"could it be that the only ones who were qualified to make intelligent decisions back then were the white male property owners? ... In fact, the only really educated people in those days were white wealthy WASP men and the common thinking was that only EDUCATED people should be the ones who vote on the important issues of the day. It's different now in our enlightened age. Today we all have the right to vote no matter how uneducated we are. That's real progress!"

This is racist, sexist, anti-democratic claptrap written by someone as ignorant of history as he is reeking with contempt for the electorate - a self-anointed "pundit" who really should take his own advice, avoid polluting political discourse and stick to his day job, which apparently is writing comic books. If there's a banal truism at the core of his column, he blows it with his nauseating "history lesson" and the further implication that the country would be better off today if people with limited education couldn't vote. Shame...

Wait a minute. I get it. If you work hard, study the issues, and educate yourself, you'll make good choices on election day. If you don't, we end up stuck in Iraq with George Bush. Maybe this IS a brilliant essay after all. (As for "radical", it's about as radical as a poll tax.)

Also, I would think twice about tagging clip art of a middle-class black man to this piece of tripe.

Sounds like you guys are getting pretty desperate for ways to (1) suppress turnout and (2) rationalize defeat as the day of reckoning draws near. The irony of this article in the context of this election, of course, is that momentum appears to be headed swiftly in the direction of disaster for GOPers because people have come to know more about them than they wish they did.

(I remember the good old days when Purple Fingers were all the rage in these parts - noisy celebration of glorious elections where (as some of us rudely pointed out at the time and for which we were excoriated) people voting for candidates they knew absolutely nothing about except as a means of ratifying sectarian ethnic and religious divisions were going to prove what a great man George Bush was for sending our troops to die for "democracy" in the Middle East.)

Posted by reg at November 3, 2006 09:52 PM

If stupid (and uninformed) people couldn't vote, Democrats would have to actually explain the details and logic of their programs rather than use hollow rhetoric and avoid specifics.

Instead, the Democratic Party has to increase its voter base:
by legalizing illegal immigrants who can't even speak our language,
by promising lottery tickets, free medical care, and booze for showing up at the polls,
by going into crack neighborhoods to register people to vote who didn't care enough to get off their fat rear-ends to register themselves and then driving them to the polls with filled-out ballots stuffed into their hands,
by pushing to restore the right to vote to all convicted felons, and
by encouraging history-challenged eighteen year olds to stop popping pimples long enough to become Democratic activists and voters.

Democrats pander with general promises of give-away programs, bad laws and rulings perverting American ideals, and attacks on capitalism and success to their target voters who are too stupid, lazy, and/or irresponsible to make their own honest living and who are actually kept down by becoming dependent on government.

Republican voters see through the vote buying with taxpayers' money and a distortion of our Consitution by Democrats, and Republicans know that our national security cannot be trusted with that group which votes down defense and home-land security programs to divert funds to feel-good waste. Republicans take a long-term view of issues and know that purple fingers can be as symbolic as the Boston Tea Party and our Liberty Bell from when our own independence was doubted. Republican voters are smart enough not to automatically condemn all actions by our country as bad and smart enough not to proudly exclaim that they were against Iraq from the very beginning, when the public was lacking significant facts to make that conclusion. Republicans don't give encouragement to the enemy and increase American casualties by promising concessions if the enemy will hold out until the left and its lackey media can discourage the American public to cut-and-run.

As far as suppressing turn-out, the Democrats have done (Fla.) and are doing ( http://tinyurl.com/totyt ) everything that they can to suppress the military vote, as they know, but won't publicly admit, that the military, including those forces who are in Iraq, overwhelmingly support President Bush and the Republicans through their secret ballots which avoids reprisals. There's your referendum on Bush and Iraq (along with Lieberman beating Lamont when it's not just the radical Democrats voting.)

