I might, for the first time in my adult life, sit out a presidential election. The party system allows itself to be rigged... completely into ethical oblivion. The Democrats have their captive voters: unions, Victimhood groups, radicals, etc. I don't think that the Republicans command any such "loyalty", if you can call it that. Especially given this bullshit by Romney's hacks which has turned nomination into a political boss, corrupt deal in smokeless backroom corruption parlors, and removed the voters from the deal.
Republicans are as disgusting as Democrats, just in a different way.,br>
HT: Vox Day
1 comment:
It is my politically naive opinion that the Republican party elites seem determined to alienate the rank and file (especially anyone supporting TEA Party principles) and to force them either to STFU or go away altogether. As a consequence, the Republican Party has become a mirror image of the Democrat Party. Put simply, if you threw a Democrat and a Republican into a bag, shook it up, reached in and pulled one out, how would you know the difference?
I have had many discussions with a self-proclaimed "die-hard Progressive" at work. He is slowly coming around to my own view of the two major political parties: BOTH of them are "big government, rule by elites" advocates. The Democrats favor social programs and the Republicans favor the military, but BOTH of them (as exemplified by the elites) favor the elites making ALL decisions, not just political decisions.
http://hotair.com/archives/2014/04/07/house-gop-quietly-passes-bill-to-expand-coverage-choices-under-obamacare/
Excerpt:
The risk in the “bide your time” approach is that the more comfortable you make O-Care for Americans, the harder it is to get people excited about repeal later. The risk in “let it burn” is that the more obstructionist you are, the easier you make it for Democrats to convince people that O-Care would be working just fine if not for Republicans blocking the necessary repairs. Which strategy is better?
That last sentence should read: "Which strategy is better for getting elected or re-elected?" That is the ONLY concern of the professional political elites. It has become a matter of "settled law" (much in the same sense of "settled science" regarding anthropogenic global warming).
Notice the total absence of any concern regarding the fundamental question: is it Constitutional to force an individual to enter into a private contract with another entity (an individual or a corporation) against their will and under the penalty of law?
Oh, sorry, the Supreme Court already decided that question - by legislating from the bench - UNConstitutionally! By rewriting the word "mandate" to read "tax" (in spite of the Congress and the President explicitly stating over and over again that it WAS a "mandate" and NOT a "tax," The majority of the Supremes found that Obamacare WAS Constitutional.
R.I.P., the rule of Constitutional law and individual freedom from government coercion.
Rhetorical question:
Has there ever been an expansion of government power through the lure of another "free, gimme" program that has ever been repealed?!?
For more on the tangled self-interest of both Democrat and Republican elites regarding forcing Obamacare (or its equivalent) down the throat of the hoi polloi, see:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2012/02/07/the-tortuous-conservative-history-of-the-individual-mandate/
Post a Comment