The American Spectator

frost| 12.31.08 @ 7:21AM

At last, can hardly believe it -- someone who actually calls Mrs. Schlossberg MRS. SCHLOSSBERG. Even Fox News succumbed to the "Kennedy" ploy (you expect it of everyone else), forgetting that her married/last name hadn't been dropped 'til she became a pseudo-candidate. The cheerleaders in the press should be ashamed. But they're not... Too busy reveling in their massive influence, even as so many newspapers/networks are cutting staff. Happy New Year all.

VinceP1974| 12.31.08 @ 8:03AM

I thought this part was funny

Even more conservatively, she decided to join the U.S. Senate in the time-honored, pre-17th Amendment manner.

BTW: The XVII Amdnement , is IMHO, the reason we have this giant Federal Govt. Nothing will change until this amendment is repealed.

The Progressive Era's Amendments are all disasters.

It's funny how the Left wants to identify with them.

daboss| 12.31.08 @ 9:26AM

VinceP1974 - you are correct about the 17th Amdnement - it should be repealed.

WilliamInWien| 12.31.08 @ 9:30AM

With all due respect, here is the problem: Too many worthwhile candidates, only one position to fill! How about diversifying into categories and giving the candiates a greater opportunity for recognition. Categories might include "politics", "entertainment(?)", "foreigners & aliens", "journalists(?)", etc. The selections could be spread out over a week or so and would probably invite greater levels of reader response. Think of all or the qualified candiates for the "Financial Enemy of the Year"!

Jeremiah| 12.31.08 @ 9:55AM

I know there is some irony in your use of the word "enemy." But it still shines a light 0n an unfortunate and mean side of conservatism.

The United States is going into a very difficult period.

Count on it: if you're reading this, chances are very good that you will be negatively affected by the recession. It's going to be deep and long.

The country faces many other problems too: our infrastructure is in tatters, our school systems require reform, our prisons are overcrowded while crime is increasing.

If you think Democrats are your "enemies" -- no matter your all so grumpy all the time.

You may disagree with Democrats -- very profoundly even. But Ms Kennedy isn't your enemy, Ted Kennedy isn't your enemy, and Obama isn't your enemy.

Marc Jeric| 12.31.08 @ 10:09AM

Compared with all those thieving, cheating, lying, and corrupt lawyers-senators, Caroline is an innocent saint. Especially so when you consider that Hero of Chappaquidick, her uncle.

SamKeck| 12.31.08 @ 10:24AM

Eliot Spitzer?!? No way. The real winner should be the disgraced deviate and leftist left coast talk show host, San Francisco's own Bernie Ward.

I demand a recount forthwith.

DaveS| 12.31.08 @ 10:52AM

I grew up under the Kennedys in MA, am suffering with Kennedys and Clintons while living in New York. And the alternative is Andrew? Millions of Dems in NY, and even THEY cannot readily stomach the choice between yet another carpetbagger and an insider by birth. So much for party meritocracy - you are wasting your time.

VinceP1974| 12.31.08 @ 1:06PM

Dave touched on somethign I've been thinking about for a while.

I live in Chicago and I question why it is that the GOP has no body with any distinction and why the Dems dont seem to have anyone to clean up their corruption.

Why aren't there people putting themselves up to run for office.

Has it always been this way? Has it always been that the vast majority of people remain occupied with their jobs or whatnot , unable to take the risk of going without work for a period of time while being in office.

I suppose not. I would assume the people that politics attracts are the ones it currently does.

I'm beginning think we need something like a Council of Guardians like Iran or reconsider universal sufferage... something has to be done to protect our culture and Constitutional Gov

Roy| 12.31.08 @ 1:30PM

Vince: The Supreme Court already thinks it is the Council of Guardians. Like all unelected bodies, it becomes gradually subservient to elite opinion, and there is then far less of a check on its behavior.

Democracy is the worst form of government, except all other forms.

