What I want to happen in the upcoming mid-term elections, Part II
October 25th 2006 00:19
In my last post, I wrote about my hopes for next month's elections. To summarize:
I do not think that the Republicans deserve to maintain control of Congress. Nor do I think that the Democrats deserve to take control. Thus, I am forced to choose between the lesser of two evils. Which one is the lesser of these two evils?
Well, I've already stated in the previous post that I hope the Republicans do maintain control of Congress (the House and the Senate), so I view them as the less unsavory option. Now I'll explain to you why I feel that way.
As a conservative, I have been happy with Dubya’s judicial nominees. The Senate has responsibility for voting on these nominees. If the Democrats take control of the Senate, there will be almost no chance of getting good conservative judges through the Senate. I know that the “activist judge” argument is something of a cliché, but I am firmly against judges who try to create laws from the bench. Legislatures are responsible for lawmaking. Judges are there to interpret the laws. As a result, I’m hoping that the Republicans will be able to keep control of the Senate and continue putting solid judges on the bench.
In terms of the House, my concerns are two-fold. First, only the Republican-controlled House held up the passage of an amnesty bill for illegal aliens that would add an estimated 66 million immigrants to our country in the next 20 years. This bill already passed the Senate and it’s favored by the President. And while the House Republicans were at fault for playing politics with this issue, they did rightfully put the brakes on this legislation. I’m all for legal immigration, but we, as a country, cannot afford to add so many people so quickly. We need a much more measured approach to this issue.
Second, the House has subpoena power. I don’t think that the Democrats will try to impeach the President and/or Vice-President. However, I do think that they will try to start and perpetuate investigations for the next two years in hopes of winning the Presidency in 2008. That is the last thing our country needs right now. There will always be time at a later date for investigations and I think investigations are certainly warranted on some issues. However, our country has serious problems to address right now and an endless parade of investigations is only going to poison the water even more at a time when Congress and the government is already looked on with disgust.
So those are my thoughts. While I hope the Republicans retain control, I also hope they are stung by the rampant barrage of criticism coming from within their own party and from the electorate such that they will straighten up and get serious about leading our country and focusing on getting meaningful things done in a bi-partisan way.
What do you think? Do you agree or is the anti-incumbency wave just too strong to overcome this year?
I do not think that the Republicans deserve to maintain control of Congress. Nor do I think that the Democrats deserve to take control. Thus, I am forced to choose between the lesser of two evils. Which one is the lesser of these two evils?
Well, I've already stated in the previous post that I hope the Republicans do maintain control of Congress (the House and the Senate), so I view them as the less unsavory option. Now I'll explain to you why I feel that way.
As a conservative, I have been happy with Dubya’s judicial nominees. The Senate has responsibility for voting on these nominees. If the Democrats take control of the Senate, there will be almost no chance of getting good conservative judges through the Senate. I know that the “activist judge” argument is something of a cliché, but I am firmly against judges who try to create laws from the bench. Legislatures are responsible for lawmaking. Judges are there to interpret the laws. As a result, I’m hoping that the Republicans will be able to keep control of the Senate and continue putting solid judges on the bench.
In terms of the House, my concerns are two-fold. First, only the Republican-controlled House held up the passage of an amnesty bill for illegal aliens that would add an estimated 66 million immigrants to our country in the next 20 years. This bill already passed the Senate and it’s favored by the President. And while the House Republicans were at fault for playing politics with this issue, they did rightfully put the brakes on this legislation. I’m all for legal immigration, but we, as a country, cannot afford to add so many people so quickly. We need a much more measured approach to this issue.
Second, the House has subpoena power. I don’t think that the Democrats will try to impeach the President and/or Vice-President. However, I do think that they will try to start and perpetuate investigations for the next two years in hopes of winning the Presidency in 2008. That is the last thing our country needs right now. There will always be time at a later date for investigations and I think investigations are certainly warranted on some issues. However, our country has serious problems to address right now and an endless parade of investigations is only going to poison the water even more at a time when Congress and the government is already looked on with disgust.
So those are my thoughts. While I hope the Republicans retain control, I also hope they are stung by the rampant barrage of criticism coming from within their own party and from the electorate such that they will straighten up and get serious about leading our country and focusing on getting meaningful things done in a bi-partisan way.
What do you think? Do you agree or is the anti-incumbency wave just too strong to overcome this year?
| 53 |
| Vote |
Comment by Brenton
Dr Spin
Tales From The Other Side
Blip Blog
Gadget Museum
Comment by PopulistConservative
Angry Electorate
Unfortunately, we don't really have viable third parties here in the US. Our system is rigged against them. The obstacles for a third party candidate to even get on a ballot are ridiculously high and the money it takes to run a campaign is also very prohibitive.
I did vote for a third party candidate for president twice in the 1990's, but that was a rare occurrence where a third-party candidate actually had a chance to win. This candidate was so rich that he could pay for his own campaign and didn't need the money from a large party. Also, the level of disgust back then was so high that folks were desperate for another choice. He did well, but not well enough. There have not really been any significant candidates since then.
Comment by Howard
Real Crash
Unlike the religious fundis, these Ayn Rand "objectivists" and those who believe in "logic" are saying that on an atheistic belief structure, we should have an endless GWOT, nuke various countries etc.. It seems that Yaron Brooks and Daniel Pipes have appeared recently in the Boston Mass. area campuses expousing this point of view. Funny how atheists and Christian fundis can with the "right" financial backing, come to the exact same insane conclusions.
Ayn Rand was pushed by a certain globalist current, and her books like "Atlas Shrugged"
seem quite unreadable, but highly financed.
Comment by PopulistConservative
Angry Electorate
I've never heard of Buckeyite, Brooks, or Pipes. I'll keep an eye out for them, though.
I'm hopeful that all future presidential elections will flesh out any neocons and weed them out. Most conservatives I know never bought into their pro-war mentality. Only well after 9/11 did I ever hear about or know what a neocon was. We just need to make sure that they never again gain control of the government. I believe in a strong and funded military, but I don't sign on to this notion of freely using the military around the world as espoused by the PNAC.