Read My Lips - the blog

Left, Right, Middle - Who has the Ball?

Jane Galt really started something over at Assymetrical Information when she announced her postulate:

Jane's Law: The devotees of the party in power are smug and arrogant. The devotees of the party out of power are insane.

I wonder if this is not the inherent difficulty by having only two parties. If you are not of one, you have to be of the other. Competition: "The Old Team Spirit." But are we really all so cohesive behind each party's political lines?

I stand right behind the Republican line when it comes to family values. However, I think everyone has an opinion on abortion and it should be put up for Constitutional Amendment and let the issue be publicly decided once and for all. Of course, unless the swing turns the other way, and the populous again has to pass a subsequent Amendment to Repeal the previous Amendment.

I also believe in lowering taxes, although I think they could do more about lowering the taxes on the lower paid workers than those at the top of the food chain.

I want to see the sick, poor and injured cared for, but think charities are more able to provide effective and cost-conscious assistance to these groups than government bureaucracy.

I also would like to see jobs, real jobs, come back to America. How did we become a nation of McDonald's and Walmart employees? Where are the factories, the massive building projects? The country's infrastructure could use a major overhaul.

How do I stand politically? Am I Republican or a Democrat? YOU TELL ME? I suspect all authority save the 10 Commandments. What was written by the hand of God, I will not question.

If God thought it so important that you not envy or desire those things that were your neighbor's after already saying you were not allowed to steal them; if He were to counsel us to have sex only with those to whom we were married; and if He dictated limitations on the very things we were not allowed to say, if he had not wanted people to drink and do drugs, would He not have mentioned that?

I voted for Perot, both times. I just had this gut feeling that when he got into the White House and took the reigns of the Executive Branch that he was going to downsize and streamline the bureaucracy. Somebody needs to do that. We have too many people in this country sucking at the Federal tit.

[In my best Ross Perot imitation, and people say I do him well] 500,000 people in the Social Security agency? Anyone here that don't think we could not do that with 200,000? Somebody get on that, find the best 200,000 of them and get rid of that other 300,000.

One could dream, couldn't they? I call myself a Libertarian, but what I actually am is a person who wishes he lived with the freedoms of 150 years ago, before Income Tax, before the Industrial Revolution, before the population of the country was bursting at the seams. I really feel oppressed by the current level of Federal power. I love Texas first and the US second.

I like Bush. I wondered what kind of Governor he would make after it was evident he had a poor head for business. I started not to vote for him because of the way he ran the Texas Rangers. But I did, and I thought he did a surprisingly good job as Governor.

I did not like Clinton. He had scandals following him into the White House, he was surrounded by buffoons, and his credibility was suspect long before the perjury was uncovered. Hillary sat mum, and did not draw my admiration for standing by that bum. Gore did very little either to distance himself.

For me, the Presidential election was an easy choice. But that does not necessarily make me a Republican.

Posted by Tiger at May 21, 2003 11:43 PM