← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Buster

Is Gridlock best?

Thread ID: 15324 | Posts: 7 | Started: 2004-10-15

Wayback Archive

Buster [OP]

2004-10-15 17:22 | User Profile

The Final Stretch

by Joe Sobran

There may be only one word for John Kerry’s campaign, and it seems to fall to me to coin it: Dukakisian. Whatever Michael Dukakis’s message may have been in 1988, nobody ever heard it, because he let the Republicans keep him on the defensive throughout the campaign.

Kerry is helping President Bush even more than Dukakis helped his father. He doesn’t even have a slogan, let alone a message. He has taken so many confusing positions that the only theme I can distill is that he’ll give us even bigger government than Bush will. If you feel that the federal government is still too small, you can make a case for Kerry. Reducing or even limiting the size of government isn’t an option.

As Dick Morris points out in The New York Post, even Kerry’s supporters don’t really like him! Come to think of it, I don’t think I’ve ever heard the phrase “Kerry enthusiast.” Such an animal apparently doesn’t exist outside the hamster-loving community. Whereas many of Bush’s backers really love him, even deem him a great president, Kerry’s support comes chiefly from people who loathe Bush.

And yet Kerry may win. A Newsweek analysis shows Kerry leading in electoral votes, 233 to 181, with the rest up for grabs. In an odd reversal of the 2000 election, Bush could win the popular vote yet lose in the Electoral College. In that case, the Republicans would probably keep control of Congress, giving us what may be the best overall outcome: gridlock.

Real conservatives who support Bush, in spite of their discontent with him, usually argue that he would make better court appointments than Kerry would; Kerry would surely choose justices who would favor legal abortion, same-sex marriage, and other monstrosities. Here is where gridlock comes in: Would the Republican Senate confirm Kerry’s choices as compliantly as it confirmed Bill Clinton’s? Or would it, under pressure from conservatives, put up a fight for a change? On the other hand, Bush himself has ignored the Constitution in the legislation he has promoted.

A witty reader puts the issue to me this way: “We are reduced to hoping that Bush will appoint justices conservative enough to strike down the laws Bush supports.”

If the choice is between Bush and Kerry, Bush may be slightly preferable. But if you think of the options as Bush and gridlock, I’d prefer gridlock, which would at least retard the growth of government — provided Kerry was blocked from filling the judiciary with liberal madmen.

Happy Hacker

2004-10-15 19:24 | User Profile

One thing that made the Clinton years much better than they would have otherwise been is the conflict between Clinton and Congress.

I just hope that if Kerry wins, the public sees it as a repudiation of how Bush got America into war with Iraq. And, if Bush wins, the public sees it as a repudiation of Kerry's ultra-liberal perversions.

And, the judge thing is still the best, and almost only reason, to vote for Bush. Kerry has already promised a litmus test that his judges to be pro-abortion (with taxpayer dollars), pro-disrimination against whites, pro-discrimination against men, and probably to be activists for the homosexual agenda.

Buster

2004-10-15 19:36 | User Profile

But remember, seven of the nine judges are already republican appointees. Two pro-abortion rights judges were even Reagan's (O'connor and Kennedy). It won't persuade me to vote for Bush.

xmetalhead

2004-10-15 19:41 | User Profile

Another 4 years of Bush and we're done for. If worse is better is your philosophy, Bush should be your choice.

I can't see how any politician could ever outlaw abortion or overturn Roe v Wade. It ain't happening. I don't care who's on the Supreme Court. That abortion is here to stay is, unfortunately, something that should be accepted.

I'll get some satisfaction by pulling the lever for Kerry this November 2 just to reject the Bush neocon doctrine. If Kerry crashes the plane too, so be it.

Who cares?

Buster

2004-10-15 20:25 | User Profile

[QUOTE=xmetalhead]I can't see how any politician could ever outlaw abortion or overturn Roe v Wade. It ain't happening. I don't care who's on the Supreme Court. That abortion is here to stay is, unfortunately, something that should be accepted.[/QUOTE]

True, except if Congress or the President challenges the Judicial Supremacy doctrine of the Constitution itself, as Jefferson did with respect to releasing prisoners for sedition. They can simply refuse to allow the U.S. Marshall, the FBI or any other federal authorities to carry out the Court's decision. The court has no power to enforce its own decision, other than what Congress and the Executive accept.

Realistically, no Republican has the cojones to do that. Reagan should have. I think the strategy of picking "good judges" is defunct.

Happy Hacker

2004-10-15 23:21 | User Profile

[QUOTE=xmetalhead]I can't see how any politician could ever outlaw abortion or overturn Roe v Wade.

There, you're right. It's impressive that feminists are able to get so much mileage out of the threat that RvW could be overturned when there's not a chance of that happening.

I'll get some satisfaction by pulling the lever for Kerry this November 2 just to reject the Bush neocon doctrine.

See Happy Hacker's Voting Guide.

Faust

2004-10-17 02:58 | User Profile

Is Gridlock best? Yes, It is the best we can hope for right now.