To Be â€œRâ€ Not â€œDâ€ Be
By: Eddie Clements
As you may suspect this is about Repubs and Dems. We will now tie together the clumsy title, Chris Adamoâ€™s â€œGOP Cannot Coast Into 2010 Electionsâ€, Ken Hughesâ€™ articles advocating a third party, and J.J. Jacksonâ€™s â€œIs Glenn Beck the Great Conservative Hope?â€ And yes, it is an easier trick for a neocon/homophobic/chauvinist-pig, mouth-frothing paranoid flag-waving knuckle-dragging Southerner to tie these together than rid the lawn of fire ants.
For preparation, we start with Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina. When Arlen Specter, dubbed â€œThe Worst Republican Senatorâ€ by National Review, jumped to the Democrats, I thought good riddance. Lindsey said it was bad, we need people with â€œRâ€™sâ€ by their name. Haley Barbour, Republican Governor of Mississippi said on FoxNews the other day essentially the same: itâ€™s a numbers game, and seeking ideological purity will result in the partyâ€™s continuing minority status.
Recent polls have indicated the â€œTea Partyâ€ candidate beats both Republicans and Democrats among voters. Trouble is, as I said to my wife at the time, there ainâ€™t no such animal. Rush warned against listening to the media chatter promoting this, because of a desire by Democrats to split votes off their rivalsâ€™ party.
In the recent past I have propounded the notion that Republicans arenâ€™t getting it done and donâ€™t seem to display the fire in the belly needed to crush Democrats/liberals/progressive-fascists. And, they must be crushed unless we are willing to submit to the jackbooted heel of an oppressor that will be the realization of Orwellâ€™s â€œ1984â€. A third party may be needed.
This is a pipe dream for the near term. There may be a time, sooner rather than later, when a third party is both viable and necessary. The day when that debate can be held without fear of continuing the destruction of the US will be welcomed. That day will not come before the end of 2010.
Glenn Beck has sounded the clarion call for the need to end Washington corruption, the real enemy of both parties and the American people. I agree.
Beck says we need to promote people to positions of responsibility that will stand for truth and retain conservative foundersâ€™ values of limited government and power vested in the people, among other things. Agree again.
Beck says socialists/progressives/fascists/statists threaten to undo hard-won gains of progress through capitalism and replace merit with political correctness. No argument here.
Beck is the only one with a trophy head so far, Van Jones. He is passionate, innovative, thoughtful, diligent, and scares the left, endearing qualities all. I hope he doesnâ€™t burn out. While from Beckâ€™s position he canâ€™t really be a party advocate, he goes off the rails with constant droning on about being a libertarian, which is the name of a political party. One could argue he is promoting that party, and that he does so to the detriment of his stated beliefs above. It is not Republicans but Democrats that are voting as a block to end liberty Americans now enjoy, against our wishes.
He needs to be clear that the ones busily engaged in destroying America, and everything Beck advocates, have a â€œDâ€ by their name, not an â€œRâ€. There may be corruption in both parties, but this is not an ordinary election year. To put a fine point on it, Republicansâ€™ corruption goes to their personal enrichment, not the ultimate destruction of the capitalist system. We can survive a few random corrupt politicians, but if the system fails, we all go to the poorhouse.
Beck may not like to hold his nose and vote â€œRâ€, but choices are limited. Bill Bennett said on Hannity just before Christmas that there are only two teams on the field, you have to root for one of them. Libertarian Joe Kennedy is running opposite both Martha Coakley-D and Scott Brownâ€“R for the senate in Massachusetts. Kennedy is quoted as saying â€œThe funny thing about the Brown supporters, theyâ€™re so unbelievably clueless,â€ he said. â€œIf I withdrew from the race today, my vote would be split 60-40 going to Coakley.â€ There was no follow-up quoted in the article to challenge this statement, which sounds unlikely. It seems more likely that garnering three to five percent of the vote could elect a Democrat who will support federally-mandated health-care, instead of a Republican who said he would not. There is no more dramatic illustration of how a third party could result in the devastation of liberty.
Whether that scenario is realized or not, what it will come to the day after national elections 2010 is whether the â€œRâ€™sâ€ outnumber the â€œDâ€™sâ€. Neither Libertarians nor any other party will be a factor. We are in BIG trouble now, and it could get bigger.
Between now and then, we should resolve to end disputes over things like abortion, corruption, conservative or moderate. Sure, itâ€™s a tall order. These are issues inflaming passions that go to our deepest beliefs. But this is power politics; defeating fascism is no easy task. We have seen how one-party rule crushes alternative opinion. The Libertarian Party may have their day but should take a back seat for now. A â€œTea Partyâ€ is a long way off as a party presenting candidates. The media would take advantage of their presence to muddy the waters, ending with majority votes for â€œDâ€™sâ€.
Rush Limbaugh has remained a stalwart of faith in Americans and their ability to overcome difficulty. He is an inspiration in this regard if nothing else. We will see on January 20th 2010 from electoral results in Massachusetts whether that faith is justified, no matter who wins. The fact that a battle has been joined where one was not foreseen encourages optimism.
Understand none of this should be considered criticism, but enthusiastic discussion. We all want the best for our country and our fellow citizens, now and always. Our democratic republic provides light to a dark world, inspiring so many to yearn for the American ideal. If we continue with one-party rule, that ideal will be diminished for no gain.