But, reg and the left engages in their name calling rather than substance and calls the honest Americans on the right "racist, sexist, anti-democratic...ignorant of history." What amazes me is that he says the columnist of the subject of this post is "reeking with contempt for the electorate - a self-anointed "pundit." If anything, it's the elite people like John Kerry, professors, major media journalists, and people like reg who are reeking with contempt for the electorate. The left thinks that people need them for their self-believed superiority, so they use, in a horrible sense, the stupid masses and build up more, while holding disdain for democracy.

In short, most people who vote for Democrats are stupid and most Democratic officials and candidates are morally bankrupt for taking advantage of those people--and, those Democrats are thoroughly disgusting for doing that.

P.S. I am not ignorant of history, which is why I can confidently state what I did.

Posted by Woody at November 4, 2006 02:38 AM

"most people who vote for Democrats are stupid and most Democratic officials and candidates are morally bankrupt"

Yeah, right Woody...meanwhile you're intelligent and well-informed and your heroes the Republicans are moral paragons.

Further, I'm the one who engages in name-calling and holds the electorate in contempt...

I'm sure your readers will see the logic of your response. Really...most of them probably will from what I've seen displayed here. Unfortunate, but true.

Look "pal" - I addressed specific statements in that column that suggested rather blatantly that there was a period in American history when, in fact, the white male property owners - the only ones sufficiently educated - were better equipped to manage the affairs of the Republic than anyone else - a notion that I find contemptible on the face of it based on the realities of the system they imposed on the "non-white" people - and the best you can do is attempt to generalize that response to specific comments and specific idea to an attack on "honest Americans on the Right". Wake me up when you've pulled your head out of your butt. Your kneejerk ranting is juvenile in the extreme.

As for the asides on Iraq, the only thing I can discern is that in your view it was better to have been wrong than to have been right about this war and what's going on there has something to do with the Boston Tea Party and the Liberty Bell. If that last bit is evidence of your touted grasp of history...well, I'm as impressed as I usually am with your "informed" insights.

Why don't you do this columnist you appear to approve of a favor and stay away from the polls on Tuesday.

Posted by reg at November 4, 2006 08:19 AM

Actually, being educated about the candidates and knowledgeable about the issues and propositions doesn't really count for much. JFK got to the white house by Mayor Daley of Chicago delivering the Illinois electoral votes by having all of the dead people in Cook County cemeteries vote early and often in the 1960 election. When it was discovered, Nixon was asked if he'd like to contest the election, and his response was "No, it would divide the nation." A far cry from what would happen today.

Posted by Vulgorilla at November 4, 2006 08:39 AM

"smart enough not to proudly exclaim that they were against Iraq from the very beginning, when the public was lacking significant facts to make that conclusion."

Actually, anyone who attempted to keep well-informed and think critically and strategically could have known PRIOR TO THE WAR that the intelligence was being deliberately hyped, that the war in Iraq would over-stretch our troops and overseas commitments when we still had a difficult mission to complete in Afghanistan and the Pakistan border, that the neo-cons were ideologically driven in their eagerness for the U.S. to be used by their favorite Iraqi exiles to achieve what they couldn't achieve on their own and that the Iraqis were a fragmented society and unlikely to welcome as their new leaders guys like Ahmed Chalabi who - his corruption aside - hadn't been in the country in decades. I won't apologize for having spent considerable time following the bouncing balls in 200-2-3 and realizing there were major holes in key administration arguments and that the evidence they were pushing on the public was selective.

Among other things, it was knowable that the aluminum tubes "evidence" was phony or guesswork at best despite Condi Rice's ignorance/incompetence/dishonesty (choose one) in hyping it, that the "mobile weapons labs" probably weren't, that many of the exile informants like "Curveball" being used to justify the neo-con/administration case weren't reliable and had an agenda of their own, and that within the intelligence community there was considerable concern that evidence was being manipulated and cherry-picked by Cheney's operatives. There were lots of leaks and analysis suggesting all of these conclusions at the time, which should have raised a red flag given the kind of aggressive, loaded rhetoric that was being pushed by the political factions eager for an invasion. None of this stuff came as a surprise if you were following a wide range of journalism at the time - beyond the mainstream headlines that were mostly designed to cement support for war among the credulous, the superficial.

