isn’t about suitability for Rushmore. It’s about maintaining some chance for conservative ideas and policies to prevail at a time of danger and challenge to the nation. Anyone who believes that liberal approaches would work better will no doubt vote Democratic, and that’s appropriate. But for those of us who understand the importance of conservative thinking, and who would like to see that thinking more effectively applied in the next two years, there’s no excuse for advocating unilateral disarmament and surrender, handing power to some of the worst elements on the political scene. Those who advocate non-participation in this crucial election don’t just call for conservative punishment and defeat. Whether they like it or not, they pave the way for leftist victory. Frankly, America deserves better.
|
|
|
Post by rick on Oct 25, 2006 11:49:25 GMT -5
The Democrats' Contract With America by Ben Shapiro Posted Oct 25, 2006 Democrats claim they have consistently lost elections over the past six years based on their inability to define a platform. Democrats were for the war before they were against it; they were for social security reform before they were against it; they were for sexual impropriety by politicians (Bill Clinton, Gerry Studds, Barney Frank) before they were against it (Mark Foley); they are unsure about the morality of gay marriage, but will slander those who oppose it. Democrats are consistent on two issues, and two issues only: abortion and tax cuts. They're for the former and against the latter. Which is, of course, why Democrats have not fully defined their platform: Their platform is unpalatable to most Americans. Ambiguity is a better option than clarity. Ambiguity remains a better option than clarity for today's Democratic Party. Hence the fawning over first-term Senator Barack "Blank" Obama (D-Ill), who, to paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, can compress the most words into the smallest ideas better than any man in politics. Obama is the culmination of a decade-long Democratic attempt to run from their own ideas. He refuses to be pinned to policy. According to Blank's own proclamations on "Meet the Press" on October 22, he is for "common sense and pragmatism" and "smart government." This will surely distinguish Blank from those politicians who campaign on the basis of stupidity, impracticality and imbecilic government. Sen. Blank has the right idea: obscure, obfuscate and obstruct when it comes to questions of policy. Unfortunately for them, Democrats are buying into their own rhetoric about the lack of a platform. Democrats have identified a problem: They have no platform. But they have not identified the problem: Their platform is ridiculous. And so, for the 2006 election, their platform looks something like this: Dump the tax cuts. Rep. Charles Rangel (D.-N.Y.) would be head of the House Ways and Means Committee were the Democrats to retake the House. He has stated that he would not renew a single tax cut. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi would be Speaker of the House. She has promised "a rollback of the tax cuts." Democrats are far more willing to talk about rollback of domestic tax cuts than they ever were to discuss rollback of communism. Investigate everything. Rep. John Dingell (D.-Miss.) would become the head of the House Energy and Commerce Committee if Democrats regained House control. He pledges investigations regarding everything from climate change to port security. Rep. Henry Waxman (D.-Calif.), as prospective head of the Government Reform Committee, declares he would dig into Halliburton. Rep. John Conyers (D.-Miss.) would be elevated to head the Judiciary Committee and plans to investigate the Patriot Act and domestic wiretapping. If you've enjoyed the partisan wrangling of the past few years, you'll love a Democrat-controlled House focused on bringing down the Bush administration. Hamstring the War on Terror. Democrats have already targeted the Patriot Act and domestic wiretapping; monitoring terrorists offends their delicate sensibilities. Democrats have been undermining the prosecution of the war in Iraq since its inception. Now they would initiate investigations into intelligence and the FBI's treatment of leakers. They would attempt to set a hard, fast and immediate deadline for American troop withdrawal, regardless of the consequences. Impeach Bush. Don't buy Nancy Pelosi's denials on this score. Pelosi doesn't want to become the left's version of Newt Gingrich, but she doesn't have strong enough control over her fellow Democrats to stanch their poisonous desire for retribution after a 12-year exile from the majority. Besides, if Democrats managed to impeach both President Bush and Vice President Cheney, Pelosi would be next in line for the presidency. Democrats have not been subtle about their plans. Egged on by their radical Daily Kos/Ned Lamont/Howard Dean base, they have spoken clearly on the issues. And though Democrats protest when Republicans point out their far-left agenda, the American people know enough not to trust Pelosi, Rangel, Dingell and Conyers with war or the economy. Pelosi shouldn't chortle over which House office suite to pick just yet. Mr. Shapiro is a student at Harvard Law School. He is the author of "Porn Generation: How Social Liberalism Is Corrupting Our Future" (Regnery, a Human Events sister company) and "Brainwashed: How Universities Indoctinate America's Youth" Thomas Nelson).
