About Me

Name: Josh Todd
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Roll

 

To Cross or Not to Cross

 
Given that John McCain has all but wrapped up the GOP nomination, many Republican voters now consider crossing party lines in their respective primaries. One must weigh potential benefits against potential maladies relevant to such a decision.
 

Some Republican voters cling to the notion that voting for Barack Obama would effectively defeat Hillary Clinton—a worthy goal, no doubt. However, would voting for Obama enable him (a man whose policy ideals are not significantly different from Clinton’s)?

 

Others entertain the idea that voting for Clinton would perpetuate the Democrat primary battle, which would inevitably grow nastier in tone. This, in turn, so the theory holds, would divide the Democrat base and allow a GOP victory in the fall. But, here, if Clinton is the most-feared candidate, then this scenario might give her an opening to surge ahead at the end.
 

Locally, Daytonian Republicans might consider crossing over for other reasons. Beyond playing the presidential spoiler, a Dayton GOP voter might sabotage two Democrat primaries: the 3rd Congressional District race between Jane Mitakides and Charles Sanders (both of whom have already suffered hard defeats to Mike Turner, the GOP rep); and the County Commission battle between Debbie
Lieberman, the sitting commissioner recently charged with DUI, and challenger Mark Anthony Newberry.
 

Then again, Turner’s seat is pretty safe while Democrat control of Lieberman’s County Commission chair is unopposed.

Conversely, Republican voters may choose to cast a protest vote against John McCain and for Mike Huckabee or even one of the former candidates such as Mitt Romney. Secondly, some GOP voters may not like falling under the Democrat list for the next few years.



Ultimately, not enough Republican ballots would be cast to significantly affect the outcome of the Clinton-Obama war; thus, it would probably be best to stick to one’s own side.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Tax Mania

 
Hold your pocket books, folks. Montgomery County, Ohio has placed Issue 39 on the March 4th primary ballot, a measure that would replace an existing property tax and, naturally, increase it by 0.7 mills. Proceeds go to Sinclair Community College. The increase may not be much, but one should vote in the negative in this case.

 
The “Why” may be the more important part of the recommendation. There are 39 different issues on various Montgomery County ballots, and the vast majority of them involve tax measures (typically replacements with increases). So Daytonians are being asked, again (and like everyone else), to volunteer for another tax hike.

 
Last fall, voters approved a Human Services renewal and increase that will, for instance, raise my property taxes by several hundred dollars per year. I believe it passed because most voters didn’t take time to read the measure itself or even read about it on the web. Instead, they reacted to the entirely emotional plea put forth in television and radio ads. That’s what the Sinclair levy’s supporters use, as well.
 
 
Dayton also has a depressed economy. Neither the Sinclair measure nor the Human Services levy made sense in a shrinking county with fewer taxpayers and fewer folks to service. Furthermore, in an area where people are squeaking by financially—Dayton is a national leader in mortgage foreclosures—our wise government officials want more money. They claim they are trying to help, trying to do “the people’s” work. Taking more of our money is not what I would call “help.”

 
Moreover, the specter of massive tax increases looms on the horizon. Despite Governor Strickland’s wise proclamations to leave tax rates where they are at the state level, his administration and the state assembly continues to rack up higher spending bills. Without cutting back, they will likely conclude that taxes need to be raised to offset the coming budget shortfalls.

 
Secondly, there is a good chance the Democrats will own Washington as of 2009—the White House and both houses of Congress. An overwhelming majority of Democrats have strongly indicated that at least two things will happen: they will allow the Bush tax cuts to expire, resulting in a huge tax hike; and they will raise the capital gains tax. Both measures will stall the economy if we are lucky enough to have begun another expansion in the business cycle by that time. Should the economy be in recession, the higher tax bill will prolong the stagnant growth.

 

This is only one aspect of the argument against Issue 39, but it is compelling. While voters can, they should reject new taxes in preparation for 2009 and 2010 when the chances are very good that Washington will increase the burden once again. Chances are also good that thoughtful opposition to the measure will go unnoticed because the media in Dayton sympathizes with it and, much as it was with the Human Services levy, there will be no organized opposition. Still, we do what we may.

