|
|
JISHOU, HUNAN — Just days after Matthew Vadum of American Thinker proposed the dubious analogy that letting the poor vote was like giving crooks burglary tools, another brilliant mind pops up with similar cutting edge 18th century political ideas.
This time the mind in question belongs to John David Dyche, a Republican lawyer in Louisville, Kentucky. He wrote an opinion piece for the Courier-Journal entitled “Property rights crucial to voting rights.”
He begins with another dubious analogy — doctors this time, not second-story men.
Some bemoan Kentucky’s 10 percent voter turnout in recent primaries. But quantity hardly assures quality in making important choices.
If you had a serious disease would you open your treatment to everyone or confine it to a few specialists? A free society’s biggest decision is how it shall be governed. The Founders therefore placed prudent limits on participation in it.
After offhandedly suggesting that it was probably a good idea to let blacks and women vote, Dyche then takes us to the good old days when only the landed gentry could participate in politics or governance. You know, the situation that encouraged some demented landed gentry types to create an entirely new nation sometime around 1776.
Unlike Vadum, who draws his arguments from paranoia-scented thin air, Dyche dresses up his anti-democratic broadside with lots of quotes from historical figures — none of whom lived after the 1850s — with whom he happily agrees. Must be that law school training.
This is a preview of Another conservative jumps on “only property-owners should vote” bandwagon . Read the full post (1967 words, 1 image, estimated 7:52 mins reading time)Possibly related posts:
[Rescued from hacker oblivion, thanks to Facebook Notes.]
JISHOU, HUNAN — We’ll see how that Rand-y Paul-y thing is working out for ya.
At least, 56% for Rand Paul and 44% for Jack Conway is not the overwhelming landslide Paul had been hoping for, but it does put him in the Senate. Keep on eye on him, to see which way he votes. Will Mr Tea Party abandon his populist, libertarian platform and play with the big boys like Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), or will he stick to his guns and be the maverick-y kind of guy he said he was during his campaign?
On the bright side, some other Tea Party candidates, like Sharron Angle in Nevada and Christine O’Donnell in Delaware, failed in their election bids by closer margins than the Paul-Conway split. This tells me there are lot of other crazy people in Nevada and Delaware beside Angle and O’Donnell, but at least they haven’t taken over yet.
Sen. Dan Coats (R-IN) kept his seat. No big surprise.
And big spender Margaret Whitman failed (54% for former Gov. Jerry Brown to her 41% ) to buy her way into win the governorship of California.
So it’s a mixed bag. It should make for an interesting end to Obama’s (perhaps first) term in the White House. Maybe the Senate will play with him, but the House will be a free-for-all.
Permanent link to this post (233 words, 1 image, estimated 56 secs reading time) Possibly related posts:
[Post rescued from hacker oblivion, thanks to Facebook Notes.]
JISHOU, HUNAN — Yeah, I’m several thousand miles away from my polling place in Floyd County, Indiana, but I still voted. So, you’d better not have lame excuse about not being to get your butt out to vote. Just sayin’.
I’ve been watching the political polls closely for the races in Indiana and Kentucky (and California, for entirely different reasons), and I’m worried.
Let’s say you’re dissatisfied with the Obama administration. I know I am, and I voted for the guy. But look it at this, most of Obama’s problems in getting the things done that he promised to get done have originated in the Party of No — the Republicans. It makes no difference what Obama proposes, the GOP will just say no. Bipartisanship has been officially dead in Washington for so long I’ve forgotten when Democrats and Republicans actually worked together on something to benefit the entire nation, and not just their own party’s chances of re-election.
So, you’re disappointed with Obama. Voting for a Republican will only make Obama’s job even harder, since none of the Repubs running for office have even remotely suggested they will work with the Democrats, only against them. Choosing a Democrat may have the same effect, but at least there’s a chance the newly elected Dem will stick with his party.
Possibly related posts:
Courtesy of xkcd:
Permanent link to this post (4 words, 2 images, estimated 1 secs reading time) Possibly related posts:
|
Recent Comments