|
|
| |
|
|
|
Nader presently has five percent of the vote in most polls. That would get the Green Party Federal funding in the next election. If they get Federal funding, they will, like everything else the government funds, become permanent.
There will be people who will want that Federal funding, and that will make it certain that there will be a Green Party next time. The old hippies are alive and well. There are a lot of kids who like the Green Party, but the real base is the 1960s hippies and Hollywood lefties.
The media, which is largely run by these overage hippies, still likes to say the old New Left, now the Green Party, is a Young People's Movement. They still think they're Flower Children. Actually, even in the Sixties, the New Left was largely made up of the children of limousine liberals. All the kids these old time rich leftists saw were leftists, so the media thought all the young people were.
Actually, the World War II generation was much more liberal politically than the actual mass of young people in the 1960's. I saw lots of young people at Wallace rallies, but you never saw A SINGLE ONE in the media.
So the old hippies like Phil Donahue might have a platform from now on. That is worth thinking about. And I don't see how it can be anything but good for us, as it pulls the Democrats to the left and splits liberals.
|
HATE IS ALIVE AND WELL IN THE NEW YORK SENATE ELECTION
|
|
Hillary Clinton, that product of the Love Generation, has ads out about an Evil Race. These ads warn that people from this Evil Race are going to take over the Senate if her opponent wins and helps maintain a Republican majority.
New York voters are being warned that, if Lazio is elected to the Senate over Hillary, he will help elect Jesse Helms as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. "Lazio," the campaign charges, "wants Trent Lott as Majority Leader."
Then comes the capper: "Jesse Helms is from NORTH CAROLINA. Trent Lott is from MISSISSIPPI." These Loving New Yorkers go down the list, naming the top Senate Republicans and, to make their point, the Citadels of Evil they come from -- all Southern states.
Meanwhile, the Gore campaign is attacking just about everything in Texas. In 1992, Republicans tried doing that to Arkansas, and Clinton raised hell about sectional bigotry. On CNN, he even backed down a BLACK reporter about it!
A couple of quick questions. What if a Republican-produced ad for a congressional seat showed the picture of black after black who would be chairman of a House committee if Democrats won the majority there? Can you imagine the outcry and the screams of "anaziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews!"?
What if an ad pointed out what a disaster the CONSTITUENCIES of these black congressmen are? What if those ads pointed to the disease, crime, and poverty these black congressmen had in their districts, the way Gore is attacking Texas?
The Hillary ads end up by saying that Lazio would give all those positions to Southerners, while Hillary "represents New York." So our hypothetical ad would end up saying that the Democratic opponent wants to give everything to blacks, while our candidate represents whites.
Liberals would scream bloody murder, and every Republicans would rush to back them up. As always, conservatives would ask only to be allowed by liberals to lead their lynch mob -- good old Brownie Points!
So how long will it be before one single Republican anywhere, especially Bush, breathes a word about this sectional bigotry?
Don't hold your breath.
|
|
|
THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY: THE PROBLEM IS NOT THEIR PERSONNEL BUT THEIR POWER
|
|
The big argument for Bush is that he will appoint conservative Supreme Court justices. This is the kind of wishful thinking that makes conservatism lose every long-term battle.
As long as we play the game for more slightly more conservative Supreme Court justices, we will lose. The real problem, the problem we cannot avoid forever, is that our elected representatives let the courts rule America. As long as you base your politics on getting more justices on your side, you avoid the real fight. But just counting justices allows you to be respectable to liberals.
Anyone who demands that the power of the courts themselves be restricted is declared a radical. He loses the all-important "respectable" title that liberals give out.
For this reason, all of our legislative bodies give the courts the right to do anything they want to do. They do not dare take on the expansion of judicial power itself.
Congress has just forced every state in the Union to adopt a lower blood alcohol level for drunk drivers. This violates the most obvious of state's rights. It also takes attention away from the real problem.
Drunken drivers kill people, not because of a .02% difference in blood alcohol level, but because drunken drivers keep getting their drivers' licenses back. The killers have a record and the courts won't take their licenses away.
But the legislatures are not about to take on the judges. Judges are killing people, but that is no reason for congressmen to get so fanatical as to challenge them. So congressmen and legislators concentrate on blood percentages, because the courts are willing to leave that issue to them.
Exactly the same mentality rules when it comes to gun control. We all know that it is repeat criminals being put back on the street that causes crimes of violence. But the courts let them go, and no matter how loud public protest gets, the congress will only take token measures to rein in the courts' power. So it passes gun control laws.
Gun control laws don't work, but they are aimed at non-criminals, people the courts don't mind government pushing around.
We could lock up the repeat felons for life, but the courts won't let us. The courts make it too expensive. You can keep prisoners at a low cost, as the famous hard-nosed sheriff in North Carolina has shown us.
But the courts won't let us be hard on a poor, innocent repeat felon. It is the courts that make prisons too expensive for the public to afford. It is the courts that order repeat felons released because prisons are too crowded, and because that is hard on prisoners.
And what is the response of conservatives to this murderous court tyranny?
"Maybe Bush will appoint another conservative or two to our masters on the Federal Bench."
Now, if even the most dedicated conservative agrees to play the court game for respectability, what are the odds that poor, wimpy little BUSH is going to stand up and appoint people who will take on this same establishment?
I know that having a memory is not fashionable, but let me remind you that when the Democrats didn't want any conservatives, Bush, Senior appointed the most liberal man on the court, Justice Souter.
Gore's election would have at least one upside. Maybe he would put so many liberals on the court that conservatives will have to give up nose counting and go after the real problem.
|
|
|
| |
Home
| Current Articles | Article Archive | About
Bob Whitaker | Contact Bob | Links
| Privacy
Policy
|
|
|