|
|
|
Post by rick on Oct 27, 2006 18:24:24 GMT -5
Another case of liberal judges going beyond their powers when they legislate from the bench regarding same-sex marriages. This is just one reason why voting against liberal democrats is so important. There are many other good reasons but the author shows what can and is happening when unelected and unnaccountable liberals have their way. From First Things. October 26, 2006 Ryan T. Anderson writes: Yesterday’s Lewis v. Harris ruling by the New Jersey State Supreme Court is truly unfortunate. In a 4-3 split decision, all seven justices cited the state’s efforts to end discrimination based upon sexual orientation against individuals to defend their decision to extend the equal protection article of the state constitution to homosexual couples. The justices unanimously agreed that the New Jersey legislature must create a legal framework for same-sex unions on par with opposite-sex unions (i.e., marriage). The dissent was over only whether these had to be called marriages. The majority said no: “The name to be given to the statutory scheme that provides full rights and benefits to same sex couples, whether marriage or some other term, is a matter left to the democratic process.” In other words, the people cannot decide whether same-sex unions serve the public interest, only what to name them. Make no mistake about it: This is same-sex “marriage,” just in sheepskin. All entities in the State of New Jersey will be forced to treat same-sex unions as the equivalent of marriage. The seven judges ignored a wellspring of evidence and reasoning in support of marriage as we have known it for millennia—and as New Jersey citizens have codified it in law – in replacing the decided judgment of the people with their own opinions. This is a major blow to democratic self-government and sound judicial review. Beyond this procedural injustice, however, lies a substantive error: The justices failed to understand the authentic nature of marriage. For that error the institution of marriage and the people of New Jersey—particularly children—will suffer the consequences. That New Jersey marriage law should be left to democratic deliberation isn’t an ad hoc decision or a partisan proposal: The very nature of man—human dignity and equality—requires it. The people rightly claim the prerogative to deliberate about how to order their common life not only because sound decisions are thus more likely but because there are no natural superiors or inferiors. There isn’t a ruling class and a ruled class. All citizens stand on equal footing with regards to participation in the shaping of the state’s laws, laws that are binding on all citizens. But the court in Lewis v. Harris has flouted these principles in a clear instance of judicial aristocracy. Seven unelected and electorally unaccountable justices have not only ignored but flatly rejected the judgments of the people. For the constitution itself leaves questions regarding marriage to the legislature, not the courts. In the absence of any basis that gives it to the court, the judiciary should not override the decisions made by the people through their elected representatives. If same-sex “marriage” is to be legally sanctioned in New Jersey, the people affected by such a decision should make it—by debate and deliberation, research and reasoning, honest engagement with fellow citizens, and then a vote. This is how a democratic polity that respects the freedom and equality of all citizens functions. One might argue, however, that the justices’ ruling is consistent with democratic self-governance, for the anti-discrimination legislation and the state constitution are products of the democratic process: Weren’t the justices only ratifying the inherent logic of the people’s manifest will? But this is mistaken, for the original understanding of the anti-discrimination law was precisely that it did not entail same-sex marriage. The people’s will was that homosexuals should not face discrimination, but that marriage understood as the conjugal union of sexually complementary spouses was not a form of discrimination. In short, the New Jersey court has abolished the people’s understanding of marriage and replaced it with their own. Regardless of your views on the legislative policy of same-sex “marriage,” this type of judicial activism and supremacy is unacceptable. Considering a parallel case might help. Many have concluded that capital punishment is in most cases unnecessary and hence immoral, particularly in the United States. Thus far, those of us who are opposed to capital punishment have failed to persuade our fellow citizens of the soundness of our views. Yet even if the majority of the members on the Supreme Court were to believe that our arguments were right, this wouldn’t allow them to function in their roles as justices to impose it upon the nation, for the decision does not fall to them. The decision falls to the people. Even good ends do not justify judicial usurpation of the people’s self-governance. This leads to the conclusion that those of us opposed to capital punishment simply need to work harder to persuade our fellow citizens and then put the issue to a vote. This is the only way to treat fellow citizens as political equals and to respect their judgments on the issue. Same-sex “marriage” advocates