|
Bob Whitaker's Weekly Articles – December 26, 1998
|
December 26, 1998 –
DUMB BOB
December 26, 1998 –
FORD, BUSH AND DOLE FIGHT DESPERATELY TO SAVE CLINTON
December 26, 1998 –
SADDAMITES
December 26, 1998 –
IT IS THE OPPOSITION PARTY THAT ACTUALLY RULES
Before his resignation, I referred to Bob Livingston as Dumb Bob.
Robert Livingston has been insisting that the impeachment of Clinton was not just a matter of sex. So now his own sexual indiscretions have been discovered. So he says he will resign. He says that, since he is now resigning because of sexual indiscretions, Clinton should do the same.
Which means it WAS all about sex, right?
Livingston is 1) admitting he was lying, and as far as he was concerned, the whole thing WAS about sex, and 2) he is resigning over sex, though, according to him, that is NOT why he or Clinton should resign.
I was told that new information may show that there was more to what Livingston was doing than just sex. That has nothing to do with the point I am making.
The point is that what Livingston SAID was that he had extramarital sexual relations and was resigning, so Clinton should resign for the same reason. Whatever happens later is not relevant to the message Dumb Bob sent.
In short, Dumb Bob has not the foggiest idea what he is doing.
Dumb Bob is a perfect respectable conservative.
FORD, BUSH AND DOLE FIGHT DESPERATELY TO SAVE CLINTON
|
As Republican after Republican announced he would vote for impeachment in the House, one Democrat whined plaintively, "Why can't they listen to Bush and Dole?"
Bush and Dole are doing what they always do. Dole is joining with former Democratic senator Mitchell in a last desperate effort to save Clinton. Bush demanded that Republicans accept the Democratic alternative of censuring Clinton instead of impeaching him. Ford has joined Carter -- and of course Bush and Dole -- in a last desperate attempt to stop the Senate trial with a censure.
Everybody but me has forgotten it, and no one mentions it, but every time there was a confrontation between Clinton and conservative Republicans, Gerald Ford and George Bush would hold a joint press conference to support Clinton.
Not a single conservative has ever complained about this. Moderate Republican presidential nominees are SUPPOSED to stab conservatives in the back. That never prevents conservatives from nominating and supporting moderates. These moderates are always asked to speak to conservative meetings, and the conservatives stand up and applaud wildly, the daggers still in their backs.
And these same conservatives just can't wait to nominate George Bush, Junior, for president. Like all moderates, he will lose the election. Then he will begin HIS career of knifing conservatives in the back.
You can't say conservatives don't deserve it.
And there are still people who say these cowardly retards who call themselves conservatives are going to "save America!"
Forget it.
Let's secede.
We are being told that this Iraq attack had nothing to do with the impeachment.
We were also being told the impeachment ought to be delayed or canceled because of the attack on Iraq. We were also told that impeachment should have been dropped because Saddam doesn't understand it. We were also being told impeachment should be dropped because our "Allies" -- by this term is meant those who sit there and complain about our military action -- would not understand it.
The respectable conservative response to all this is the same as always: "DUHH!"
When liberals said they only wanted a brief delay, respectable conservatives did not make fun of them. When they demand delays, the obvious thing for conservatives to do is to remind them of last year, when Senator Thompson gave them a delay. As soon as they got it, they called Thompson names and blocked everything until the cutoff date.
Any person with a memory would mention that. But if you have a memory, you don't stay respectable for long.
So when liberals demanded a delay, conservatives sat there with that look of constipated earnestness they always assume when liberals speak. In other words, respectable conservatives did their usual respectful routine.
So let's take a real, hard look at the dumbass things the liberals were saying this time.
First of all -- I kid you not -- they were openly arguing that impeachment should be abandoned because Saddam Hussein might misunderstand it. He might think we were being weak. So we had to think like a thug, too, you see.
We should only do what Saddam Hussein can identify with. I call this new political theory Saddamism, and those who propose it are obviously Saddamites. Saddamism would be quite a change for us. We never paid any attention before about what some dictator thought of our system, even in a state of all-out war.
There was a presidential election in the United States in 1944, at the height of World War II. In that election, President Franklin Roosevelt could have been removed. As a matter of fact, Roosevelt got a lower percentage of the vote in 1944 than he had in any previous election.
I have not the slightest doubt that Adolf Hitler did not understand why the United States was having an ELECTION at the high point of a total war, an election in which the president could have been removed from office.
Us Americans didn't consider it odd at all.
Liberals say we should now consider it odd to go ahead with our domestic processes regardless of the attitudes of foreign dictators. And, of course, if liberals take this seriously, respectable conservatives do, too. So everybody is seriously saying that maybe we shouldn't have had an impeachment if Saddam wouldn't understand it the way we do.
Certainly Europe would agree with the Saddamites. Unlike America, they suspend elections in wartime. Under Britain's parliamentary system, all elections were suspended for the duration of World War II, from 1939 to 1945. This was despite the fact that elections had not been held for years before 1939, and the fact that the British Constitution requires elections within five years of the last election.
Britain and France suspended elections during World War I, too.