Lu| 12.31.08 @ 3:32PM

As long as we have ignorant people voting, we will have crooks,scum and lairs in congress. If you viewed any of the youtube videos asking certain about teir vote. Stupity rains supreme. We need a test for ALL people before they vote. It would be nice if they had some knowledge of the candidates record befor they voted. Before anyone gets their undies in a bunch, I would ask everyone a question. Would you like many of these "voters" to take charge of your investments or make your health decsions for you? I wouldn't, but thats what we do when we let idiots vote.

Karin| 12.31.08 @ 3:52PM

Lu, my undies are not in a bunch. I think it's a fine idea, and alot of people agree with you. So many examples were put forth of the ignorance out there...each talk radio host did their own. It just boggles the mind. Furthermore, I wouldn't want the members of Congress to make my investment or health decisions for me. They're as dumb as a box of rocks, and most have never taken Econ 101.

Bob| 12.31.08 @ 4:00PM

Her name is CAROLINE KENNEDY. She never changed her name when she married Edwin Schlossberg.

DaveS| 12.31.08 @ 4:30PM

VinceP1974: to answer your question - for one particular set of people, a government position is the top of the pyramid. There is a natural bent for a friend-of-the-state to aspire to be significant in the state.

L. Ross| 12.31.08 @ 5:00PM

Jeremiah:
I would have guessed that as a man who can write in complete sentences, you would recognize a tongue-in-cheek humor article when you see one. There isn't a mean-spirited word in this piece.

As far as conservatives being grumpy, I'm currently in the military, (filled to the brim with conservatives), and I assure you I don't work with a bunch of grumpy people. Talented, energetic, intelligent, capable, funny. Those are words I associate with conservatism.

On the other hand: bossy, dictatorial, dour, wet blanket, needy and greedy are all words I associate with liberalism.

I know that I'm sounding hard on liberals here, but you need to know just how you sound to conservatives when you get to spouting your standard canned lines.

ruth| 12.31.08 @ 5:19PM

Geez, Jeremiah, have you read some of the venom-filled posts written on AMSpec by your fellow liberal, Interloper? Talk about grumpy, and you guys won everything this year. (Except Franken).

Ed| 12.31.08 @ 6:39PM

There was a reason for the 17th Amendment, and not surprisingly, it was New York.

The entire state government was a mess that makes today's Illinois look like the Dixville Notch town meeting. Nothing was working, and everybody was bought.

VinceP1974 | 12.31.08 @ 7:10PM

There was a reason for the 17th Amendment, and not surprisingly, it was New York.

But there was a more substantial reason why it was the way it was earlier... State-selected Senators served as the States' check on the growth of the Federal Govt.

The Const originally bestowed the Legislatures with the authority to appoint a different Senator upon a vacancy if the Gov appointed a replacement while they were out of session.

Gerard Einhaus| 12.31.08 @ 8:42PM

So many candidates, so little space. I personally would like to nominate every elite class liberal writer who leaped to the forefront in the ten days following Sarah Palin's announcement as John McCain's running mate. Quite the stunning reflex action of such as Washington doyenne Sally Quinn; someone from the Baltimore Sun whose names escape me; too many others to follow. Including Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post, who was so bold as to praise Princess Caroline and her nuanced approaches to the Senate. These pests deserve a collective award. Collective- in their heart of hearts, they like the concept.

Ted| 1.1.09 @ 1:44AM

The primary reason, among many others, we have such a large federal government is the XVI amendment.

vincep1974| 1.1.09 @ 9:00AM

Ted: So true.. That's another Progressive Era amendment. All of them were tragic mistakes.

Killershoes| 1.1.09 @ 9:50AM

Dear Jeremiah, whom do you think caused all this liberal socialist chaos and destroyed the ecomomy, religious freedoms in a christian nation but the democrat congress and senate, evil judicial system, making corrupt, traitorious decisions so that over time they could fleece america dry of it's much admired freedom and captialism that worked, and Shout with glee; ah ha! we are not a superpowerand stupidly not think, then I WOULD NOT HAVE Stable Country and Government, what shall WE do!?! Certainly not pray to God for help, but yes they could after repentance and humbled, wiser changes in attitude!
'Count on it: if you're reading this, chances are very good that you will be negatively affected by the recession. It's going to be deep and long.