 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

McCain and Abel

Now that Mitt Romney has effectively dropped out of the GOP presidential hunt, full-blooded conservatives have no one to carry their collective torch. The nomination will almost certainly go to John McCain. In this election cycle, conservatives will feel like Abel to John McCain.

Sometime last year, Senator McCain appeared on the Laura Ingraham show. Returning from a commercial break, Laura’s bumper music was a Steve Miller Band song. After his introduction, Senator McCain said he really liked the Eagles. Wrong band. Perhaps, even, wrong talk show.

But one old Eagles tune applies accurately to the senator: the song “Outlaw Man,” an obscure arrangement from the “Desperado” album. Glenn Frey exits the song proclaiming, “Some men call me Abel / Some men call me Cain…” Mostly the latter.

Despite his status as a real war hero, Senator McCain has done little but thumb his nose at conservative intellectuals and voters. But now he expects three-pronged conservative voters (social, national security, and fiscal conservatives) to fall in line behind him.

Why? Perhaps he feels entitled as the presumptive GOP nominee. Perhaps he assumes anti-Hillary sentiment will do.

John McCain made his name as a “maverick,” defined as an individual who does not go along with a party. Here, he does not go along with his own party far too often.

For instance, (and I preach to the choir in a lot of cases) Senator McCain sponsored the Campaign Finance Reform bill that conservatives saw as an outright assault on the First Amendment. He voted against the Bush tax cuts. He sponsored the amnesty bill, flouting the rule of law. Free speech, limited government/economic freedom, and the rule of law are keystones of conservatism; and for the United States, for that matter.

And John McCain spat at each of them.

Then Senator and would-be-President McCain implored his conservative critics to “calm down” as if they were school children and he was head master. He has said that he wants to reach out to the GOP’s conservative base—this is not the way to do so.

A President McCain would be a better alternative to a President Clinton (or President Rodham) or a President Obama in that he would surely prosecute the War on Terror. Beyond that, there are few ways in which he would benefit not just the GOP and conservatives, but the country.

Though he would be a better commander-in-chief than his Democrat opponents, Senator McCain has still practically murdered the conservative base in an electoral sense. The unintended consequence of his nomination will be thus: conservatives will stay home and deliver the 2008 crown to the inspiring Barack Obama or the feared Hillary Clinton. And a thousand Abels will sit in a political purgatory for at least the next four years as McCain carries his prize.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Mockery XIV: America Divided

As we begin 2008, remember that the Mockery is a column designed to poke fun at the excesses of American society, particularly in the political realm.

It was John Edwards who described the United States as a bifurcated nation. See, there were “the haves” and the “have nots” (some folks called these groups the bourgeoisie and the proletariat). The haves had the cash (i.e. they controlled the means of production). And what we needed was a man of the people to do the people’s will (i.e. a dictatorship of the proletariat). Part of this would, naturally, include health care for all and a ton of other social programs (i.e. the nationalization of industry).

Well, the condition before Sir John’s election (which never happened) was described in this way: America, he said, was not one nation; instead, what we had was “two Americas.” One America for the wealthy (i.e. the bourgeoisie, or folks working forty hours a week), and one America for the poor schleps without a chance (i.e. the proletariat).

But this year’s presidential election has further splintered the John Edwards idea of two Americas. Ironically, this new fracture occurred as Edwards quit the race (perhaps he was the glue that held the two Americas together).

Now we have a Democrat Party—the party of progress for women and minorities—split into unionists and rebels; men and women. In other words, they are divided along racial and sexual lines between black male Barack Obama and white female Hillary Clinton.

Then we have a Republican Party—Karl Rove’s machine—split into two disparaging parts: one conservative, the other moderate. Conservatives are either staying home or voting for Mitt Romney while moderates are (generally-speaking, of course) voting for John McCain and Mike Huckabee.

In other words, we have…Four Americas!

One America for black men; one for white women; one for moderate Republicans; one for conservatives. Worse yet, there is no clear candidate to put the four Americans back together.

Maybe we should bring back Edwards. Maybe not.

One last thought: I wonder what Marx would have thought of the four Americas?

Source(s): http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8352.html
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »