Re: Ken Smith: A Republican???

"Mr. Jance" wrote:

> Ken Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > "Mr. Jance" wrote:
> > > Ken Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > > > Frank Ney wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 14:54:00 GMT, an orbiting mind control laser caused Ken
> > > > > Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> to write:
> > > > >
> > > > > >  Consider Rush Limbaugh's predicament.  It wasn't his fault that
> > > > > >his doctor prescribed OxyContin, which is frighteningly addictive.
> > > > > >But he became addicted, and committed any number of felonies.
> > > > > >And near as I can tell, he hasn't harmed anyone but himself.  Are
> > > > > >society's interests really being served by having Rush sent up the
> > > > > >river for ten years?
> > > > >
> > > > > Depends on whether doing so gets the message across to the neocons that the
> > > > > Drugged War really isn't such a good idea or not.
> > > > >
> > > > > Rush deserves to get it in his fat ass, considering how he get medieval on
> > > > > anyone with a dependency issue on practically a daily basis.  Hoist on his 
> > > > > own
> > > > > petard.
> > > >
> > > >   For me, this is a tough one.  If it were anyone else but Rush, I'd be
> > > > inclined to forgive -- but when you live in a glass house, you shouldn't
> > > > be in the habit of throwing stones.  Putting the neocons' most virulent
> > > > spokesman behind bars might get them to reconsider the wisdom of
> > > > this War.
> > >
> > > Rush is every talk stations cash cow so none of them would ever drop
> > > his show.  I hear a lot of the left and anti Rush crowd say how Ted
> > > Kennedy should be happy now since he was Limbaugh's whipping post over
> > > his alcohol addiction.  So Ken, Rush never killed anyone right?
> >
> >   A lot of people have gone to prison who never killed anyone.  Rush
> > has been a good soldier in the war against illegal narcotics, and virulent
> > in his demand that offenders be punished.  I submit that, because Rush
> > has taken that manifestly unforgiving position, he should do the time he
> > has demanded that others endure.
> >
> > > Remember in Chappaquiddick, Mass., Teddy-boy had driven off the edge
> > > of a bridge.  He wasn't severely injured, however, Mary Jo Kopechne
> > > the woman that was in his vehicle with him was KILLED.
> >
> >   I'm not defending TeddiScotch, any more than I would TeddiBeer.
> > I'm a Republican, who happens to agree with William F. Buckley on
> > this issue. Let's admit that we've lost the war on drugs, and work on
> > restoring some semblance of sanity.
> >   But since we're on the subject of abuse of prosecutorial discretion,
> > let's talk about the felonious breach of securities laws committed by
> > our gallant President.  Do you mean to tell me that a Harvard MBA
> > doesn't know the basics of insider trading?  LOL!
> >
> >   And as Republicans, I just think we have to be a little better than
> > Paul Begala.  If we're going to diss Kennedy for his alcohol abuse,
> > we have to do the same for Rush and his felony violations of drug
> > laws.  If we are going to diss Bill Clinton for his lies, don't we also
> > have to diss morals maven Bill Bennett for his?  And if we're going
> > to diss Bill Clinton for his adultery, there are legions of Republican
> > politicians who haven't been able to keep their pants up and/or their
> > skirts down.
> >
> >   Let's not forget that when TeddiScotch was driving his car off the
> > road, one George Walker Bush was nabbed for a DWI. (Whether
> > Bush was busted for cocaine possession is debatable, but I tend to
> > accept the assertion as fact, given that the document which would
> > have indicated that fact has mysteriously been destroyed.)
> >
> >   By your logic, we have to let Malvo walk, because he wasn't quite
> > as bad as Adolf Hitler.  Rush did the crime, he ought to do the time
> > -- unless you agree that drug abuse is a victimless crime, drug laws
> > are draconian and unreasonable, and we have far better things to do
> > than locking people up for growing, selling, and using marijuana.
> >
> > > PS.  Ken, do you need reading eyeglasses?
> >
> >   P.S.: Mr. Jance, do you need a moral compass?
>
> Ken, I have read a few of your posts here. I had you pegged as a
> liberal, but I was suprised to see that you call yourself a
> Republican.

  I am a Republican in the classical sense, of the Goldwater strain, and
have been since the '70s.  As a Republican, I maintain that the govern-
ment that governs best, governs least.  And as a Republican, I love my
country but fear my government.  I don't think the government has any
right to dictate what happens in the bedroom, because its primary job
is to protect individual citizens' liberties.  On the right to bear arms, I'm
a tad to the right of Charlton Heston.  On immigration policy, I'm right
of my Congressman -- Tom Tancredo [I'd advocate Australia's "point
system"]!  And on our bizarre "war on drugs," I concur wholeheartedly
with that well-known *flaming* liberal, William F. Buckley.

  How would *I* fit within the confines of the Democratic Party?!?
Anybody got a shoehorn? :)

> I understand you don't like Rush, and that's fine and
> dandy. If he is found guilty of anything he should pay the appropriate
> penalty. But as a Republican, what is it about his stand on the issues
> that you don't like?

  I'm not so much opposed to his stance as I am the way he advocates
it.  I frankly detest the James Carville/Lani Guinier/Paul Begala practice
of blaming the other side for everything, and Rush is as guilty as anyone
in that terrible troika.  In the Enron Administration, there's enough slime
and corruption going around to smear everyone -- and I'll criticize even
my own Party where appropriate.  Horrors!!!

  Where I agree with Rush, I agree because he agrees with me.  I'm of
the opinion that government shouldn't be the gatekeeper to business or
the noble professions, and if you make the investment in your business,
you should at least have an opportunity to compete.  But if Rush is any-
thing, he isn't consistent.  Microsoft violated the antitrust laws, engaging
in the kind of dumping that he would never have tolerated if China were
the culprit, but El Rushbo defended them? What kind of insanity is that?

  Where I have a problem with the Bush Administration is where they
practice crony capitalism and generally, act like hidebound Democrats.
Foremost among these objections is the de facto "bribery-for-access"
policy of Bush the Lesser -- himself a child of privilege -- I agree with
Bill O'Reilly's remarks on the subject in his latest book.  Again, he's a
*flaming* liberal, right? :)

  And this strictly optional war in Iraq?  The only consistent lesson of
history is that we never seem to learn from history.  Iraq was no more
necessary to the war on terrorism than Vietnam was the war on com-
munism.  Sure, Saddam was a brutal dictator, but he wasn't exactly at
the top of his class -- and intervention on humanitarian grounds was a
cornerstone of Democratic foreign policy for decades.  We opposed
intervention in Rwanda (which is why Clinton didn't get involved), but
had to invade Iraq?  [Could it be because Iraq has more oil, and less
niggers?  Remember that we *are* the party of Trent Lott! You can't
even *spin* this one to make it look good.]
  I'm of the view that American foreign policy should be applied with
a light touch and on a consistent basis.  That having been said, Osama
bin Laden and his gang are Job One.  Iraq is going about as badly as
the competent military man -- who has actually read Sun Tzu -- might
have expected, and we shouldn't have gone in there guns ablaze when
we did, with no international backing (iirc, Iceland, Belgium, and some
South Seas island that even I'd never heard of before were part of the
"international coalition") to speak of.  Bush and his people have made
a Brobdignagian blunder -- and even lied to get us in there -- and they
should at least own up to it.  If we had kept our focus, we would have
the respect of the rest of the world, a lot more help -- and probably, a
lot more success.

> Because I have to say, I have my doubts about you
> being a Republican, when you display so much haterd against the most
> influential voice on our side of the isle.

  "Bellagio Bill" Bennett was an effective advocate for morality, until it
was revealed that he dropped a half-mill in one weekend in Las Vegas.
Mother Mary knows, I have *no* problem with Catholics gambling --
bingo is a veritable sacrament! -- but when Bennett was outed, he lied
about his breaking even.  If you presume to tell others what to do, you
simply *have* to walk your talk.

  The same rule applies to Rush.  You can't scream for "law and order
for you, mercy for me" and remain credible.  Rush broke the law, and
by his own unforgiving standard, he should fry. What part of "the rules
should apply equally to everyone" do you not understand?

>  I am not trying to goad
> you into an argument, I'm just curious what a "Republican" such as
> yourself believes in, or does not believe in.

  For any political party to be effective in our country, it has to set up a
big tent.  We have to be able to work with right-wing religious whacks
like Ted Kaldis, Mark Paschall, and Pat Robertson, just as the Dems
have to work with Jesse hiJackson and Eleanor Smeal.  And on some
important issues, we actually can.

  I'm not politically correct, never have been, and probably never will
be. It got me into trouble with my PoliSci professor during undergrad
(they always advocated socialism!), and it gets me into trouble today.
But if we can't say the unspeakable and think the unthinkable, are we
really free?  It often seems that the tyranny of the Right is every bit as
pernicious and pronounced as the tyranny of the Left....

  I was a state caucus delegate last cycle.  I filed an amicus brief with
the Colorado Supreme Court in our redistricting case supporting our
legislature.  I couldn't afford to have my picture taken with "Shrub" --
well, to be perfectly honest, my money is better-spent *elsewhere* :)
-- but as everyone knows, that privilege is strictly overpay-for-play.

  Mr. Jance?  Has my Republican Party membership been revoked? :)