The country faces many other problems too: our infrastructure is in tatters, our school systems require reform, our prisons are overcrowded while crime is increasing."
Bush, I love and honored you as president, BUT you should have never trusted traitors, Collins, Kennedy, Reid and Nancy P. and sic'ed Chaney on them.

mary| 1.1.09 @ 10:38AM

Lu, actually, the founding fathers did put voting tests into place, one had to own property. That way, when one voted a program in, they would be the ones paying for it! What we have now is the have nots voting to take away from the haves. How many buses have you seen taking the homeless to the poles?? People of all backgrounds and colors own property, so no group is being disenfranchised. And......people have been given an impetus to better themselves!!

Bubba Euler| 1.1.09 @ 10:43AM

Finally, Americans are awakening to their dilemma. Knowledge of our US Constitution, in its original form, is a requirement of the first order. How it has been amended, and why, is of the second order. How to spread the truth as rapidly as is possible is tantamount to revolutionary improvement within our Republic.

God help us!

Cato the Elder| 1.1.09 @ 12:05PM

Killershoes, thank you for your response to Jeremiah. Lest he believe me mean-spirited, let me compliment Jeremiah on his shining example of the leftist mind in action. I believe it was Metternich who said of the Hapsburg dynasty that they learned nothing and forgot nothing? Jeremiah is what we're up against, folks. What there is of it, the Leftist mind functions only in the future, eschewing history and despising its template to rationally analyze what is present and real.

Jeremiah| 1.1.09 @ 12:23PM

Cato the Elder -

Up against?

I'm an earner of maybe 24,000 dollars a year. I write a few posts here and there. I read books. And you're "up against" me? You have an optimistic view of what American society faces, I'd say.

Let me propose a different way of looking at these things:

If you are in the middle class, or anywhere close to it, you are "up against" a wealthy class that has been in control of government since the 1980s. This class is not interested in "competition," or free markets, or even playing fields.

They want it all. They don't want to play marbles: they want ALL the marbles. That was the point of the past eight years.

Nothing else mattered, but that a trillion and a half dollars or so (and counting) be extricated from the middle class, from spending on roads and bridges and schools, by hook and crook, and sublated upwards.

Nothing gives the people whose interests Republicans (and many Democrats) represent more pleasure than the fact that they've convinced YOU that Whoopie Goldberg, a handful of anthropology professors, and a few trade unions are your actual enemy.

I actually agree with one thing that you wrote: there is a danger of Moloch-worshiping Whiggery in our politics and in both parties, a vapid and greedy expectation of future gain that does not reflect on the past: it does not reflect on what our fathers and fore-fathers accomplished, on what our teachers and parents did for us, on what soldiers sacrificed for us.

The post-industrialist, consumerist market is a River Lethe. Does that old building suit our immediate needs anymore? Bring it down, and to hell with history, memorial, reverence, tradition, custom: it is a crazed market, obsessed with profit and loss, that is the nihilism you feel chipping away at your values, family, way of life.

True conservatism was born from a horror of modern markets in England during the 18th and 19th century. It was an attempt to preserve the old ways, and it migrated to America in something of the same spirit.

Public works, public good, and responsible governance are the solution -- and in truth, I believe that both "parties" contain vital contact with that solution. Conservatism -- and Cato the Elder would agree, I think -- is an impulse to remain in touch with our past and customs (despite how that contact is inconvenient to buying and selling); "liberalism" preserve the need to maintain a flourishing public space or forum through spending: infrastructure, museums, schools, parks -- all are independent of and inconvenient to the short term interests of the market, but all are necessary to our enduring and flourishing as a nation.

adie| 1.1.09 @ 1:25PM

Jeremiah, get out of my pocketbook you pernicious twit.

Jeremiah| 1.1.09 @ 1:41PM

Nobody's in your pocketbook, adie. The society that protects you and provides the order upon which you depend to earn money doesn't just happen: people build and maintain it. There's only one way to do that: tax and spend.

James Boatwright| 1.1.09 @ 2:57PM

To Jeremiah | 12.31.08 @ 9:55AM

I can tell that you are the product of the American Public Schools -- at least in the area of English Grammar.

You write:
"If you think Democrats are your 'enemies' -- no matter YOUR all so grumpy all the time."

