insomnomaniac

Win at your own risk

Baldilocks has a simply marvelous post examining the idea of impeaching Bush. It is a must read for anyone who hopes the Dims take back control in November, and for Repugs who are working harder to distance themselves from the President than they are to represent the people who elected them to office.

Here's a sample:

I suppose vengeance is an only-too-human trait. But to what long-term end would partisan vengeance lead? Assuming that the Democrats take back the House--or assuming that, by off chance, a barely Republican-controlled House votes to impeach President Bush in regard to the NSA program, what can be expected?

• All aspects of the very classified program in question will be laid before the American public--and before the enemy, al Oaeda, which it was designed to monitor


• Many of the operational techniques of the NSA will receive identical exposure


• The program in question will be rendered useless


• If the president is found guilty of 'high crimes and misdemeanors' for approving the program, he will be forced to step down from his office and Dick Cheney will become president


• Much of the American public--most of whom approve of the program, but even some who didn't initially do so--will be very disillusioned by the Congress they have put into power


• Much of the military's morale--especially that of those in Iraq and Afghanistan--will plummet


• We pull out of Iraq and, probably, Afghanistan

(If vengeance is theirs, one might figure that the Democrats might have something brewing for a President Cheney as well. After all, the third in line for presidential succession is the Speaker of the House. In a Democrat-controlled House...well, you guessed it.)

Let's say that the Democrats get back at the Republicans for all of their misdeed--real and imagined. George Bush goes home to Texas and Dick Cheney goes home to Wyoming or to wherever. (I don’t think that the Democrats would dare incarcerate either man, though I could be wrong; some of them have already said and done things beyond the specter of imagination--mine, at least).

What happens after that? Will my Democrat relatives laugh and say something like "haha! We got your president and your vice-president?" Maybe, and they will be right. But what will happen after that? What will happen to all of us?

What is the long-term Democrat goal for our country and its place in the world if all they (may) hope for comes to pass?

Yes, what will happen to us? What is the Democrat's "vision" for us? I sure don't know, do you? Whether I agree with all of it, parts of it or none of it, I at least know what the Republican leadership wants to happen. In fact, I can give specifics relating to almost every issue of the day. Here are just a few examples of what I know they want:

• Iraq: Keep boots on the ground until the Iraqi forces are sufficiently trained that they can defend themselves. Support the implementation of a "unity" government and pressure politicians in Iraq to do so or face possible sanction from the US (or support for those factions that will ally with us and antagonism for those who won't). Don't pull out and leave power-vacuum for radicals or Iran to fill. Democrats? Pull out troops now, gain points at home from far-left and anti-war crowd, but otherwise leave Iraq to fend for itself, regardless of the geopolitical consequences. Yippee, how enticing!


• Social Security: Reform, including the implementation of private accounts for younger workers so they can manage their own retirement funds and pass them on to their loved ones. Democrats? Anyone? Last I heard they gave the status quo--eventual insolvency--a standing ovation and applause.


• Taxes: Make the tax cuts permanent so as to continue stimulating economic growth and make life a little more bearable for members of the middle class by letting us keep a few thousand more of our own dollars. Democrats? I guess they want to raise our taxes so we have even less cash in our pockets, even less to pay for childcare, prescription drugs, and education? Gee, sign me up for that (not).


• Abortion: Force a court case that would challenge Roe v. Wade and send it back to the SCOTUS for review, at which time (hopefully) that court does what it should have done in the first place and kicks it back to the states with the exception of the first trimester. In so doing, bringing the USA in line with every other civilized nation on earth--the libtards' beloved "EU" countries included. Democrats? Gee, I guess they'd like to see abortion on demand through the 40th week be not only federally protected, but paid for with federal dollars too? Egads. In the absence of any clear statements to the contrary, I have to conclude this is their position.


• Gay marriage: Amend the Constitution to say that "marriage" equals "one man, one woman." Failing that, kick it back to the states to decide, but require "married" couples to abide by the laws of the state in which they reside. Democrats? Anything goes? Man and woman, two men, two women, one man three women? Man and dog? If the MA decision stands and becomes "federal law" using the "equal protection" clause it will be impossible to legally prevent bigamy, polygamy or other forms of "marriage" not based on the gender or number of each gender of those protected. Lovely.

I could go on, but why bother? My point is, love 'em or hate em, you know where Bush the republicans stand, what they will do and why. If you don't agree, or have another idea, at least you know where to start.

With the Democrats and far-left mudslingers, who the heck knows? As far as I can tell, they just hate all things GOP, Bush especially, and would rather cut off all our noses to spite his face than come up with viable alternatives to his policies. They ask us to put them in charge instead simply because he's "bad" or a "liar" but they disavow their own mistakes and lies in the process.

How many of them--for example--saw the same intelligence that Bush saw pre-Iraq? How many of them agreed that Saddam had WMD? How many of them now take responsibility for our being in Iraq for that reason? ONE: Joe Lieberman

Anyway, I've rambled on for long enough. My point is simple really: it's very dangerous to root for a side when you have no idea what that side will do for you other than kick the other side out of office. Winning for winning's sake is pretty hollow. When you add to that the fact that the side refusing to clearly state what they stand FOR (as opposed to AGAINST) typically supports measures that would grant them--if they had it already--more rather than less power, it becomes hard to take seriously their angst over alleged civil rights violations. Just think how quickly the Democrats would move to take away every privately owned gun in the country--so that only they and the military they controlled had weapons-- and ask yourself if you really mind a government that lets its people have guns while it works silently to listen to a few cell phone calls between people in hostile countries and people here. Think about it, if you didn't have the right to own a gun--ever--how could you possibly hope to protect your right to privacy if someone tried to take it from you?

Answer: You couldn't.

Think about this and all the other points here when you go to the polls, and be careful what you wish for. As the saying goes: You just might get it.

Posted by insomnomaniac at March 23, 2006 10:19 PM | TrackBack