should likewise proceed by attempting to persuade the majority of their fellow citizens of the soundness of their view. To ignore their fellow citizens’ judgments and exclude them from the deliberative process by seeking the judicial imposition of same-sex “marriage” is a travesty. But the damage extends well beyond principles of democratic rule. For the substantive issue of whether legally to enshrine marriage as the exclusive and permanent union of sexually complementary spouses (what marriage truly is) or as something else (in this case doing away with sexual complementarity) has profound ramifications. Readers of First Things do not need another detailed presentation of the case for marriage. They know that marriage isn’t the creation of the state or even of “religion” (as construed as a syncretistic sectarian entity). Rather, marriage is a pre-political institution with its own nature and contours; people are free to enter into a marital relationship, but people are not free to redefine and reconfigure marriage (for that is simply impossible). That religions have norms protecting marriage or elevating its status doesn’t undermine but further demonstrates its natural, primary status. The task of the state, then, isn’t to create marriage but to enshrine its nature in law accurately, and to support and promote it in policy. Attempts to redefine the contours of marriage inevitably preclude any principled argument against polygamy, polyamory, and other diverse expressions. If marriage can be between two people of the same sex, why not among three or four people? In fact, a group of prominent scholars have made just these claims, in a document titled “Beyond Gay Marriage.” But there is a deeper, cultural problem. Marriage exists to bring a man and a woman together as a husband and a wife to become a father and a mother for any children their union may yield. The legal imposition of same-sex “marriage” intentionally deprives children of a mother or a father. It sends a cultural message that mothers and fathers are interchangeable or unnecessary. And just as “no-fault divorce” and widespread premarital and extramarital sex removed the cultural norms and expectations for adult sexual and reproductive lives, so too same-sex “marriage” continues this retreat from the marital ideal. And as the social evidence presented in the Princeton Principles reminded us, this will hurt the nation’s poor and our most vulnerable children first. Lastly, the creation of a constitutional right to same-sex “marriage” (by whatever name) found in Lewis v. Harris logically provides legal grounds for condemning as hate speech anyone who teaches that marriage is only between a man and a woman. This has serious ramifications for the freedom of speech. But other First Amendment implications—on the free exercise of religion—are even more worrisome. Will churches be allowed to preach the truth about marriage? Will religious organizations be forced to forgo their principles and recognize same-sex “marriages,” provide benefits to same-sex “spouses,” and place children in adoptive same-sex households? Will citizens be forced to violate their consciences by what they consider formal or material cooperation with evil, fostering what they deem to be the inappropriate same-sex relationships of others? The fact that the New Jersey court would usurp the citizenry’s power by creating same-sex “marriage” should give us all pause. It seems possible and likely that out-of-town same-sex couples will go to New Jersey, get “married,” and return to their home state to force the issue of “full faith and credit” and the status of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). We will have to wait and see. But it is evident that a federal marriage amendment is the only way to ensure that our nation will get marriage right. Furthermore, the amendment process will involve all citizens in the deliberative process, fortifying our constitutional order together with authentic marriage, religious freedom, and the well-being of children. Ryan T. Anderson is a junior fellow at First Things. He is also the assistant director of the Program on Bioethics and Human Dignity at the Witherspoon Institute of Princeton, N.J.
|
|
|
Post by rick on Oct 28, 2006 0:47:41 GMT -5
It is common, if sad, that people sometimes dismiss American political debates because they see no great differences between the parties. But, as is often the case, those differences are far more easily seen the closer we get to Election Day. Candidates go out of their way to differentiate themselves from their opponents, the better to stand out in the voters' minds. This differentiation is usually healthy and sometimes insincere but always informative. “[The Democrats] think, in short, that 9/11 was an aberration, not part of a pattern. This is nothing short of insane.” That is especially true this year and more so on issues of national security than any other. Many have referred to the opposing ideas coming from the Democrats and Republicans as "pre-9/11" and "post-9/11" - Democrats advocating the policies that were in place during the lead-up to the terrorist attacks and Republicans advocating those America has pursued since. The characterization is eye-brow raising, but the closer one looks, the more accurate it seems. To Republicans, the lessons of 9/11 