Mostest Importantest Election Ever!
Submitted by Wayne on Mon, 2008-10-13 08:34.
Politics
I received this in an email:
We are about to make the Mother-of-All-Mistakes, because the Republican Party gave us no reliable alternative. If the conservative movement does not rally behind the only alternative left to us, this country will become a true Socialist State within the next two Presidential terms.
"It's the mostest importantest election ever!" This is the the sort of piss-poor logic that will lead stupid conservatives into voting badly.
First, we are already a socialist state. We have been for quite a while. It's only a matter of insignificant degree now. Second, both Parties are socialist. It's only a matter of insignificant degree. Both Parties desire to grow the government, increase government control (they quibble over what to control, perhaps), and eliminate individual freedom (again, they quibble over the details only).
Third, the Republican Party, much to its chagrin, did indeed give us a reliable alternative, a true conservative: Ron Paul. The stupid voters rejected him. They deserve what's coming now.
Fourth, most conservatives aren't particularly conservative--not in the traditional sense. Conservatism used to stand for small government, individual freedom and individual responsibility, free markets, property rights, etc. So-called conservatives today don't believe in this things. They stupidly turn to government to fix our economic woes (totally missing the fact the government is wholly responsible for these woes), ask Uncle Sam to prevent crime (there's no such thing), and gladly hand over freedom after freedom for the false promise of security and government-led solutions. These so-called conservatives are getting just exactly what they wanted: big government and all the hell that goes with it.
Fifth, this message is again pushing the "lesser of two evils" b.s. If you compromise on principles of absolutism (those principles that cannot be compromised without actively practicing evil), you are supporting evil, no matter how much "lesser" that evil may be.
The Republican Party today--as opposed to what the GOP stood for decades ago--is further left than even the Democratic Party was just 30 years ago. In fact, I dare say the Republican Party is closely approaching the ideals of the Communist Party. There is nothing you own, for example, that cannot be taken away by the government based upon trumped up and even later-dropped charges (e.g., Patriot Act, RICO, etc.). W's Republican Party was responsible for mass arrests of peaceful protesters at their convention some years ago. (They were all released the next day without charges.) This means the assembly clause of the First Amendment is null and void by the GOP's own practices. W's ATF has been actively putting Ma and Pa dealers out of business by lying, stealing, and other kinds of systemic corruption. W's Dept. of Ed. has grown larger and faster than during any other President's term, yet "public" education is more of a joke today than ever before. Many schools teach almost exclusively to the NCLB tests...yet still fail! Medicare added a drug plan--and what a failure that's been!--under W's admonition and promotion. The Constitution isn't even given lip service, let alone obeyed, by W's own admission, relying upon a corrupt Supreme Court to worry about such details. What foolish voter would want a candidate espousing these Party values? Vote Republican, and you're all but assured of more of the same and worse.
I certainly wouldn't suggest that Osama--Ubama--Yomama--Obama--whatever his Muslim name is--isn't worse. He's an even bigger idiot than McCain, to be sure. However, note these words from the same alarmist email:
Most people don't reflect upon the fact that the Democrats ruled Washington for over 40 years; it wasn't until 1994 when the so-called Gingrich Revolution changed - but only for a while.
What event precipitated the Republican takeover of both Houses of Congress in '94? It was the election of an ultra-leftist Democrat, Clinton. If voters are going to use an ends-justifies-means philosophy--contrary to Scripture--then it would seem that turning the heat up on the frog by electing Barracks--Ehud Barak--Barack--whatever his other Muslim name is--would do wonders for the Republican Party again recapturing both Houses. If enough Republicans controlled Congress, the President would be all but irrelevant (i.e., his veto could be overridden at will)--not that the Republicans won't again screw it up by utterly forgetting their small-government roots.
So there we have it: the consequentialist philosophy suggests conservatives should vote Democratic, while the Biblically correct deontological philosophy suggests conservatives should not vote for either of the big two candidates. In other words, there's no philosophical justification for conservatives to vote for McCain, assuming conservatives are truly conservative and not really leftists in conservative's clothing. If this assumption is wrong--I believe it is indeed wrong--then McCain's your man. You pseudo-conservatives will get just exactly what you stupidly desire, and you'll suffer for it. (Of course, those of us who are real and traditional conservatives, desiring less government, believing government is the problem--"libertarian" by today's labels--will unfortunately suffer from your stupidity, too.)
Trackback URL for this post:
http://tuscanycircle.net/trackback/1263
Vote for Baldwin
Submitted by Dave on Thu, 2008-10-23 11:32.
