Two, Three, Four, What're We Votin' For?
It's almost a year and a half before the next Presidential election, and the campaign is already in full "cover up past flip-flops, lies and scandals" swing. I keep wondering whether this election will be our last. Each President that's elected acts more and more like he wants to "take over" than his predecessor, and each President gathers more power around himself than his predecessor.
When this President used the destruction of the World Trade Center as an excuse to tighten security, eliminate personal privacy and create a vast travel control bureaucracy, I started wondering if this is going to be it. George W. Bush, President for Life.
I kind of don't think it'll happen yet though. The country is too polarized, and I think GWB will want to get shut of Washington DC as soon as he can. He's mucked up entirely too much, and everyone knows it.
Yet, between the evil Internal Revenue "Service," and the plethora of recently-created, unConstitutional federal quasi-military police agencies, the misnamed "War on Drugs," actually the War on the Bill of Rights, and the militarization of local police agencies, we see that everything is in place to turn the country into a complete dictatorship.
Almost no elected officials have read or understand the US Constitution, as it was written. Whether they understand it or not, few of them agree with it. Witness the foul conservatives constantly saying that there's no right to privacy in the Bill of Rights (the Ninth Amendment.) To follow the rules set thereon would cramp their style.
In view of the above, Election Day seems almost meaningless. In all likelihood, the two nominees for the Office of the President will be philosophically identical and it won't matter at the end of the term which one will have won.
It's for this reason that I'm going to reiterate and reinforce, with slight modification, my voting recommendations for this election day.
I used to recommend that, one should simply "Vote For No Incumbent," thinking that if he couldn't stomach the challenger, he might simply vote for a candidate from an alternative party--Libertarian, Natural Law, or even Green--unless your candidate happens to be very, very good. Fat chance.
While I still think it's crucial that one should not vote for the incumbent, I'm thinking it might also be important to vote for his direct opponent--the one that's most likely to win. This means, that if the sitting Senator in your state is a Democrat, vote for the Republican.
Of course, in the opposite case, many will hold their noses at the prospect of voting for a Democrat, in spite of their own Senator being one of those cowardly Republicans. If you are, for example, a Mississippian who has to listen to the blatherings of Trent Lott, you might say, "Why not vote for a better Republican?" To which I might answer that, if the challenger looks better than the incumbent in the Primary, fine. I plan to vote for Ron Paul in the Primary for President, but should he not win the nomination, I know of no other Republican worth my vote. I wonder whether I'll have the intestinal fortitude to vote for Clinton or Williams. Scary, but if the alternative is Giuliani or Romnney, what difference would it make, really?
It's almost a year and a half before the next Presidential election, and the campaign is already in full "cover up past flip-flops, lies and scandals" swing. I keep wondering whether this election will be our last. Each President that's elected acts more and more like he wants to "take over" than his predecessor, and each President gathers more power around himself than his predecessor.
When this President used the destruction of the World Trade Center as an excuse to tighten security, eliminate personal privacy and create a vast travel control bureaucracy, I started wondering if this is going to be it. George W. Bush, President for Life.
I kind of don't think it'll happen yet though. The country is too polarized, and I think GWB will want to get shut of Washington DC as soon as he can. He's mucked up entirely too much, and everyone knows it.
Yet, between the evil Internal Revenue "Service," and the plethora of recently-created, unConstitutional federal quasi-military police agencies, the misnamed "War on Drugs," actually the War on the Bill of Rights, and the militarization of local police agencies, we see that everything is in place to turn the country into a complete dictatorship.
Almost no elected officials have read or understand the US Constitution, as it was written. Whether they understand it or not, few of them agree with it. Witness the foul conservatives constantly saying that there's no right to privacy in the Bill of Rights (the Ninth Amendment.) To follow the rules set thereon would cramp their style.
In view of the above, Election Day seems almost meaningless. In all likelihood, the two nominees for the Office of the President will be philosophically identical and it won't matter at the end of the term which one will have won.
It's for this reason that I'm going to reiterate and reinforce, with slight modification, my voting recommendations for this election day.
