General Thoughts On The Election

Well, if you watch ABC or CBS, even CNN, it appears the election has already been decided and the Democrats apparently control both Houses already. There's already talk of Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid. I suppose a more paranoid person might call that "bias", but that's such an overused term these days.

To be honest, I'm not a big fan of the media telling me how the election will occur months before it happens, but I expect it. The Fourth Estate has made it clear, although they've been somewhat schizophrenic in their admission of it, that they will consistently side with the far left elements of the Democrat Party and if they have to sacrifice one or two of the pet liberal Republicans to do it, then so be it (that means you Chaffee and McCain).

Since I don't have them, I'll have to rely on other sources, likely just as biased, but a bit more open and obvious about their agenda. I'd advise you all do the same and take in a few of the left and right sites out there once in awhile. It's an eye opener no matter how you slice it.

For example, a popular topic seems to be that Libertarians will spoil the November election for many Republicans, even in more conservative areas. How dare the Libertarians, it is said, just handing the election to the more liberal Democrats. There's a point to that. It has happened before and it will likely happen again. The same happened on the left-leaning Democrat side of the aisle with the Greens. For the Republicans, I will only say this, if you had been half as conservative in your actions and your rhetoric as the Libertarians in the MidWest, you'd be worrying not one iota for your jobs come next week.

Sadly, the Libertarians have proven the far more conservative of the two between them and the majority of Republicans. When it comes to tax cuts, smaller more efficient government and things like "the Constitiution in exile", you'll find a lot more Libertarian candidates supporting it than Republicans. Well, I'm sure many Republicans and even some Democrats will tell you they're for such things, but their record doesn't bear it out. And it's insanely easy to get ahold of a voting record these days. Worse, the alternative is even more left-leaning nanny-state-loving and tax-friendly. So the dilemna, do you try and keep the devil you know or the devil you don't? Not much representation if you ask me.

I do have one thing still puzzling me about that, though. Why, if both Republicans and Democrats have to run right to get elected do we end up with so many damn left-leaning politicians? Politicians who believe the state should be running our lives from cradle to grave and who believe we should pay for the priviledge are the norm on Capitol Hill. How the hell did they get there? If the country is so ready and so enamored with the prospect of a Democrat Congress, why then are they all running to the far right of what they've been railing on about for the past two years? Because it's all a con job. Democrats and the antique media and even Republicrats can argue that the people want all this nanny state garbage, but read how they run if you want to know the real will of the American people. They'll only speak truth when they think they're among friends and if what they say is going to get a wide audience, then they all want to be the reincarnation of Barry Goldwater. What a joke, but then again, we all seem to vote for the jokes, don't we?

Then there's the whole trend lately of showing how "middle class mainstream Heartland voters" are all jumping ship and going to vote Democrat (LEFT) now that the Republican-controlled Congress and White House has disillusioned them somehow. I've had my suspicions that most were in left-controlled strongholds in said "red" states, and ABC proved it for me when they visited LaPorte for their latest piece. It's geographic and political ignorance to think that conservative-leaning states in general don't have bastions of liberal power. Indiana has Bloomington, Indianapolis and the ancient Democrat fortress of Northwest Indiana outside of Chicago. LaPorte is in that control zone. Republicans up there in general tend to be the old liberal Rockefeller-kind and not quite the hard-nosed conservatives you find in the northeast and north central parts of the state. So, finding people who don't like the President isn't too hard in such areas.

It's like going to Chihuahua, Mexico and asking the transients heading north if they're upset with the conservatives' stand on illegal immigration to the United States. Look, conservative leaning districts will likely vote conservative again and liberal districts will do the same. It all depends on who gets more people to the polls. Every unbiased survey for the last 30 years has shown the country in general to be almost evenly split between conservatives and liberals with a slightly larger "moderate" or "undecided" population. That hasn't changed. What changes from election to election is who has a better get-out-the-vote system and who has more money. That's all politics ever boils down to.

I can safely guarantee you this, though. Regardless of my feelings regarding this President and the areas I believe has has succeeded and the areas I believe he's failed, I wouldn't vote for a Leftist to replace him or sit in Congress ever or for any reason. Their agenda is to further erode and destroy the America I really want to protect. They want to drastically increase the withholding and hidden taxes to fund their pet socialist programs, which means even less money for us and our families, they want to grow the nanny state, let illegal immigrants in ahead of legal ones, strip the government of one of its most basic functions (defense) and give it a bunch of new ones never authorized it by the Constitution. Not to mention, you won't see another conservative Supreme Court justice for at least the next decade. Yeah, count me out on that agenda. The media has it about as right as a dime store horoscope can tell you your winning lotto numbers.