Of course, one would have had to also think it concievable that the Bush administration was capable of being less than candid and less than competent. I guess that's another one of those "off-limits" assumptions that only someone who wants to undermine America could have possibly considered in "real time" back when it mattered and wasn't a banality that even "rats deserting the sinking rats" like Richard Perle, Kenneth Adelman and David Frum now openly acknowledge.

If you want to continue to defend your own understandable ignorance of how we were being played by a bunch of politicians, that's fine. But the real problem in Iraq policy has, obviously, been the studied ignorance, rank incompetence and reckless, aggressively-promoted false assumptions by people who had every reason to know better and do a better job. If you don't get this by now, I have a few books I could reccomend that lay it out pretty clearly - Hubris, Assassins Gate, Fiasco, Cobra II, The One-Percent Doctrine. But don't bother with that stuff - just go vote a straight GOP ticket on Tuesday because, you know, you're such a well-informed, upstanding citizen who's smarter than those morons in crack neighborhoods who get driven to the polls and their ballots marked by evil Democrats.

Frankly Woody, self-satisfied, hate-spewing rubes like you are a danger to the Republic. You make me sick.

Posted by reg at November 4, 2006 09:28 AM

Thanks for the link. I agree that uninformed people should not vote. In fact, it seems like a no-brainer to me. Just because we can do something doesn't make it right to do it.

Posted by DRJ at November 4, 2006 11:54 AM

I'm wondering why reg is so openly racist. I mean, GM didn't post a single word about anyone's skin color, only reg did. reg is the one that somehow "noticed" the skin color of the cartoon attached to the post. reg is the one that started complaining that white people actually vote. Reg, why do you only see people by the color of their skin?

Posted by Ogre at November 4, 2006 12:13 PM

Good point Ogre.....reg does seem racist......and it's already well known that his skills at "debate" are sorely lacking.

Every time I see his screed I need a shower...

Posted by Kender at November 4, 2006 12:27 PM

reg, "old pal," you continue to follow typical and historical "non-debate" tactics of the left while not knowing it--if I give you the uncertain benefit of being blind rather than dishonest. In fact, you've fallen back into one commonly used and phony tactic from decades ago by saying "you're generalizing" rather than dealing with the points addressed.

Is claiming "that's not relevant (in your eyes)," another old one, next? You just can't help yourself. I expect you to resort to other avoidance tactics from the left such as the trite and non-applicable retorts of "that's a straw man" or "that was long ago." I've been around for a while and have seen them all come from your side--which tries to divert uncomfortable questions and conceal the real agenda of Democrats. The Democrats have done a masterful job of not saying what they will do in this election--just another attempt to dupe and use stupid people.

And, of course, you resorted again to personal attacks against me and to those who disagree with you. That's a typical given from you. Your undeserved arrogance and phony elitism is exposed when you tell me not to vote and criticize the logic of our readers--the logic that you cannot grasp, which is your problem and not theirs.

Then, amazingly and hypocritically, you call me knee-jerk when you reflexively opposed the Iraq war with inadequate information rather than waiting, as I have--and, history has far from proved your conclusion right, as the history of that region and this war is still being written, even with attacks from the left which learned from John Kerry that you can help our enemies to help your personal political ambitions and goals.

Your recall of analyses and facts of pre-war Iraq are a blend of Monday-morning quarterbacking along with ignorant and blissful denial of a failed U.N. and of actions by a murderous tyrant, whom would still be in control and denying the freedoms to Iraqi citizens that you proudly claim is the right for the mentally challenged in our land. And, our military forces in that region certainly have more information than you and disagree with you. Oh, but wait, you think that they’re in Iraq because they are dumb.