are clear. We are at war with Islamist extremists and have been since at least as long ago as the first World Trade Center bombings in 1993. More to the point, they are at war with us. The goal of our enemies - global domination through murder, terror, and, at the earliest possible date, the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction - was stated long before 19 young men hijacked four planes five Septembers ago. They have no political agenda or list of grievances. Their perversion of a decent religion has left them with no incentive to pursue either peace or progress. They want, quite simply, to terror-bomb us and our values back to the Dark Ages. As far as we are concerned, our enemies present to us a choice not between war and peace but between war and chaos. They will fight us whether we choose to fight back or not. As far as Republicans are concerned we are in a fight for our freedom and even our lives. The Democrats disagree. At a fundamental, instinctive level, Democrats think that there must be something we're doing to exacerbate all this; that there must be something they could do that would make Islamist suicide bombers pack up their bomb vests and stop threatening us. If only, they say, Republicans could address the "root causes" of their troubled psychology - if only we could sit down and talk to them -- they wouldn't hate us so much. If only America would abandon its tough-talking, uncompromising stance, we could immediately spark the dawn of a kinder, gentler jihad. They think, in short, that 9/11 was an aberration, not part of a pattern. This is nothing short of insane. After the first World Trade Center bombings in 1993, America was terrorized in quick succession: the Khobar Towers bombings in 1996, the African embassy bombings in 1998, the 2000 attack against the USS Cole. All of these attacks - more brazen and costly than the one before - were launched against the United States while we pursued the weak, indecisive, pre-9/11 policies the Democrats still support. Whatever else anyone can say about the Republican security agenda, it has achieved its objective. Despite all predictions to the contrary, we have not witnessed a repeat of the 9/11 attacks on American soil. The Afghanistan Taliban, Saddam Hussein's Baathist regime, and tens of thousands of their most dangerous leaders and soldiers around the world have been erased. Libya's terrorist regime has disarmed. Democratic movements have sprung up across the Middle East. Iran has been isolated. Three separate elections have been held in Iraq. We have taken the fight to the enemy before they can take the fight to American neighborhoods. Our heroic troops are still in harm's way; more of them will be wounded and killed in action before the job is done. But our policy is clear and our resolve unbending: America will not abandon the Iraqis; we will not abandon our allies; and we will not go back on our word. Our national security policy will not rely on the kindness of terrorists. We are criticized for our lack of an exit strategy in Iraq, but our exit strategy has been clear from day one: winning. The divisions between these ideas and those espoused by Democrats on the campaign trail could not be deeper. Democrats have called for the immediate removal of troops from Iraq. They have opposed any effort to seal America's borders from infiltration. They have voted to cut our intelligence and defense budgets and against a missile defense shield. They opposed the Patriot Act and recent legislation necessary to allow our troops to interrogate terrorist prisoners. In short, Democrats do not believe in the Global War on Terror. I don't mean that they don't support it, though they don't. What I mean is Democrats don't believe the war actually exists. While Republicans believe the biggest threat to American freedom and security is the evil ideology that planned and executed the murder of 3,000 of our countrymen five years ago, and continues planning today, Democrats think the biggest threat to America is... Republicans. The choice, as I said, could not be clearer. Speaker Dennis Hastert
|
|
|
Post by rick on Oct 28, 2006 9:33:41 GMT -5
The Non-Contract With America What Democrats aren't saying about their agenda, so we will. Wall Street Journal Saturday, October 28, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT A joke in Washington these days is that the only thing that can save the Republicans on Election Day is the Democrats. House Speaker-in-waiting Nancy Pelosi seems to get this joke, because with few exceptions she's kept her Members tight-lipped and unspecific: As New York Senator Chuck Schumer has put it, why take the focus off the GOP? This is in notable contrast to 1994, when the Gingrich Republicans ended a 40-year Democratic House majority by laying out a 10-item agenda known as the Contract with America. What Democrats are campaigning on this year is a Non-Contract with America--mostly generalities about "helping the middle class" and "ending the corruption in Washington." As a campaign strategy, this may well pay off. But if they do win, Democrats will have to fill their campaign vacuum with something, and the best clue to what that would be is what they've already proposed. We've taken some time to inspect these policy priorities and thought we'd share a few of the highlights, if