Dr. Thomas Sowell's latest column, A blank check from America?, is a compelling argument to vote Republican in 2006. Following in the steps of his great 4 part series, Frivolous Politics, he rips into the red meat of what is at stake in this election. The whole column is linked above, and the 4 Frivolous Politics columns are linked in my earlier post. Here are some excerpts from his latest:
Media pundits have just about given this year's election to the Democrats--at least in the House of Representatives and perhaps 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....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.
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....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.
Not if we get out the vote. Read the whole column, and VOTE REPUBLICAN in 2006!
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 21
"My votes will also be cast for the party willing to defend the country ... the Republicans."
What, besides bankrupting the nation, launching an illegal and unnecessary war, leaving the borders and ports wide open, ignoring the recommendations of the 9/11 commission, expanding the threat and reach of global terrorism, allowing the anthrax killer to roam freely, committing acts of treason, allowing rampant war profiteering and corruption, ramming the federal government into our personal lives, massively expanding the size of the federal government, showing a complete and utter incompetence in governance, sheltering a predatory pedophile, letting Osama and al Qaeda escape, and letting the Taliban creep back into power, have the republicans done in the past 6 years to give you the delusion that they are "defending the country?" You people are clearly on something pretty serious.
"I'm afraid of the "cut and run" party"
Don't look now, Einstein, but members of your own party are now advocating us getting out, and you're very likely to see a drastic shift in plans for Iraq right after the election, when the Baker commission releases their report, showing that we will not win anything there by staying. Then again, as a republican, I'm sure you'll have no difficulty in waffling to the next talking point. If there's one thing today's republicans are, its that they are shameless in expressing their lack of values and principles.
"They are all leftists who have nothing good to say about America and no commitment to defending our country. "
Clue. Less. What an idiotic statement. Is it any wonder you vote against your own best interests? I think not.
Christina, it doesn't honor our dead soldiers to force more to die for war profiteers and robber barons. The best way to honor them now would be to get all of our remaining soldiers out of Iraq. We can do no good by staying there at this point. This is what many have been saying for a long time, it's what the Baker commission report will say shortly, and it's what the majority of Americans say right now as well. It's time to end this illegal occupation and hold those responsible for it accountable for their crimes.
As for me, I've no interest in playing Russian Roulette by allowing even one of the people Randy Watts just listed, to be responsible for my safety!
Do you really want to bet your life on the Party that believes we can negotiate OUR FUTURES with people like Ahmadinejad and Kim Jong Il? Has history taught them nothing? Do you really want to bet your children's lives on politicians who have voted AGAINST the Patriot Act? The list goes on... And no, these are not just '' talking points"
Here's one possible scenario: "We see and hear a wiretapped conversation, with a terrorist revealing his worst plans to his associate - and, inadvertently, to government eavesdroppers too. Then, when he's about to spill the beans on when and where the next attack is going to come, the line goes dead with a dial tone, with a machine voice saying, 'This wiretap terminated in the name of privacy rights by the Democratic U.S. Congress.'"
"NSA wiretaps are not breaking the law. The President's inherent power as commander in chief allows them. Warrant-less wiretaps for tax, drug, or even organized crime investigations would clearly be illegal. But to protect our country in the War on Terror, they are extensions of military action and are as legal as any wartime intelligence gathering would be.
Congress has approved military action and within that approval lies an implicit assumption that the president will use our intelligence services to prevail militarily, on the home front as surely as he does in Iraq and Afghanistan."
"The problem is that when you're doing a generic wiretap where you don't know what you're looking for, you don't know who you're looking at, you just feed in millions of phone calls into the computer and see if it can find a pattern." And once it did, it found the words "Brooklyn Bridge, Brooklyn Bridge, Brooklyn Bridge," and then we realized that maybe there was a threat involving the bridge, flooded it with cops, interrogated terrorists about it, busted the plot and saved the bridge. We never would've been able to do that had we had -- we couldn't go to the FISA board and say, "We want a warrant for every mention of Brooklyn Bridge." We didn't know it was the bridge they were after." Dick Morris.
Of course, if I lose track of the conversation I can always ask the NSA what I was saying, I suppose.
The president does have powers in wartime but that does not mean unlimited power. And we've heard again and again that this is not a typical war (I doubt really whether it is a 'war' at all by most definitions--can there be a war on an idea?) shouldn't we be particularly careful about what powers we give to the president in an exceptional time for fear of setting precedent? I would think that most republicans, who tend toward being strict constitutionalists would be against the expansion of powers like this; after all the Constitution didn't anticipate or authorize this kind of personal invasion did they?
The supreme court found them to be illegal. They ARE illegal, because they're in direct violation of the constitution. For starters, there has been no declaration of war, therefore the president has no inherent powers beyond the constitutional limits that define the executive branch. Secondly, they are an afront to our freedoms and rights.
Aside from that, there simply is no justification for them to be conducted in this manner. FISA allows 72 hours, even AFTER taps, to apply for a warrant. There is absolutely NOTHING that the government can acquire through these illegal means that they cannot acquire through FISA, UNLESS what they are acquiring is illegal in and of itself, such as gathering information on political opponents, which is precisely what the pentagon was just found to have done in the case of war protesters.
