We've gotten so used to candidates who promise to use the government to take care of us, that we now expect these promises and refuse to elect people who fail to make them.
It is so amazing to me that, in almost every race across the country, we will probably elect one of two people whose only philosophy is to get elected by promising to make government a benevolent "Daddy" with an infinitely deep pocket. While the person who has an underlying philosophy (the axiom of non-aggression) that will drive his character, will go almost completely ignored. History is lost on us, and I can't figure out why. Democratic governments cannot survive when the electorate discovers that the ballot box can be used as an instrument of plunder...
Two thoughts today.
Recently, the NAU Social Research Laboratory conducted a survey of likely voters. The results were interesting. I learned that, of the people who recognize my name, 63% have a positive impression of me. The trouble is that only 8% of those surveyed knew who I was!
I need your help. If you're on this website, it must mean you're curious about me. That's GREAT!!! Do me this favor: Read my positions, pass judgment on me as a person/candidate for Congress.
If you like me, tell your friends that you like me...tell them why you like me...and urge them to vote for me.
If you HATE me, tell your friends that you hate me...tell them why you hate me...and urge them to vote against me.
It doesn't matter to me whether you like me or don't, but let's get a dialogue going. I want to win or lose because of what I stand for, not because I'm unknown!
Second, I will be speaking, tonight, at the Candidate Forum presented by the League of Women Voters of Central Yavapai County. The forum will be held at the Yavapai College Performance Hall (1100 E. Sheldon Street, Prescott). I hope you'll come see me. Cheer for me. Ask me hard questions. Heckle me. But don't sit on your thumbs and do nothing. This country and our freedoms are at stake. As Michael Badnarik says, "This isn't a matter of life and death. It's much more important than that!"
George Bush and the Republicans have a tempting idea. They propose to make permanent, the recent "break" the president gave us on our taxes. Democrats are opposed to the idea.
But aren't both the Democrats and Republicans speaking the same language? The democrats want to keep your money because they believe they are entitled to it. The Republicans feel entitled to your money, but propose to give you a break out of the kindness of their hearts.
Both groups feel entitled to your money? Who earned it, you or them?
Instead of bickering over tax "breaks," why aren't we having a discussion about why the government has grown so monstrous that it needs 40-50% of my (and your) earnings?
Democracy is, as Abraham Lincoln said, "government of the people, by the people, and for the people." Doesn't this imply that democracy is all about the will of the people?
How, then, can democracy be exported and imposed on people in places like Afghanistan and Iraq?
In Somalia, anyone who criticizes the government can be arrested for "subverting state authority and creating national disunity." Of course, this is the kind of law you would expect in a dictatorship.
But think about what you hear as you listen to the Republican/Democrat duopoly bicker with each other: Republicans constantly decrying how dissent against the administration's foreign policy subverts their authority; and Democrats constantly decrying how dissent against their social proposals creates disunity in our nation.
Am I right? Doesn't this make you feel just a little uncomfortable? I think it's downright scary.