Spectators again in 2004 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted: June 2, 2004 1:00 a.m. Eastern Patrick J. Buchanan © 2004 Creators Syndicate, Inc. About George W. Bush, Americans seem to have made up their minds, and enough seem prepared to replace him that this election will be about John Kerry. And the forum where the nation takes the measure of Kerry will be the presidential debates. These debates have often proved decisive. In 1960, JFK won by appearing confident, charismatic and the equal of two-term Vice President Richard Nixon in knowledge and communications skills. In 1964 and 1972, presidents Johnson and Nixon, sitting atop mountainous leads, declined to give Goldwater or McGovern a forum. There were no debates then, nor in 1968, when neither Humphrey nor Nixon wished to share a podium with fiery populist George Wallace, who could siphon off millions of votes from either of them. In 1976, Ford lost his debate with Carter and the election when he declared Poland free. But no candidate benefited more from debates than Reagan. The eruption of his Irish temper, when a debate moderator ordered his microphone cut off â "Mr. Breen, I paid for this microphone!" ignited an explosion of cheering in that hall in Nashua, N.H., and vaulted Reagan to a two-to-one victory over George H.W. Bush, who had upset Reagan in the Iowa caucuses. In the fall, Reagan's flippant "There you go again" to Carter's whining about what Reagan would do to Social Security convinced the nation to go with The Gipper. Against Mondale, Reagan removed the one issue Fritz had â Reagan's age and mental acuity â by his wisecrack, when pressed about it, that I have made up my mind that "I will not exploit my opponent's youth and inexperience." In 1988, Michael Dukakis' subdued response when asked if he might support the death penalty if his wife Kitty were raped and murdered raised questions about whether he was too cold and bloodless to be president. In 1992, Ross Perot was at 7 percent when let into the debates. From them, he vaulted to 19 percent of the vote, cementing defeat for President Bush, whose impatient glance at his watch during a debate seemed to suggest he was peeved that he had to be there. In 1996, Dole lacked the charisma or charm of Clinton. Again, the presence of Perot meant Dole never got a one-on-one face-off. In 2000, Al Gore showed himself well-versed in policy but also a tiresome bore. For all his failings as a scholar and debater, George W. Bush seemed a likable fellow with a touch of Reagan in him. Given the closeness of this year's election, the debates may well be decisive. Which brings me to the point. While the nation will be given 4.5 hours of debate to measure Kerry against the president as both man and leader, they will not be offered a choice of destinies for America. For on the great issues, Bush and Kerry offer us â in times that cry out for a new direction for this nation â the same old, same old. Both are interventionists. While Bush launched the war that is turning into a disaster, Kerry voted to give him a blank check to go to war. The president is open to sending more troops. So is Kerry. No voice in those debates will be heard to assert that it was a historic blunder to invade Iraq and that an early end to the U.S. occupation would serve the national interest. Bush has approved the Sharon Plan for Israel's annexation of much of the West Bank. Kerry agrees. On amnesty for illegal aliens, they also agree. On the trade treaties that have cost America one in six manufacturing jobs since January 2001, Bush and Kerry both supported them all. Bush proposed both the Patriot Act and the vast expansion of federal power over education known as the No Child Left Behind Act. John Kerry voted for both. While the president and Kerry disagree on taxes and Supreme Court justices, both support the United Nations, foreign aid, NATO expansion, NAFTA, GATT, the WTO, open-borders and free trade. Both are for bigger government. Yet, on many of the issues above, a majority of Americans dissent. But these tens of millions will be like black Americans attending Major League Baseball games before Jackie Robinson. They will not see or hear one of their own make their case for what is best for our country, or represent the causes in which they believe. In 2000, the co-chairs of the Commission on Presidential Debates were former chairmen of the Republican and Democratic parties. Their assignments: Keep third parties out of the debates. Keep the presidency in the hands of our ruling national party, the Republicrats. This year again, they will do their duty â and, this year, again, the American people will be swindled. Our democracy is flawed, if not an outright fraud.