In other words, the United States held the 1942 and 1944 elections in the teeth of the disapproval of Hitler, Churchill, the Emperor Hirohito, Joseph Stalin, Mussolini, Charles DeGaulle, the Pope and maybe even popular opinion in Liechtenstein.
So who cares?
You can get whiplash trying to keep up with what opponents of impeachment say. First, they say congress should not remove the president "because we don't have a parliamentary system in America." Under the parliamentary system, as in Britain, the prime minister who heads the executive branch is elected and removed by the legislative branch.
Liberals say we don't do that here. So we don't do it the British way here. OK so far. But now they say there should have been no impeachment because there is a war on.
In other words, we should follow the parliamentary system's precedent of suspending the system because of the fighting, as Britain did between 1939 and 1945.
What is frustrating is that we all know that respectable conservatives will bring none of these contradictions up when liberals throw up their next new and conflicting argument.
A real opposition to liberalism could take this country over. It could rule this country, even as liberals win and hold offices. But we could do all that if only we had a real, determined, intelligent antiliberal leadership in this country.
As I explain in the next article, the only way to save American is to get rid of the conservative respectables and replace them with a serious opposition.
But the liberals are not going to let unrespectable people unseat the respectable conservatives. In the United States, the combination of liberals, respectable conservatives, and shrieks of "anaziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews!!" is too powerful to allow the formation of serious rightist opposition.
Secession is probably the only hope for both North and South.
IT IS THE OPPOSITION PARTY THAT ACTUALLY RULES
|
Whitaker's Law on Real Electoral Power:
If you want to see your politicians in good jobs, you win the elections.
If you want to determine your country's political future, you lose elections, but you do it in the right way.
In other words, political experts concentrate on winning the next election while patriots concentrate on moving the country in the right direction, regardless of what that means for the next election.
You can either hold onto political office at any cost or you can have real, long-term political power. If you want to move the country left, you lose elections by being just a little too far to the left. If you want to move the country to the right, you lose elections by being too far to the right. You keep ahead of the curve, and force politics in your direction.
The party in power is mainly interested in holding onto offices for its members. The party that holds the offices will do anything to keep those offices. That means it will adjust to the direction you set if you are willing to sacrifice this election for long-term power.
We have a perfect example in today's congress, where the Republicans won, and are now only interested in holding onto their offices. The Republican majority has abandoned all their principles so they won't rock the boat and lose their offices in congress.
If you let the other side keep the majority, and force them in your direction, you can rule the national direction.
To cite one of many examples:
The British Labour Party ruled Britain for decades after World War II, but it hardly ever won an election. The Conservative Party held office, but it drifted further and further to the left, so that it could stay in office against Labour.
Of course, if you are the only real opposition party, you are going to win sometimes. The Labour Party won once in 1945. So in 1947 the Conservative Party totally changed its platform to adjust to the Labour position in all important aspects.
In its desperation to regain the power it had held so long, the Conservative Party in 1947 dumped every single major principle it had stood for. It agreed to end the British Empire, to adopt ruinous taxation and to perpetuate the welfare state.
Even when it did win, the Labour Party was not that popular. It was simply the only opposition, and it would not back down. So the Conservatives held the offices and the Labour Party's principles ruled Britain.
Sounds like the U.S. congress today, doesn't it? Republicans hold the offices, and Democrats set the direction.
The Labour Party ruled Britain by ignoring opinion polls. Just how popular Labour was when it won can be judged by the fact that they never won twice in a row.
But you don't have to win to rule. Quite the opposite. George Wallace's 1968 American Party run changed the American political landscape permanently. I supported Wallace, then spent many years building the coalition which elected Reagan in 1980. I can attest that the real movement toward that coalition began in 1968. By getting only 13.8% of the national vote once, Wallace demonstrated the enormous potential of the Wallace Democrats who later became the Reagan Democrats.
In 1992, Perot's 19% showing in the general election actually brought something unheard of for decades -- a balanced budget -- back into American governmental policy. You simply cannot find any WINNING election in recent American politics which compares in importance to Wallace's and Perot's defeated efforts.
A patriot should spend almost all his time studying the "losing" efforts of Wallace and Perot. The "experts" will spend all of their time reverently laying out the means by which ruthless psychos like Nixon and Clinton can get to be president.
And please remember, gentle reader, that it is ALWAYS these "experts" we call on to talk when our national political direction is being discussed.
In America, where would the conservative movement have been had the Republican Party not nominated Goldwater and been absolutely crushed in the 1964 election? In terms of setting our national direction, this "losing" 1964 Goldwater run was more important than any other presidential election in that generation.
Politicians judge elections entirely in terms of whether they win the immediate election or not. But in the long run, it makes almost no difference who wins a particular election.
For the people, losing it right is infinitely more important than winning. The problem is that professional political analysts are hired only by politicians. No one looks at elections from the point of view, not of who won, but of what happened to the nation.
The politicians hire the advisors. The fact is that experts only study how to win the next election, not how to influence long-term policy. So when the talking head "experts" show up on TV, all they talk about is who got 51% of the vote this time.
The faces in politics get all the publicity. So all we talk about is who wins, i.e., how the face we know got into office. But the point here is that that is of little or no importance to the fate of the next generation.
|
|