Doesn't the word "your" indicate "possession"?
In your case here, "possession" of what?
Would you possibly have meant to use the contraction "you're" to mean "you are"?
That whole sentence doesn't make too much sense, anyway.

Did you also attend Harvard or Princeton?

Good Socialist show, anyway.

Thanks,
James

martin| 1.1.09 @ 4:05PM

Dr. J:

"Public works, public good, and responsible governance are the solution --"

The essence of the modern liberal philosophy: no individual creativity, no individual responsibility, and permanent dependence on government for all individual needs.

Well, if you are an able bodied adult making $24K a year who wants to spend most of his time reading books instead of improving on a teenager's wage level, no wonder you are a socialist. As has been said before: get out of my pocketbook, (slacker). Pull your own weight.

Jeremiah| 1.1.09 @ 5:28PM

Thanks for catching my mistake: "your" for "you're" was unforgivable.

As for my yearly wage, Martin, I'm a graduate student and not really expected to earn much more than what I'm earning.

Now, James -- where did you find me putting down "individual creativity"?

Do you see much of that at your local strip mall?

If free markets led to "individual creativity," we'd be living through another Renaissance.

(During the Renaissance, by the way, there were no "free markets" as we'd today think about them. Then again, there are no free markets now -- just markets that exploit the middle class in service of the very wealthy.)

Jean Nichols`| 1.1.09 @ 7:59PM

I would think that Governor Pa;in has a tad bit more experience that Caroline Kennedy, while it is true that Caroline has more political clout, in Washington,than Sarah. I would take the experience over the clout as there is way to much "clout" down there already.
And then there is Franken, which surprised me when the Dem choose him at convention and then bigger surprise that we are having a recount. Those absentee ballots are pretty important to him for some reason?

Ezekiel| 1.1.09 @ 8:23PM

Jeremiah's demonstrated a natural law: People outside (and opposed to) a group tend to do a terrible job defining the central principles of that group.

Conservatism holds that power is most properly exercised at as decentralized a level as possible -- that most authority should lie with individuals, families, and their local communities. A small Federal gov't with limited involvement in people's lives is ideal. A large Federal gov't responsible for making sure everyone has what they need in life is the enemy of liberty.

Perhaps the reason you equate that with trying to preserve the past, is because the ideal of individual freedom from gov't intrusion was shared by the majority of Americans until recent decades.

vincep1974| 1.1.09 @ 8:31PM

I think restricting the right to vote to people who earn property and people whose 1040 form says they owe Federal Tax to the Govt that year.

And people who should be disallowed to vote is anyone who received money from the Federal Govt (other thank to cleanup) for that year

If you're free-loading, you can't vote me into poverty.

Jeremiah| 1.1.09 @ 9:49PM

Ezekiel --

Actually, the opposite is sometimes true, and outsiders are capable of seeing things that those inside a group are prevented from seeing.

It's true that the word "conservative" has many meanings. As a strand of Anglo-American political thought and habits, it dates back to the late eighteenth century.

Then it was a reaction against markets, free-thinking, and what we might now refer to as individual liberty. (As this last word implies, these things would more likely have been referred to as "liberal.")

The same held true in America throughout the nineteenth and even into the twentieth century. Conservatives were certainly on the side of the wealthy, as they are today, but there movement was characterized primarily by a distress at markets, tumult, the chaos of social mobility, and the incipient nihilism of consumer society (the notion that value was determined by markets is the least conservative idea possible).

In academia this sense of conservatism has actually survived: scholars who believe in "great books" programs rather than studies of "relevant books" or the of training students for the "job market" are considered fuddy duddies, or in lay parlance, conservatives.

At any rate, it is only in the last four decades or so that "conservatism" has taken on the liberal (libertarian) values you espouse.

All this goes to show these words tend to confuse people more than clarify ideas. You're a case in point.

It is conservative, for example, to expend massive sums on museums, schools, libraries, archives, and other public institutions: the Philistines now running the Republican party of course have no clue why this should be show, and think nothing of tax cuts.