It is frustrating that the major parties have a stranglehold on the election process. Arnold showed what a charismatic outsider with money can accomplish, but it is awfully hard to break through the walls the major parties have erected. The media are their co-conspirators, as they give short shrift to outsiders. This year it is particularly frustrating, as both candidates are seriously lacking. Buchanan is also correct in pointing out the public's growing frustration with the parties' refusal to heed their voice over issues like immigration and out of control spending. Campaign finance "reform" tragically will perpetuate this situation, just as the incumbents intended. It is almost impossible for someone challenging an incumbent to obtain adequate financing, unless the challenger has enormous personal wealth. A fresh leader who attracts some financial backers with his ideas has little chance, because those backers are severely limited in what they can contribute. Ironically, as Howard Dean proved, single issue zealots can attract some financing if they are outrageous enough. A serious candidate like a Joe Lieberman is left at the gate however.
The Stealing of America Votescam is the culmination of a groundbreaking 25 year investigation into computerized vote fraud. A must read for anyone seeking to answer the question: âWhy can't we vote the bastards out?â The answer is: âBecause we didn't even vote the bastards in!â After uncovering a massive vote scam in Dade County, Florida in 1970, journalists James and Kenneth Collier spent the next quarter century investigating America's multi-billion dollar vote rigging industry -- and confronting the corporate government and media officials who control it. The Colliers now challenge every American to answer a new question: Who counts your vote? http://www.votescam.com/frame.html . . .
Democracy is, by its very nature, a system of bribery, theft, fraud and corruption. Politicians forcibly take resources from part of society, then use these resources to bribe their constituents to vote for them. Vested interests bribe politicians, via campaign contributions, to forcibly transfer resources from the rest of society to themselves. The wishes and rights of those forced to pay for the redistribution are not respected. Anyone wishing to opt out of the process is jailed. The only way this is different to a criminal protection racket or feudal system of patronage, is that every 4 years the population can exchange one bunch of crooks for another.
Maybe if individual votes were pro rated based on the percentage your last 5 years taxes were to your income it would eventually balance out. Pay little or no taxes (relative to your income), get no say in who gets elected to decide how taxes are spent. A democracy begins to decline as soon as enough of its population learns how to vote themselves largess (paid for by the rest of the population).
So a very intellegent, successful person who then chooses not to work, has no income beyond living from investments, should not have as much voting rights as a person who chooses to work and make lots of money? If the right to vote is tied to income, it will only support the values of the wage earners and their agendas. Say a scummy CEO makes millions and a hard working teacher makes only 40K a year. The hard working teacher who decided to be of service to society should have less say in how our government should be run? The purely selfish CEO should have more say in how the government is run, where tax money should go? Not really. The problem is that the wealthy get elected, make the laws, skew the tax code to benefit the wealthy. Ours is not a equitable system.
ART: >The hard working teacher who decided to be >of service to society should have less say in how >our government should be run? ArchAngel did say "relative to income" when he discussed taxes and NO, they should have the *exact same* say because they should be paying the *exact same* percentage in taxes. JB
The Constitution provides that the individual states have the authority to set qualifications for voting. Originally, most states limited the franchise to landowners, as they understood only too well the danger of letting the have-nots have a key to the bank. Over time, this protection broke down and was totally eviserated by the Supreme Court in the lamentable Baker v. Carr decision, one of the high water marks in the erosion of states' rights.
The dangers of allowing the "havenots" a say in how the government is run? Oh, you mean the slaves, American Indians, minorities and women too, not just land owners, don't you? Not to worry, when was the last time you saw a man of humble beginning become President....oh ya, forgot, Bill Clinton was not among the privileged "haves."
I have an idea. Send me your american Express card number so I can go out to dinner and "have a say" in what I eat, only I prefer someone else pay for it. that's only fair, isn't it?