Of course, I wouldn’t expect you to connect symbols of our early fight for freedom with those of other people yearning for the same and who will prevail in that fight for democracy.

Regarding the laws and customs of our founding fathers, at least they valued freedom enough to fight for it rather than “cut-and-run” when criticized by those who would trade freedom for security. They did a great job of establishing our Constitution and laying the foundation for our land to make needed and necessary transitions as the country grew and matured. (However, I don’t think that they wrote abortion rights and affirmative action into that Constitution. It took your side to do that.) But, criticizing our founders is par for the course from those who believe that we would be better with the elite intelligentsia in charge—who they falsely think is themselves.

I make you sick? Then, you must be sick of American values and pride. You must be sick of patriotic expressions and support for our leaders. You must be sick of a system of economics that has made us the envy of the world. You must be sick of a tax system that encourages investment and builds private jobs rather than grows to make everyone dependent on government. You must be sick of judges who interpret the Constitution rather than make their own laws and rely on international law for decisions. You must be sick of our military and consider that they are baby killers, rapists, and terrorists rather than appreciate that they defend us. (Kerry didn’t exclude your own son from his claims about those in the military, and I don’t know how you can ignore that.)

People like me are not a danger to the Republic. We’re what have sustained the republic and defended it from attacks of those on the left who have subverted our national defense and security by giving away secrets and technology to our enemies (need specifics?), attacked capitalism and freedom, always blame the U.S. while arrogantly taking an “internationalist” (aka envy of the U.S.) approach, and attack individuals like myself. Who is the real danger to the Republic? Look in the mirror and at your friends who believe as you do. It’s too bad that your hate for our country has taken over your very being—and sad. Maybe you need to give people like me more credit for creating and sustaining this country that you enjoy rather than making a country that suppresses freedom and opportunity.

But, realistically, you cannot understand or will not accept that view. After all, if you’re smarter than all of us, then you have nothing to learn from us—so you think. Maybe you’re one of the stupid that the Democrats use. Just maybe. Reading and citing left-wing publications doesn’t make one smarter and doesn’t allow you to apply common sense and rationality. It’s time that you became an individual and started thinking for yourself rather than let others do it for you.

Posted by Woody at November 4, 2006 12:51 PM

Ogre, I had the same thought. The OP was about people studying the issues and not voting if they didn't. Reg jumped on the assumption that we must mean that only people who looked like us could do that. Which tells us a lot about reg.

About 75% of your argument flows from that unwarranted leap, reg. Why don't you back up and rephrase that other 25% in a coherent package and we'll have a discussion?

Posted by Assistant Village Idiot at November 4, 2006 02:21 PM

'I'm wondering why reg is so openly racist. I mean, GM didn't post a single word about anyone's skin color, only reg did."

Did you read the link - which I quoted and which clearly mentioned skin color - i.e. noting with apparent approval that in the early days of our republic only white, propertied males were capable of a level of critical, informed thinking that could justify the right to vote. Assistant Village Idiot (are you sure you're only the Assistant?) should take note of same. My response was based on that specific quote, which I included at the top of my comment. Not a single person here has addressed the substance of my comment as regards the quote.

Woody's spew #2 I didn't even bother to read because he's incapable of anything other than babble, wild tangents and canned digressions and I've got better things to do with my afternoon than contemplate his navel.

You guys are pathetic. As for Kender, I'm familiar with his crew and they all definitely need showers - it's got nothing to do with me.

As for me being "racist", I guess I missed seeing you guys on the picket lines back in '63 and '64. I will admit to a loathing of a certain category of white people, like George Allen, who exhibit shameless nostalgia for the traitors who tore this country apart and the murderous bastards who treated the Constitution with contempt for another hundred or so years. Of course, these types - in the forty years since the Democrats pushed for civil rights legislation - have joined the GOP coalition you guys are so proud to be part of.

Okay - I'm through. I'll leave this sewer to you kids...

Why did I even bother ?