I used to recommend that, one should simply "Vote For No Incumbent," thinking that if he couldn't stomach the challenger, he might simply vote for a candidate from an alternative party--Libertarian, Natural Law, or even Green--unless your candidate happens to be very, very good. Fat chance.
While I still think it's crucial that one should not vote for the incumbent, I'm thinking it might also be important to vote for his direct opponent--the one that's most likely to win. This means, that if the sitting Senator in your state is a Democrat, vote for the Republican.
Of course, in the opposite case, many will hold their noses at the prospect of voting for a Democrat, in spite of their own Senator being one of those cowardly Republicans. If you are, for example, a Mississippian who has to listen to the blatherings of Trent Lott, you might say, "Why not vote for a better Republican?" To which I might answer that, if the challenger looks better than the incumbent in the Primary, fine. I plan to vote for Ron Paul in the Primary for President, but should he not win the nomination, I know of no other Republican worth my vote. I wonder whether I'll have the intestinal fortitude to vote for Clinton or Williams. Scary, but if the alternative is Giuliani or Romnney, what difference would it make, really?
Best, in my opinion, will be if every sitting elected official is voted out of office. Every one. It'll let the fools know that their constituency is paying attention, and we want not just change, but change for the better. The less government intrusion into our lives, the better.
They've killed Freedom! Those bastards!
Warm regards.
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
They've killed Freedom! Those bastards!
Warm regards.
Col. Hogan
Stalag California
7 comments:
You almost convince me. I will consider writing in Jesus Christ.
Ron, a writ-in is possibly the best way to send a message, if enough voters do it.
A write in is a good idea. You mention repub v repub in some areas. I really don't see that having any success in the primary either. The RNC and the state Repub party ALWAYS finance the incumbent. We had a jerk all but run out of Texas and the TRC made the difference and the incumbent won. The lady that was trying to beat the deadbeat tried to get matching money and they refused, even tho' she was a rep, too. That may be hard for them to do anymore tho'. I've been hearin' that the GOP is having a really hard time raising money from conservatives. All the mail I get is sent back, using their postage saying...."you have got to be kidding". I know that some poor sap vol is going to read it so I don't get ugly about it
True. I remember when California Governor Pete "Tax & Spend" Wilson was up for reelection to his second term in 1994, he was challenged by Ron Unz, a very good free-market conservative with libertarian tendencies.
The winner would be paired against the very leftist Kathleen Kennedy, who could've been beaten by Mortimer Snerd.
Of course, the California GOP funded Wilson, a Nixon-type who might've lost even to Kennedy, and left Unz twisting in the wind.
I'm convinced that had Unz won against Wilson (he almost won anyway), California would be a very different (read better) state in which to live, even to this day.
Col, I don't know much about Ron Paul (here in Aus) but I've heard some negative stuff. Why don't you like Thompson?
Ron Paul is the only candidate, in fact, the only politician I know of who has read, understands, agrees with and votes according to the US Constitution. Consistently.
He has taken a very isolationist view as regards to the islamic situation (which is consistent with the views of the Founders). The task of our military is to protect the rights of Americans from attack from abroad (which, of course, they failed at miserably on Sept 11) and trade is the task of traders--not government. Had that been the practice over the decades, it's Paul's contention that Sept 11 would never have happened.
I disagree with Paul to the degree that the neutralization of al queda (the perps) is part of the task of our military, and that's what the military ought to be doing, unwaveringly, wherever it happens to take them. I don't think it would take them to Iraq.
But that's not enough of a disagreement to make me remove my support for Paul.
As for Fred Thompson, I like him very much as an actor. As a politician, I find him a little too much the apologetic conservative. I could be wrong. There's a very real possibility that I'll vote for him in the Presidential election, should he be the nominee--but my first choice must go to the US Constitution, and therefor to Mr Paul.
I think that throwing out every elected official would have a chaotic but regenerative effect.
I would like to see it happen. I believe that it would energize more people to get involved in the process.
The system now is designed to wead people out while at the same time yapping about wanting people to get involved. Confusing.
Post a Comment