That's not conservatism: it's just Whiggery -- the wheedling connivances of merchants and accountants, and (to quote a true conservative) easy, vulgar and therefore disgusting.

Jeremiah| 1.1.09 @ 9:53PM

My mistake: "but their movement".... for "but there movement"

One last thing --

This is not to say the meaning of the word can't or hasn't changed. I'm just playing around with history, here -- which is its own form of conservative activism.

I know you thought Rush Limbaugh had cleared everything in the universe up for you, revealing two forces forever at war, the conservative v. the liberal. Believe what you want, though. It hardly matters, either way.

Jeremiah| 1.1.09 @ 9:57PM

Vince1974

I gape disbelievingly at what you've written, now that I've figured out what you are trying to say. If I remember correctly from my days in the military, your rule would have prevented me from voting because I did not earn enough.

Vince -- have you ever thought about moving to a country that wasn't a democracy? You'd be happier in El Salvador, maybe. If you were one of the five or six people wealthy enough to vote.

The Old Chief| 1.1.09 @ 10:54PM

Indulge me in a bit of nit-picking. None of us live in a Democracy. The United States of America is a Constitutional REPUBLIC. Democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

Ezekiel| 1.2.09 @ 1:24AM

Play around with the vocabulary all you want, Jeremiah -- once you find just the right box into which you'd like Conservatives to be, go have fun browbeating the strawman you have chosen. However much you wish you were arguing against the Whigs of old, Reagan and Thatcher best-exemplified the modern Conservative movement.

To follow up on Old Chief's astute remark: Yes. And Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.

ruth| 1.2.09 @ 4:03AM

Jeremiah, you're such a stereotype of a Liberal academic, and so self-serving, too. Conservatives are for the self-empowered individual, rich or poor; it's a joke that you claim we are the party of the wealthy. Most of the rich are Democrats. Get your head out of your schoolbook or any other place it is firmly embedded.

martin| 1.2.09 @ 10:20AM

Jeremiah,

A graduate student? Well pardon me and come back after you've worked for a living at a real (non-academic) job. It's ok to be wet behind the ears, but you are risibly pretentious for a wannabe socialist professor who isn't even ABD. Based on the body of your though exhibited here, I think you've graded one too many Education or American Studies 101 pop quizzes. (Please, tell me you're not studying a real subject.)

Re: your twisted economic lesson: "(During the Renaissance, by the way, there were no "free markets" as we'd today think about them. Then again, there are no free markets now -- just markets that exploit the middle class in service of the very wealthy.)"

Ever heard of Venice and other city states, and how wealth was achieved by --shudder--risk taking capitalists? And how does a "market", an inanimate object, "exploit" anything as in your fractured reasoning?

You sound like William Ayres without the degree or pipe bombs. BOOM. Happy New Year.

matin| 1.2.09 @ 10:25AM

Jeremiah,

"though" s/b "thought"

And I forgot to ask: you mentioned your military service. Is your name Scott Beauchamp?

Crusader| 1.2.09 @ 11:45AM

Vince has it right on. To be able to vote you should:

- Pay income taxes
- Not receive gubmint handouts

Pretty simple. I can't vote myself a share of Microsoft's dividends if I don't own stock in the company. Likewise, you shouldn't be able to vote yourself a share of the GDP if you don't contribute anything to it. If we took away the freeloader vote we might also get candidates who actually talk real issues instead of pander to said freeloaders.

And you know what? If you really wanted to vote it would force you to work harder and earn more. Imagine that.

ruth| 1.2.09 @ 3:04PM

Why work when you can just take it?

Jeremiah| 1.2.09 @ 3:30PM

The Renaissance saw the first inchoate beginnings of what became capitalism, but neither Venice nor Florence nor Paris nor Rome during these centuries is an example of a "free market."

The notion that you have to be rich to vote would, however, have been attractive in these places -- as it is here among you reactionaries.

Now, never mind about me working for a living. That certainly will never happen. I have far too many interests to encumber myself with a "job" or a "boss."

James Joyce was once asked if he was a socialist. "Of course," he replied. "How else will I eat?"

I wouldn't go so far, and I earn plenty for my modest spending. Unlike what seems now to be a majority of Americans, I live within my means and require no bail - out, like those heroic captains of capitalist industry you fools worship.