Posted by reg at November 4, 2006 04:17 PM

Reg --

In addition to your obvious racism, you demonstrated one hallmark of liberal "debate" that one sees all over the Blogosphere --

You find and pick at a small detail you take umbrage with and use it to detract from the actual topic of the thread, and do so ineptly, at best.

Case in point: Woody compares the purple fingers issue with the Boston Tea Party and the Liberty Bell as potentially, decades or centuries into the future, sharing a commonality as symbols of the founding of their democracy-- the purple fingers of the Iraqis, the BTP and the LB of ours.

You, however, knowing fully well what he means, come out with something as inane and feeble as "...what's going on there has something to do with the Boston Tea Party and the Liberty Bell".

When you've heard from one liberal, you've heard from them all.

Wanna nitpick? Okay, how about your "mobile weapons labs?" That's one of my favorites.

The pervading liberal line at the time was that they were actually used for making hydrogen balloons, and since the MSM is leftist, that was the story.

On the reality side, however, chemical analysis discovered significant traces of sodium azide and urea in those trailers. Both of those compounds have -- and were then, on the ATF's list of controlled explosives. In fact, sodium azide is what blows up the airbags in your car. It also reacts "violently" with hydrogen. So much for hydrogen balloons, liberal "news" media notwithstanding.

Keep getting all your news from the MSM, Daily Kos and the Democratic Underground -- stay "well" informed.

Cheers.

Posted by Seth at November 4, 2006 04:33 PM

reg, I'm not surprised that you didn't read my response to you. It must be very difficult to explain away errors and contradictions in your views, so you choose to dismiss questions by saying "I didn't bother to read" them at all, and then, of all things, you blame me for your claim (doubtful) of not reading them. That's like Kerry blaming his remarks about the military on Bush,which he did--something that only a leftist can comprehend. Anyway, it's a dodge that I didn't anticipate, but I will add it to my list of multiple debate dodges that you use. Because you won't even listen to other sides, you remind me of words by Lt. Gen. Russel Honore--you're "stuck on stupid."

Oh, and reg, don't pat yourself as the only one protesting segregation in the 1960's. People like me and including myself made it much easier for blacks to be accepted into schools and government positions previously denied to them. We did it because it was right--not like your motivaton of hate for the other side.

I'll take my sewer over your cesspool.

Posted by Woody at November 4, 2006 09:07 PM

I guess reg decided to "cut-and-run." It's a common ailment for cowards.

Posted by Woody at November 5, 2006 09:01 AM

Okay, I'll admit it. I didn't read all of reg's comments. But then, I rarely do. As soon as he starts his wild-eyed accusations about what he imagines others are thinking or "really" saying I lose interest. It's tiresome. Had GM displayed an image of a rural farmer instead, would we have been spared reg's sanctimonious blather? I mean, you know, since rural America is so stupid and all, it would have been more appropriate. Right?.

Looking at the picture, I saw someone in a suit at a desk with a lightbulb over his head indicating that he "gets it". Who cares what color he is? It's a positive picture. But not to reg. Oh no - it's a racist slur of some sort. Please.

Posted by Oyster at November 5, 2006 10:52 AM

Ah yes. Traces of that chemical that's in my car's airbags. I knew there must be a compelling reason to invade Iraq.

Posted by reg at November 5, 2006 01:51 PM

Reg's first comment is adequate impeachment of his entire argument. Of course the Founders limited the franchise. Anyone who's read the founding documents, the debates, the letters and writings in newspapers of the Founders' struggle with the subject of who should vote would immediately know that reg is so full of b.s. that he could fertilize and entire third world country.

(Hint: the constitutions of the various States at the Founding of this country, the constitutional debates and the outcome of those debates would be a good place for "reg" to have someone start reading and explaining where his argument went terribly off the rails... in its very first sentence.)

At least the consistency of his banal (and completely ahistorical) comments is enough to let me know that any more time spent reading his b.s. is time wasted.

Posted by David at November 5, 2006 07:34 PM