I will be voting for Chuck Baldwin with no reservations. To a degree, I understand your concern about Baldwin advocating theocratic policies. However, I believe they are unfounded. Furthermore, I believe you do Mr. Baldwin a disservice by judging him simply on the fact that he is a Baptist pastor.
I have been reading Baldwin's columns for several years now. I can say unequivocally that Chuck Baldwin gets it. He understand what freedom means, where it comes from, and why we have it despite any efforts on the part of our government to take it from us. He understands the Constitution in terms of its original intent. He gets the libertarian philosophy that forms its basis, right down to its ultimate roots in biblical law.
With this in mind, what sorts of "godly" policies concern you? If you are worried about an anti-drinking law, for example, you needn't be. Baldwin is a teetotaler himself, but he understands religious freedom. He will not want to create a political environment in which people are forced to leave the country in order to exercise their religious beliefs, provided those beliefs do not interfere with the natural, God-given rights of other citizens (as, say, exercising one's belief in jihad would). For that matter, the Bible does not support prohibiting non-believers from drinking. I suppose some Baptists might disagree with me there, but I do not believe that Baldwin would.
Having said that, if you are pro-choice and concerned that President Baldwin might interfere with a woman's right to choose to murder her unborn child, you do have a legitimate concern. He has stated quite clearly that if elected, he will avail himself of all Constitutional power at his disposal to end abortion in this country. Now, the only potentially religious issue at stake here is the "personhood" of the unborn child. If an unborn child is a person, then it has the right to life, as Jefferson wrote so eloquently in the Declaration of Independence. I maintain that the "personhood" of the unborn can be defended on biological grounds as well as religious. Regardless, if abortion is a key issue for you, be advised that Dr. Baldwin is firmly opposed.
I should add that I take exception to the Constitution Party's drug policy as well. They are correct in their opposition to federal anti-drug laws, and they appear to recognize and oppose the egregious civil rights violations that are perpetrated by government officials in the name of the "war on drugs." However, they support the right of the states to restrict access to the drugs, based on language in the tenth amendment. I do not believe that the tenth amendment was intended to say, "Whatever the federal government can't do, the states can," though that seems to be their position. I believe that any such restrictions inhibit the right of individuals to enter into contracts with one another, and that this right is paramount. Regarding all this, I would like to make two points. First, if the Constitution Party platform on drugs were to become reality, it would be a vast improvement on the situation we currently have. (Buh-bye, DEA. See ya.) Second, I do not know what Chuck Baldwin's position on this is. (His campaign web site is conspicuously silent on this issue.)
Of course, there is no need for you to take my word for any of this. His campaign web site is here:
You can find his columns and speeches archived here:
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/speech.html
You can find the Constitution Party's platform statements here:
http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platfo...
Read up on the man. Get to know him. I suspect you won't have any trouble voting for him in November.
Thanks
Submitted by David (not verified) on Fri, 2008-10-24 12:53.
I appreciate your well-thought-out response. I feel kind of ridiculous even bringing up the question, "Which third-party candidate should I vote for?" given that it will have minimal impact at the federal level. I was all for Barr until his bungling of the campaign and loss of Dr Paul's endorsement. I agree with Radley Balko www.theagitator.com that a McCain loss might actually be good for the GOP in the long run.
I am anti-Roe, but primarily on the grounds that it was bad case law and a poorly written opinion. Once it is overturned and the power to regulate abortion goes back to the states, then we can argue personhood, legal status, etc. You'd think with more than 50 types of birth control available today, this issue would start to disappear.
Anyway, the drug-war stance was my main concern. I don't like what I read about the increase and abuse of police power in the war on drugs and your comments helped clarify that. I'll look into Baldwin more after reading this. Thanks.
An Irresponsible vote
Submitted by Katrina on Tue, 2008-10-28 12:12.
At this point, a third party candidate will not win! "Voting your
conscience" is an irresponsible vote. One can cast a third party vote
and "claim their conscience," but ***I believe*** it's a prideful
attitude when the greater good of our country--and future--is at stake. You will answer for your vote. God save our country!
Clear Conscience
Submitted by David (not verified) on Tue, 2008-10-28 14:42.
Thank you for your opinion Katrina. Rest assured, I have no problem answering to God for my vote for president, or any other person or measure on the ballot, this morning.
I don't think the problem is with people voting their conscience.
I honestly don't think enough people do.
Undecided, still.
Submitted by Charla on Wed, 2008-10-29 18:14.
I am not undecided between McCain and the other. I will never vote for the other. But I am torn between McCain and a third party candidate, a true conservative. I have read everything on this site of recent and tried to do my homework, checking out campaign sites, etc.
I would like to think that my vote counts. But if I vote for a third party candidate, which I know will not win, then I'm voting my conscience. This means either McCain will still win or the other will, both of which I don't agree with.