Soon you'll be able to take this admonition literally: "you have nothing to lose but your chains."

Jeremiah| 1.2.09 @ 3:34PM

Excuse me....."unlike those captains of industry"

What a slip!

As for sounding like William Ayers....

Frankly, I'm insulted and attacked around here on a daily basis. Comparing me to Ayers is lame and shallow by comparison to what I usually get, I'm happy to report.

Louis Jenkins| 1.2.09 @ 5:07PM

Caroline Kennedy/Schlossberg, whoever...(yawn) more of the same can be expected from that senate seat no matter who is given the pedestal in which to place their hindquarters. We could not expect much more.

To solve the problems of crime...stiff penalties for repeat offenders (remember strike three your out? ) Capital crimes, particularly murder, should receive the ultimate punishment...you've got five minutes to make peace with your maker...then that short drop on a rope. No long drawn out appeals at tax payers expense. Make prison punishment, bring back chain gains, bust big rocks down to little ones, dig ditches, work on prison farms. Make doing time doing something.

Infrastructure...every time a state budget is in need the road fund tax is raided for social programs, museums, parks, etc. Sames goes for Federal taxes. Use that money for what it was meant for. Its hard to have a lock box for social security when the wolves are amongst the sheep and the canines are the gate keepers.

Education...how many times do we hear its a need for the children when the children are terrorizing the teachers. When school discipline is slack because of rules and regs so are the students. I got disciplined plenty of times and managed to grow up without scars. Kids addressed their teachers as Sir or Mrs/Miss, etc. Empahsis should be placed on the three Rs, not on indoctrination, not on in school sex education and all its now acceptable abarrencies, not on acceptance of various religions or differences in creeds (I'm okay, you're okay). Get back to business and teach, and if the kids cause a disrruptive classroom atmosphere, cast them out.

But its just too much to expect that a wise decision would be made on who to appoint. Or that a get down to business roll up the sleeves type would get the nod. After all, the candidates for appointment are members of the elite. They have important decision making in their genetics, and therefore are infinately qualified to waltz into a position of extreme authority. Think of it this way, its for us kids.

ruth| 1.2.09 @ 7:57PM

Quit whining, Jeremiah. If I tried to post on Huff/Post or Daily Kos I would be cussed out and kicked off of their site. Besides, sometimes you're plenty insulting, snot boy; it isn't our fault you are a masochist.

vincep1974| 1.3.09 @ 6:40AM

I thikn I was drunk when I wrote my last comment:

"I think restricting the right to vote to people who earn property and people whose 1040 form says they owe Federal Tax to the Govt that year.

And people who should be disallowed to vote is anyone who received money from the Federal Govt (other thank to cleanup) for that year

If you're free-loading, you can't vote me into poverty. "

This is what I meant to say

I think restricting the right to vote to people who OWN property and people whose 1040 form says they owe Federal Tax to the Govt that year. (People who paid excess in withholding qualify as owing taxes)

And people who should be disallowed to vote is anyone who received money from the Federal Govt (other than witholding refunds, and military people) for that year

If you're free-loading, you can't vote me into poverty.
========

Jerimiah: I didn't mean to exclude the military. As I understand it, its the Lefties today who effectively disenfranchise them by using technicalities to make their absentee votes invalid.

Jeremiah| 1.3.09 @ 1:27PM

Vince --

It's the "lefties" who lobby incessantly for increases in veterans' benefits and health care.

I challenge you to find a Democratic politician who sought to exclude military votes. They'd be insane to try.

I can understand how "conservatives" might be a little nervous with increasing numbers of soldiers running as and voting for Democrats.

About your overall idea:

It expresses your emotional discomfort about your tax burden, which is fine. This is what right wing radio and other media encourage you to do: express exasperation, rage, and so forth.

But it's unreasonable and completely unworkable and completely unjust. The poor have the vote. That's the way it works, in this country. Love it or leave it, brother.

Now -- remember that it's not my fault or anyone else's fault your movement his having a difficult time articulating its ideas. Our current president is the least articulate man to have ever held the office in modern times, and your recent candidates were tongue-tied (McCain) and not very well informed (Palin).

