Too Bad They Both Can’t Lose
Vol: 61 Issue: 20 Friday, October 20, 2006
Yesterday, the New York Times ran a piece explaining just how difficult and time consuming it is going to be to vote in this mid-term election.
According to the Times, there will be long lines, traffic jams, voting booth problems and so your vote probably won’t get counted. So stay home and don’t bother.
And this morning, Dan Rappaport, a former Democratic lawmaker who is now somehow involved in the voting process (I missed the whole interview) was telling Fox News that the mid-term elections will raise the specter of Election 2000, hanging chads and all.
The consensus opinion is that the system is broken, so don’t bother voting. While I was pondering this, a political commercial came on with a single message; “Don’t Vote.” This one was produced by the AARP whose spokesperson later directs the viewer to their website, dontvote.com.
It is worth noting the following, however. The New York Times is overwhelmingly liberal and wants to see the Democrats win. Fox News might not be liberal, but Dan Rappaport is a Democrat and he wants to see the Democrats win. AARP is famously liberal and wants to see the Democrats win.
And since there are more Republican voters than there are Democratic voters, the fewer voters that show up at the polls, the better the Democrats’ chances become.
In their quest for power, they’ve subverted our troops on the battlefield, they’ve subverted the media, they’ve tarnished our national image abroad, so I shouldn’t be surprised to see them subvert the election process itself.
I’ve mentioned in the past that I’m not a big sports guy. My ‘Superbowl’ only comes once every four years, with a playoff every two years. I love the silly season for its silliness, but ‘silly’ was redefined after September 11. What used to be silly is now deadly serious.
Making it even more serious is the fact that the Republicans don’t deserve to win. Its like one of those Chinese puzzles. If we throw the bums out as they deserve, we lose as a country, because the other choice is unthinkable.
What would a Democratically controlled Congress look like in the term leading up to the Superbowl election in ’08? The only agenda the Democrats have for the next two years is to win in ’08 by making the Republicans look weak and ineffective. That’s not as hard as it sounds, even if (and note I said ‘if’) the Republicans WEREN’T weak and ineffective.
To make the majority party look weak and ineffective in a two-party system, all the minority party has to do is block everything the majority (i,e; the government of the United States) tries to do.
It’s worked so far. The war in Iraq has been turned into a political football. The minority has pronounced the war ‘a lost cause’ on dozens of occasions, without regard to the morale of our forces on the battlefield.
The war in Iraq has been mishandled. I don’t argue that point. But the pronouncement that it is a ‘lost cause’ sends the wrong message to our forces and the right message to the enemy.
Allowing such treasonous cretins to govern the Congress is far more terrifying to me than allowing George Bush two more years of majority government. Even if Bush doesn’t deserve it.
We, the people deserve it.
If the Democrats capture the majority in the House or Senate, consider some of the ramifications. First, to your wallet. High on their agenda is their plan to repeal the Bush ‘tax cuts for the rich.’
America is currently enjoying what amounts to statistical full employment. Wages are up. The Dow just closed above 12,000. Why? Because most of us WORK for ‘the rich’. That’s how we earn our livings. Rich people write our paychecks. (Or at least, they are richer than we are).
Repealing the tax cuts means ‘the rich’ (who want to stay rich) take the money they WERE paying you and redirecting it back to the government as taxes.
Now your paycheck has been siphoned off by the government and you are getting a pink slip. It was the tax cuts that provided the incentive to expand and hire more people with the money that used to go to taxes.
Economic mumbo-jumbo aside, this is just common sense. When it goes BACK to taxes, what sustains the expansion?
And since the expansion is paying down the debt now, why does the government need that money back? It doesn’t. But class warfare is the battlefield of the liberal, and the ‘enemy’ is, mindlessly, the rich. It doesn’t have to make sense. It works anyway.
Then there is the war. Some Democrats have already promised to present articles of impeachment against the president as soon as they get majority control of the Judiciary Committee.
What does introducing articles of impeachment in the midst of a war against the Commander-in-Chief say to the enemy? Or to our forces in combat? What kind of government would we end up with? How does a wartime president successfully fight a war in the midst of such opposition?
It is, after all, to America’s advantage that the war come to a successful conclusion, and not just a conclusion. But a successful conclusion (i.e. American victory) is decidedly to the disadvantage of Democratic political fortunes.
To win power for themselves politically, they need for all of us to lose on the battlefield.
Like I said, it is like one of those Chinese puzzles.
That is the only reason that I can’t take any satisfaction at seeing the Republicans pay the political price for their incompetence.
The stakes are just too high.