If I vote for McCain and he wins, and then he does something stupid I don't agree with, I'll get what I voted for. For example, he stated on H&C last night that he supported Ginsberg & whatever other liberal SC judge (I forgot the name) because he thought they were qualified for the job, not because of ideology. (The other one has stated that he didn't support Roberts because of his - Roberts' - ideology.) Why couldn't McCain use ideology as a litmus test? My point is that I can't trust McCain to nominate conservative judges to the SC because he'll nominate those who are not conservative.
Back to my voting dilemma.... If I vote my conscience, I'll never get what I voted for, because that candidate won't win. If I vote against my conscience, I'll get what I voted for. Either way is an intolerant position.
I know I'm not alone in this. My words may not be as eloquent as others on this site. But the feelings are the same.
I cannot vote for McCain just because Palin is on his ticket. I know some women that are in love with Palin, but I'm not. I know some believe that she may be appointed by God at this time in history but I'm not sure that's accurate either. Hearing her talk to that AOG church in Alaska just reminded me that anyone can speak "Christianese" to a congregation and get everyone feeling warm fuzzies over that person. I have heard too many leaders preach from the pulpit about how "this is the time of change, the Lord is about to do a big thing here" kind of messages, which never seem to pan out. Perhaps I'm jaded - ok I know I am - but I'm not in love with the woman. Also hearing that she called Rick Warren for spiritual advice after being vetted also didn't do her any good in my book. Seems if she's such a big Christian that she'd know where to look in the Bible for help during a campaign, especially since she's already been in a few campaigns of her own. And if she didn't know where to look, she'd at least look herself and pray herself and God would lead her. Of all people, Rick Warren.... urgh.
Voting for McCain just so the other one doesn't get elected just seems so dirty to me.
I agree with Strom that Dr. Dobson really missed the boat by endorsing McCain. Think of it, third party revolution that would have become an actual fire if Dobson had endorsed a true third party conservative. Maybe we'd be further along with finally cracking the two-party regime.
So anyway.... Maybe I will be able to hear God as I step up to the voting booth. Maybe not, as I'll probably have all 3 kids with me. God help me, I may have to wait hours with my children out in the cold. Early voting here is outrageous. Oh well. We'll take our books and do our lessons in line. That should make everyone else in line absolutely freak out. ha.
Voted - check. Lessons - check. Laundry done - yeah, right.
Submitted by Charla on Sat, 2008-11-01 13:09.
I took the kids with me to go vote on Thursday. We waited 2 and a half hours from start to finish.
It was a beautiful day, perfect for sitting outdoors and watching my kids read books and color as we scooted along in the line. Nate did his language work and I tried some phonics with Sarah. Katie scribbled in a notebook while lying on the ground. When she got up, she had asphalt dirt all over her pants and even on her cute little nose.
I was so concerned about keeping them "in line" and not bothering others that I didn't look around much. But whenever I did and saw the others in line, they were looking at my kids and smiling. Some laughed at Katie's dirty nose. At one point, Katie hugged the leg of the lady in front of us. She got a kick out of that.
Eventually I did get to talk a little to the man behind us. Everyone was very cordial and did not seem to mind the kids being there. In fact, besides one tween I saw in front of us, I didn't see any other kids. I guess we were an anomaly there.
Of course, bound to happen, two hours after waiting in line and almost up at the door, the kids decided they had to use the restroom. The people in line all said they'd save our space, so to the restroom we went, and conquered.
Finally we were inside and it was my turn to vote. The polling booths were all set up next to each other in a small space, like 20 of them. There was very limited space for movement, so I had to vote as fast as possible to get the kids out of there. (I couldn't linger like I normally would have.) Of course, before casting my ballot, Katie decided it was the perfect time to bolt and make a run for it out of the building, so I had to leave the poll and dash after her, much to her amusement (but not mine).
All in all, the kids did great and I got two compliments on how well behaved they were (before the bolting incident). I didn't expect them to be holy terrors or anything, but I did expect them to just be kids - active and not wanting to sit still - and they all did fine. What surprised me as much was how nice and understanding the people around us were.
I am, however, glad it's over. Now I can concentrate on other things, like the laundry. And lesson planning.
Now what?
I adored Ron Paul and was more than disappointed in how he was treated by the party - and that tool Carl Cameron on the Fox debate. It also appears Bob Barr has squandered an opportunity to bring the Paul folks into the Libertarian Party.
I'm thinking of voting for Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party, especially given Dr. Paul's endorsement of him, but I am a bit concerned with his Baptist background. I want godly people in office but I have problems with "godly" policies being forced on anyone by force of law.
Thoughts?