THAT, is why this white house refuses to abide by the law. They know DAMN WELL that the information that they're gathering has absolutely NOTHING to do with terrorism, but MUCH to do with their political opponents. That is patently illegal and unAmerican, and anyone who supports it should move to China or N. Korea, frankly.
vicki,
Please tell me what the republicans have specifically done to make you one bit safer or more secure. Just one thing. I've been asking this of republicans for 5 years now, and I've yet to see a single legitimate response. You can be the first. Don't disappoint.
Clark- WOW! I din't realize that you really were "Superman", you must be for the Baker Commission to confer with you on the Iraq situation. I guess we mere mortals will have to wait until after the election to see what you guys came up with. Funny though, I don't remember seeing your name on the list of the commissioners????? But I guess that's one of the anticipated "October Surprises" that the Administration has in store for us, ya reckon?
Secondly can I answer waht you asked Vicki to do? Well I will anyway; I have seen what the Democrats can do to make me and my family safe, and the answer is simply NOTHING! This is what I do know, in 1993 there was a bloody clash between Army Rangers & Delta Force and the Somali war lords, which was augmented by Al-Qaeda terrorists, after receiving a bloody nose, Bill Clinton withdrew the forces with shame; he did NOTHING! In 1993 Al-Qaeda attempted to blow up the WTC killing several American citizens, what did Clinton do? NOTHING! in 1995 Al-Qeada bombed the Kobart Towers killing many Americans, Al-Qeada exploded a bomb on the USS Cole killing several Americans, Al-Qeada blew up American Embassies in Africa killing Native Africans and Americans, so after all of these attacks on Sovereign American Soil, what did you great Democratic leader do? He shot a couple of Tomahawk missiles and blew up a pill factory... that's what Democrats do, NOTHING! Talk, Talk, Talk, that's it. So when I say that I trust the Republicans to keep my family and me safe, you'd better believe that I mean it.
"The NSA wiretaps are dangerous. I don't want anyone knowing my mothers secret recipe for lentil soup. It is no one's business who I'm talking with over the phone."
Joe T.- I doubt that many people really want your Mom's recipes, however, as the wire taping goes, I could care less about who listens to my conversations, sometimes they are so boring, I don't even want to hear them. My point is, I don't have anything to hide. If they want to listen to me talk, go for it! If giving up a secret recipe to save some lives, then I say the sacrifice of that soup is well worth the price. You say in your profile that you have two children, well would you give up a secure phone conversation about Lintle Soup to save one or both of your children? Call me "Old Fashioned" but I would do it in a heart beat! You guys need to think about that.
Vickey, what exactly in your opinion to do consider to be "supporting our troops?" Judging by the death toll they don't seem to be getting all that much support to me. It also doesn't help to plunk them right in the middle of a cival war and order them to stay put, either. Yeah, that's real support.
Parts of the report have been leaked to the press.
"I have seen what the Democrats can do to make me and my family safe, and the answer is simply NOTHING! This is what I do know, in 1993 there was a bloody clash between Army Rangers & Delta Force and the Somali war lords, which was augmented by Al-Qaeda terrorists, after receiving a bloody nose, Bill Clinton withdrew the forces with shame; he did NOTHING! In 1993 Al-Qaeda attempted to blow up the WTC killing several American citizens, what did Clinton do? NOTHING! in 1995 Al-Qeada bombed the Kobart Towers killing many Americans, Al-Qeada exploded a bomb on the USS Cole killing several Americans, Al-Qeada blew up American Embassies in Africa killing Native Africans and Americans, so after all of these attacks on Sovereign American Soil, what did you great Democratic leader do? He shot a couple of Tomahawk missiles and blew up a pill factory... that's what Democrats do, NOTHING! Talk, Talk, Talk, that's it. So when I say that I trust the Republicans to keep my family and me safe, you'd better believe that I mean it.
"The NSA wiretaps are dangerous. I don't want anyone knowing my mothers secret recipe for lentil soup. It is no one's business who I'm talking with over the phone."
You need to check your facts. Most of your commentary is false rightwing talking points that have been disproven. Care to try again? If you REALLY want to know what complete inaction in response to attack looks like, look no further than the republican stance during WWII, as well as their stance after the 1983 Beruit bombing of a US embassy. THAT is your typical republican response to attack. Well, that and invading and occupying countries that have absolutely nothing to do with any attacks.
Go check your talking points against SNOPES and see what you learn. Then, come back and report to the class.
I think the Senator that ticked me off the most was Joe Biden, I don't remember if it was Roberts or Alito, but he sat there with his teeth clenched in a stupid grin talking abot his son going to Iraq or something. I knw what you mean about the speeches! And yes, Kennedy didn't make me smile either. As far as I'm concerned, all of those elected Democrats are worthless and can only point other peoples problems. And in the House, all I heard was the Dems crying over what was said about John Murtha and what a great Congressman he was, but the thing they DON'T mention is the FACT that Murtha was arrested for conspiracy to accept bribes during the ABSCAM sting. The only thing that kept him out of prison was that he rolled over on his fellow conspirators to get the charges against him dropped. You don't ever hear about that! And the Dems will try to blow it off or just say that it's a lie and we are just trying to smear a good man. If they think it isn't true, I urge them to look it up and see for themselves, it's a matter of public record.
As far as voting goes, I'll vote for what is best for my State and community in my opinion. I want that border fixed near me and don't want my taxes increased either as some things I will be concerned about as well.
Thanks.