Conservative ideas about taxation are important and should be a part of the national debate. For the good of everyone, conservatives should try a little harder to make stronger arguments.

Jeremiah| 1.3.09 @ 1:35PM

re: "If you're freeloading"

Everyone free-loads.

The fantasy of autonomy -- like the fantasy of unity -- can be a useful metaphor in theoretical discussions about politics, like the "state of nature" in social contract theory.

This is not to say you don't work hard for what you have. It's only to say that your ability to work for what you have is predicated on the work others have done.

vincep1974| 1.3.09 @ 3:04PM

>It's the "lefties" who lobby incessantly for increases in veterans' benefits and health care.

Another victim class. how surprising. I didn't ask that question. I said they throw their votes out. So i guess the Left only supports them after they get injured and are hoping they're bitter and will vote for the Hate America side.

>I challenge you to finda Democratic politician who sought to exclude military votes. They'd be insane to try.

Fairfax County, Virgina is one

>I can understand how "conservatives" might be a little nervous with increasing numbers of soldiers running as and voting for Democrats.

Thats the law of avgs isn't it? The more soldiers in active duty, the more will get political when they get back. I'm not worried about anything.

>It expresses your emotional discomfort about your tax burden, which is fine. This is what right wing radio and other media encourage you to do: express exasperation, rage, and so forth.
But it's unreasonable and completely unworkable and completely unjust. The poor have the vote. That's the way it works, in this country. Love it or leave it, brother.

What bothers me is that I have to live under this DemParty Kletpocracy in Chicago/Cook County because they managed to turn the South and West Sides into a giant plantation with full shares.

The freeloaders can vote today it's true. But there's nothing to say that a future law can't change that situation

As far as the rest of what you said. I'm not complaining about the specific level of taxes.. I'm complaining about the corruption of the Democrat Party.

ruth| 1.3.09 @ 5:46PM

Jeremiah, I'm not worried that more soldiers are voting democrat because you liberals are good at obstructing their vote. No ACORN for them.

Oregonian| 1.3.09 @ 8:08PM

Nice try, Jeremiah, but Vince isn't going to let you rephrase his comments. He didn't say you should have to be rich to vote; he said you should have to own property and pay income tax. In other words, the people who pay for government should get to determine how their money is spent; the people who don't contribute should not be able to vote themselves a share of someone else's contribution.

Scratch a liberal and you always find class envy!

Cari Clark| 1.3.09 @ 8:25PM

My, this thread has certainly been interesting! Jeremiah dear, you make the point that most liberals make: the difference between conservatives and liberals is that liberals believe that the government is the entity that allows us to eearn. Conservatives, however, feel that the free market and individual initiative are what allows government to function--and while you owe the government money for needed functions such as military, infrastructure, and police protection, most of what you earn you should get to keep.

Of course, I subscribe to the second point of view. After all, what does government manufacture? What part of the GNP does government produce?

The government consumes tax money that is earned in the free market, made up of private industry. That is its only source of income. Jeremiah, you are unwittingly advocating the killing of the goose that lays the golden eggs.

Remember, dear, you are young. Your needs are, it would seem, small. That's commendable. However, once you are a real adult with the responsibilities of a mortgage and family, we'll talk again.

Jeremiah| 1.3.09 @ 8:29PM

Oregonian --

The great success of corporatism (or in the lingo around here, "conservatism") is to convince middle class men to have moral solidarity with people wealthier than they are rather than poorer.

Still, class envy is always in the works.

If you are poor or in the middle class, I urge you to see your interests as tied to others in the middle class.

As for the rich, I have no sense of solidarity with them whatsoever.

Roll out the guillotine, I say.

If you think the wealthy are looking out for the middle class at all, you're deluded beyond belief.

VinceP1974| 1.3.09 @ 10:12PM

Corporatism or fascism is a govt / economic system where the Central Govt interfaces with the multitude of private business through indiustry assocations and boards known as Corporates.

The govt gives it diktat to the Corporate who then does the work of delegating to the various businesses that provide the goods needed.