that's the right word. (Warning: Keep sharp objects away from drug-company and Wal-Mart shareholders.) Tax increases. The Bush tax cuts expire in 2010, and any chance that they'll be made permanent will vanish with a Democratic Congress. The question is whether Democrats will try to raise taxes even sooner. Most Democrats voted against the Bush tax cuts, but this week Ms. Pelosi said on CNBC's "Kudlow & Co." that "Democrats like tax cuts. We support middle-class tax cuts." The same isn't true, however, for the "investor" tax cuts of 2003 that coincided with the acceleration of the current expansion. Ms. Pelosi says reversing these tax cuts "at the high end" would be "an earlier resort." This would raise the top income and dividend tax rate back to 39.6% from 35%, and the capital-gains rate back to 20% from 15%, substantially raising the cost of new investment in the United States. Economist John Rutledge estimates that raising the dividend rate alone would reduce the value of the S&P 500 stocks by between 5% and 8.5%, roughly a $500 to $700 billion decline in the wealth of the 52% of American households that own stock. "Paygo budgeting." President Bush would no doubt promise to veto any direct tax increase, but having the power of the purse would give Democrats plenty of leverage. What if they framed the political choice as a tax increase on "the rich" versus funding the war on terror? Democrats have also pledged to restore so-called pay-as-you-go budget rules, which sound like a restraint on budget deficits but in practice restrain only tax cuts. They don't apply to the growth of current entitlement programs or to domestic discretionary spending, only to tax cuts or new entitlements. This formula would probably take us back to the 1980s, when Democrats insisted on higher domestic spending while fighting Ronald Reagan's increases in defense spending. Health-care regulation. Big Pharma and private insurers, watch out. Michigan's John Dingell, who would run the Energy and Commerce Committee, has co-sponsored the "Patients Before Profits Act" that would gut funding for the new Medicare Advantage plans that are proving so popular with seniors. Instead, he and the other Democrats who run health-care panels want to direct all seniors into a single government-run Medicare drug plan. Another proposal from top Democrats, the Medicare for All Act, would make all Americans, of any age, eligible for Medicare and pay for it with a new 1.7% payroll tax on workers and 7% on employers. Ms. Pelosi has also pledged to pass, in her first 100 hours as Speaker, legislation to require the government to "negotiate lower drug prices." That's a euphemism for imposing price controls on new medicines, which can take as much as $800 million in research and development to bring to market. The actor Michael J. Fox is getting headlines for his ads in favor of Democrats who support stem-cell research, but price controls would do far more to delay the introduction of new treatments for Alzheimer's, Parkinson's or cancer. The union label. AFL-CIO headquarters would be rocking with hope once again. A job-killing hike in the minimum wage, to $7.25 from $5.15, would whisk through Congress, and we'd expect that Mr. Bush would sign it. But another top priority for Democrats is the Employee Free Choice Act, which has at least 215 co-sponsors in the House and 44 in the Senate. This would allow labor to turn workplaces into union shops without an election or secret ballot. Unions would merely have to gather signatures from a majority of workers at a work site, which means labor organizers could strong-arm employees who opposed such a petition. This would almost surely pass the House. Democrats have also moved well to the left on trade since the Bill Clinton-Nafta era. Mr. Bush's trade-promotion authority, allowing up-or-down votes on trade deals without amendment, expires next July, and there's little chance House Democrats would extend it. The entire Democratic leadership opposed free trade with tiny Oman and with Central America, so deals now in the works with Vietnam and other countries would also be long shots. Sorry, Robert Rubin. Energy. The Pelosi Democrats favor a "windfall" profits tax on oil companies and a virtual moratorium on drilling for more domestic oil in Alaska and on the outer continental shelf (where the U.S. may have more energy than Saudi Arabia). These policies would make the U.S. more dependent on foreign oil. There would also be an effort to pass new, and higher, fuel-mileage mandates, which would make things tougher on what's left of Detroit. And lobbying would begin for the U.S. to sign the Kyoto Protocol on global warming and to subsidize, even more than Republicans already have, ethanol and other "alternative" fuels. We could go on, in particular in the regulatory arena, where agencies would be under greater pressure to restrict mergers, among other things. But you get the idea. A Democratic triumph would produce a major shift in the national policy debate, and we can understand why Ms. Pelosi isn't plastering most of this agenda on billboards around the country. Not everything would become law, to be sure, especially if Mr. Bush were finally willing to use his veto pen. However, elections have consequences, and we thought our readers might like to know about them before November 7.
