| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Robert A. Heinlein's advice to disappointed Fredheads |
| 2008-01-23 |
| If you are part of a society that votes, then do so. There may be no candidates and no measures you want to vote for . . but there are certain to be ones you want to vote against. In case of doubt, vote against. By this rule you will rarely go wrong. Actually written a long time ago in another context, which doesn't make it any less true. |
| Posted by:Mike |
| #10 Heh OldSpook I was saddened when Fred quit the race.. The M'F bastards in both parties & the MSM rigged the Presidential race more than ever this year.. Just imagine starting this thing last year about this time... Two Fu*king years of campaigning, they all deserve to be TORTURED for TWO YEARS and then SHOT with Painful AMMO! /Ima totally disgusted.. |
| Posted by: RD 2008-01-23 22:35 |
| #9 Myself, one of the first Fredheads (and definitely th first Fredhead on Rantburg): I can hold my nose if its Romney. But McCain, and Huckabee (and Giuliani to a only a slightly lesser degree) are all so badly flawed that they are undeserving of a vote. If it comes to that, Im voting Constitution Party (http://www.constitutionparty.com) as long as they can field an acceptable (Pat-Buchanan/Pat-Robertson/Ron-Paul types are disqualifiers). Then immediately turning around and continuing to help found the Colorado Conservative Party, affiliated with the American Conservative Party that is now being stiched together at Bill Quick's website, with lots of core FredHeads Goldwaterites, Reaganists headed that way from the GOP. The template is the NY Conservative Party, which advocates for conservative candidates inside the GOP, and funds and gets the Conservative message out and denies the GOP Country Club self-appointed elites the ability to silence or muffle out message. There is some discussion as to naming. "Conservative" is somewhat a loaded word, and there was a "Federalist" party that was the complete opposite of Federalism (I.e. it belived in gathering everything to the Feds and stripping states and individuals). SO stat parties may be called "Statname Liberty Party" in blue and purple state, "Statname Conservative Party" in deep Red States, and the national party being the New Federalist Party or some similar moniker. For more info and to join the discussions, go here http://www.dailypundit.com/AmericanConservativeParty/ The basis is off of Russel Kirks's 10.. First, we believe that there exists an enduring moral order. That order is made for man, and man is made for it: human nature is a constant, and moral truths are permanent. Second, we adhere to custom, convention, and continuity. Order and justice and freedom, we believe, are the artificial products of a long social experience, the result of centuries of trial and reflection and sacrifice, which are promoted and maintained by custom, convention and continuity. Third, we believe in what may be called the principle of prescription. That is, of things established by immemorial usage, so that the mind of man runs not to the contrary; our morals are prescriptive, as are our concepts like property rights. Fourth, we are guided by our principle of prudence. Any public measure ought to be judged by its probable long-run consequences, not merely by temporary advantage or popularity Fifth, we pay attention to the principle of variety. We feel affection for the proliferating intricacy of long-established social institutions and modes of life, as distinguished from the narrowing uniformity and deadening egalitarianism of radical systems. Sixth, we are chastened by our principle of imperfectability. Man being imperfect, no perfect social order ever can be created. To seek for utopia is to end in disaster, the conservative says: we are not made for perfect things. All that we reasonably can expect is a tolerably ordered, just, and free society. Seventh, we are persuaded that freedom and property are closely linked. Separate property from private possession, and Leviathan becomes master of all. Eighth, we uphold voluntary community, quite as we oppose involuntary collectivism. Ninth, we perceive the need for prudent restraints upon power and upon human passions. We endeavor to so limit and balance political power that anarchy or tyranny may not arise. Tenth, we understands that permanence and change must be recognized and reconciled in a vigorous society. The conservative knows that any healthy society is influenced by two forces, which Samuel Taylor Coleridge called its Permanence and its Progression. The Permanence of a society is formed by those enduring interests and convictions that gives us stability and continuity; without that Permanence, the fountains of the great deep are broken up, society slipping into anarchy. The Progression in a society is that spirit and that body of talents which urge us on to prudent reform and improvement; without that Progression, a people stagnate. Pretty good basis. Mix in Federalism as a national policy (a'la Barry Goldwater and Fred Thompson), and thats where I am. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2008-01-23 22:21 |
| #8 "None of the Above" should be an amendment to the Constitution. If "None of the Above" gets the most votes the incumbent stays in office until a new election can be held. All of the candidates who lost to "None of the Above" are disqualified from running again. Repeat this process until somebody beats "None of the Above". That way if the fat cats want to buy a pol at least they have to buy somebody that the people can swallow. Or maybe they'd get tired of blowing their money. I'm convinced that McCain and Hildebeast are two sides of the same bad penny that has kept coming back to us for the past 20 years...probably even longer but I still want to believe that Reagan was a good guy. The fat cats finance both of their campaigns so they don't give a rat's ass which one wins because they're both gonna do exactly what the fat cats want. |
| Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305 2008-01-23 14:42 |
| #7 The left wants consensus. It's very important to them that everyone agree. The right just wants permission. |
| Posted by: Iblis 2008-01-23 13:39 |
| #6 Here's the rest of Robert Heinlein's advice. “If this is too blind for your taste, consult some well-meaning fool (there is always one around) and ask his advice. Then vote the other way. This enables you to be a good citizen (if such is your wish) without spending the enormous amount of time on it that truly intelligent exercise of franchise requires.” |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2008-01-23 11:57 |
| #5 None of the above would win this one. Maybe I'll write in "Pat Buchanan". |
| Posted by: Woozle Elmeter 2907 2008-01-23 10:37 |
| #4 The shame of it all is that the pols think that votes mean 'consent', ignoring that dictators often get 99 and 100% votes. That's why you'll never see on our ballots the choice - None of the Above. Sad, but true. |
| Posted by: Ptah 2008-01-23 10:22 |
| #3 Though Uncommitted made a strong show against HRC in the Michigan Democrat primary. Maybe next time. |
| Posted by: Excalibur 2008-01-23 10:19 |
| #2 There was a little crap game going on in the alley next the local tavern. Everyone knew the game was rigged. However, when asked why they continued to play the general response was 'it was the only game in town'. The shame of it all is that the pols think that votes mean 'consent', ignoring that dictators often get 99 and 100% votes. That's why you'll never see on our ballots the choice - None of the Above. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2008-01-23 09:32 |
| #1 AoS, sorry about the mis-categorization (@#$%^&* drop-menus!). Please don't hit me. |
| Posted by: Mike 2008-01-23 05:45 |