Kinda like a Car Czar.

ruth| 1.4.09 @ 3:02AM

You just don't get it, Jeremiah. Why should people work their butts off if they don't get to keep their resultant earnings? Simple answer: They won't. Socialism doesn't work, it never has--it's against human nature. We are just going to end up another brain-dead, lackluster socialist entity. How gutless. I can't believe this is happening to our once great nation. I used to feel pride in my American identity, now--not so much. I wonder how many others feel as I do?

Jeremiah| 1.4.09 @ 2:30PM

Ruth --

I don't know anyone who believes that people should not benefit from hard work.

But that wealth follows hard work is a hilarious ideological illusion. Wealth follows wealth; hard work is for those on bottom. I challenge anyone here to say they work harder than an illegal immigrant in a chicken factory or fruit orchard.

The vast majority of human beings toil endlessly for little reward. We few blessed enough to live in this country enjoy a level of consumption undreamt of by the majority of humanity -- and it's not because we work so hard.

We do work. We are a hard-working, productive people, but I'd say this is because we've been blessed with so much, not the other way around.

Taxation is one of the great goods of civilization, as is its hated cousins: government administrations and agencies.

These are the institutions that prevent the wealth of our society from traveling along lines of marriage and blood -- as it does in, say, present day Iraq.

Taxes should be fair, but they are the sole cause of their being public space and institutions. Taxation is not a necessary evil: it's a positive good.

ruth| 1.4.09 @ 5:43PM

Yes, we do work, but people won't go the extra mile if there isn't some kind of reward. It's that extra effort that has made our country unique, and socialism kills extra effort. Just look at the socialist nations today--they are medicocre. I don't want to be average, I want to strive for something more during my short time on earth. And it's not about money; money is just a means to an end, it's about making my life worth something. Womb to the tomb just doesn't do it for me, Jeremiah, and there are many Americans like me. Coercion will be the only way to make socialism work for many millions in our country. I honestly don't know about our future; it's something I pray about every day.

Scott A Joseph, MD| 1.4.09 @ 11:05PM

The enemy is Barney Frank. He is a moral scumbag who perpetrated the Fannie and Freddie meltdown. Spitzer is a kibitzer compared to him.

Greg| 1.5.09 @ 12:00AM

I'm with you Ruth. You graciously and elequently responded to Jeremiah's dillusional ranting. I became so frustrated with what the left has done to our country that I took a hiatus to China. The Chicom's finally are getting it. Free markets create wealth. There's an almost unprecendented growth of a strong and viable middle class here. Yes, there's corruption, but that mostly involves "greedy communist government officials" at all levels. Believe me, there is no great adulation for Mao here {unlike at many American college campuses} and probably with some in our own government (I won't mention a certain party). I'm engaged in my own little enterprise here free from overtaxation and regulation, and there's no political correctness and exposure to main stream media stupidity. Yes, I get CNN and BBC here, but I rarely watch it but for a few minutes before I become either angry or nauseous. Believe it or not, the local english language "Shenzhen Daily" newspaper, which only cost one yuan (about .15 cents) is a lot more objective in its coverage of America and world events than your average liberal rag newspaper in America. That even goes for the state controlled TV newscasts on CCTV. There's a program on CCTV called "Dialogue" where they discuss different topics presenting different points of view, and frequently have guests representing (dare I say) "the conservative view".
Go figure!

Jeremiah| 1.5.09 @ 10:25AM

Greg--

I assure you, there is no "adulation" of Mao on our college campuses. You'd be hard pressed to find 10 students who even know who Mao was on most campuses, in fact.

As to comparing our country to China: it's ludicrous. China's is still a control economy; they're using markets to generate wealth, of course. But let's see what happens when they start to do what "liberals" want, like pay their workers a fair wage and not pollute the environment. And offer fair trials, and so on.

It's easy to grow at 10% when you have two hundred million slaves.

ruth| 1.5.09 @ 2:22PM

That's what we are creating right now, Jeremiah, a slave state. It's that coercion thing, you know (in the spirit of the estimable Caroline Kennedy).

fe| 3.9.10 @ 3:07AM

Well done! Nice shoe