|
|
|
Post by rick on Oct 30, 2006 14:58:40 GMT -5
Ok, after posting articles from some articulate conservatives who argued rationally about how the country will suffer if we let the liberals, aka Democrats, who have no, I mean NO solutions to nearly all of the problems this country faces (they just hate Bush and republicans), win in 06 by not showing up at the polls, I have decided to do just that - stay home. And I think many other conservatives will stay home as well because we have not had real conservatives either in the white house or in congress willing to stand for conservative principles. And Bush lied to us when he said he would implement his so-called "Bush Doctrine" with regard to terrorists and those states that support terrorism. We have fought the war with too much concern about what others think of us. In doing so, we let AlSadr go scot-free free when we had him surrounded and he is now killing Americans. We pulled the leash too soon when Israel was fighting that terrorist group called Hezbollah. We know Iran and Syria are states that support terrorism yet we do nothing. Bush let us down in not vetoing increased spending bills that the Republocrats offered and he has not kept his word on fighting terror. It's time to send a message to the leadership that if they don't do what we, the folks who voted them in, want them to do, well then they will have to learn to take a butt whipping and become the minority party. Despite the scary alternative, I think many of the American people take for granted our freedoms and they have a short memory when it comes to things like 9-11. It is probably going to take a few years of having the democrats at the helm and our country suffering through the horrific consequences that will inevitably unfold before the voters wake up and realize that giving power to a bunch of peaceniks who only want to talk to the enemy doesn't really protect us from an enemy hell-bent on destroying us. Most people don't even think we are in a war - they have their money and wealth and jobs and family and cars - blah, blah, blah. Their head is in the sand and they don't have a clue what freedom means or what is costs. Fine. It is certain to me that the democrats will take over the House of Representatives. Not that they deserve it because they don't have even one idea for how to make things better. They just revel in 20/20 hindsight and Monday morning quarterbacking. Hillary probably will be the democrat nominee for president in 08. If McCain wins the republican primary (which I seriously doubt that he can make it through the primary), I will stay home again and won't vote in 08. If Rudy wins the primary(pretty-boy Mormon Romney can't win only because he is Mormon), and I think he will, I'll probably hold my nose and vote for the lesser of two evils. Hillary will start spewing the old bromides her cheating husband did during previous campaigns. Expect to hear from her, "We can do better" and to bite her lower lip or make some other serious, compassionate-looking expression on her face to make you think she really cares about you and your family rather than what she really cares about which is herself and the power that comes from the office of the Presidency. In the meantime, I'm going to sit back and watch the republican party destroy itself and hope that we can come up with some candidates who live by principles rather than by polls; candidates who don't get hypnotized by the glamor and power of being an office holder and who don't become corrupt a few days after they get into office. Yes, we need a good house cleaning. Too bad the democrats are the only alternative. Have at it. What, me a cynic? Nah.
|
|
|
Post by valporun on Oct 30, 2006 18:33:17 GMT -5
Another idea..if you have some thoughts about a certain part of the election ticket.. don't vote for the candidates in that position and vote for the ones you do care about. There is no law saying you can't not turn in a partial ballot. Why punish someone you support by not voting because you dislike someone running for a spot in Washington? I know I don't vote a straight Democratic ticket because either I don't agree with the Democratic candidate or I have known and trusted the Republican candidate a lot longer. If there is a position I don't know the candidates and what kind of experience they really have..then I just don't vote for that position..its not a big deal since its more the local stuff that I don't vote a full ballot on. I live in Illinois, home of a corrupt governor's office..Do I want to vote for either candidate for governor on the Republican or Democratic ticket? No, not really...I don't like Topinka because I think she's as ethically destitute as George Ryan was, and I don't really like how Blagoavich has handled things since he has been in office, but the independent candidate John Borling is no better than either of the main candidates. I still want to vote for governor, but I just have to decide who can I best trust to clean up the massive mess that is Illinois politics. I'm surely tired of job creation in Northern Illinois being mostly manufacturing or Walmart, neither of which interest me either because I'm not fast-paced enough for manufacturing or I need something a little more wage-bearing than Walmart. Blago doesn't seem to understand that because all he sees is that Walmart will come here if the communities will agree to TIF districts and TIF districts take away from things like road construction/refinishing, education and making local communities better. All of these communities think TIF districts are a great solution because the businesses will come here with that benefit, when all the people want are jobs that pay enough to establish good ground in the economy and help pay bills that we can't afford as it is. Yes, I'm angered by government status at this time, but sadly we've let freedom to have what we want overtake the responsibility to handle what freedoms we have. It isn't getting better with being divided as Republican/Democrat, Conservative/Liberal, and Red state/Blue state..its time we be the "United" States of America again, instead of the "Divided Nation of Reds and Blues", as we've so hastily chosen to become.
|
|
|
Post by valporun on Oct 30, 2006 18:59:36 GMT -5
I did misspell the gpvernor's last name...its Blagojevich. Shows you how much I paid attention to how spell-checked my above entry was.
|
|