See here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/710795/posts MY VOTE IS FOR SALE
Vanity | July 4, 2002 | B. A. Conservative
Posted on 07/04/2002 9:16:32 AM EDT by B. A. Conservative
It is beyond challenge that most, if not all, of the problems America faces today originate in Washington. It is fallacious reasoning to suggest that the problem lies with the people of the United States. Our government is a republic. Our republic is predicated on the theory that those elected to public office have intellectual competence, educational skills or experience that exceeds that of the electorate and that those elected public leaders will do what is right for the country even in opposition to commonly perceived public opinion. During most of the past century, the political class has demonstrably failed to lead, but have instead become political prostitutes selling laws and benefits in exchange for votes transforming our Constitutional republic into a tyrannical mob-rule democracy destined for bankruptcy. Non-producing parasites now use the Democratic Party to prey on their neighbors, the still producing members of our country.
Under our Constitution, the power of the United States resides in We the people. For too long, we have allowed that power to be delegated or sold by the prostitutes in both political parties, primarily those in Washington. Clearly, ours has become a top>down government. As one voice among We the people, I think it is time to withhold the delegation of that power by only delegating it to selected politicians and then only with strings attached. FreeRepublic is a much larger segment of We the people, with a much larger voice. We at FreeRepublic are the roots of the grassroots. Newcomers and some that have been frequenting this site for years may deny that Bill Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives because of the discussions that took place on this web site. They are wrong. Our voice is loud and it is heard in the Halls of Congress and in the Whitehouse. The stain that will be remembered in history is not the stain on Monica's dress; it is the stain of Impeachment. And that stain came from the computer ink that spilled from the hearts of Freepers determined to see justice done. We at FreeRepublic are the roots of the grassroots. The buck starts here.
There has been a great deal of discussion on FreeRepublic lately about what role we should play in this fall's election and that we should cut Bush and the Republicans some slack. Variations of this theme have been discussed on other threads: "THAT which you believe"---"An open letter to Republicans" by redrock. I particularly like the comments by DoughtyOne and "Move the RINOs and we move the party. I really think it's that simple," by NickDanger.
Ronald Reagan won two landslide elections by telling Americans he was going to cut the government in Washington down to size. The Contract with America gave the Republicans control of both houses of Congress for the first time in roughly thirty years. Prior to the Contract with America Republicans only had control of even one house in Congress one other time in 70 years. The lesson that Republicans seem to have difficulty in learning is that the people are conservative and when presented a conservative agenda they will vote for it. And conversely, when pandering is all that is offered, the public prefers the real prostitutes every time. I have a solution to this problem. I call it the
Contract with Congress
I am not giving my vote to anybody in November. I have decided to auction my vote in this fall's Congressional elections. Politicians are going to have to bid for my vote. I have decided not to exclude any particular politicians or parties from the bidding. And I have decided to attach some rules to the bidding itself:
There is a minimum bid.
Anyone defaulting on any part of the minimum bid will be barred from consideration for future auctions.
A public pledge to guarantee to bring the minimum bid to the floor for a vote is an acceptable alternative to a written and signed contract, although anyone offering a written and signed contract similar in format to the Contract with America will be given preference.
Any part of the minimum bid or "contract" not enacted into law will be supported and returned to the floor in the next or subsequent sessions of Congress as required until enacted into law.
If there are no acceptable bids for my vote in Congressional races per the rules above, my vote (normally Republican straight ticket) will not be cast at all.
Minimum Bid:
Complete scrapping of Title 26, Subtitle A-Income Taxes.
Replacement of the Income Tax with the Fair Tax, the Flat Tax, or a combination of the two.
The growth of government spending is unacceptable. I not only want it stopped; I demand that it be reversed by at least 2% per cent per year for at least the next two years. In 2004, I will re-evaluate to determine whether or not the rate of reduction should be adjusted for future years.
No more socialism. That means no new payments to individuals except for services rendered or goods purchased. That means no new grants to organizations, public or private, and no new grants to state or local governments.
Immediately begin the voluntary privatization of Social Security using the Cato plan.
This is only the Minimum. There are a number of suggested options that politicians could add now or that we will add in future contracts for future elections.
Suggested Options:
Amend the Constitution to provide for Term Limits for members of Congress and the Federal Judiciary.
Sunset law for all Federal Regulations not reauthorized within five years.
Sunset law for all Federal agencies not reauthorized within five years.
Balanced Budget Amendment that allows deficit spending only when there has been a Declaration of War by Congress or by a 60% majority vote of both houses of Congress when and if there is a previously accumulated saved surplus that is larger than the proposed deficit or by a two thirds majority vote in both houses if there is no saved surplus or the saved surplus is less than the proposed deficit.
All votes in both houses will be roll call votes electronically recorded and electronically verified by key encryption, password enabled.
Constitutional Amendment allowing Line Item Veto by the President.
Change the rules of the Senate eliminating the filibuster.
Constitutional Amendment repealing the XVII Amendment to the Constitution.
Abolish the Department of Education.
Most of these problems would eventually be solved by Term Limits. I think the Term Limits Amendment should be saved as part of the ultimate threat packaged as a part of a package to be presented under Article V to a Constitutional Convention. It takes time to put together sufficient public arousal and support to apply the kind of pressure that we may need to bring to bear on people who are used to exerting power rather than being subjected to it.
The lesson that Republicans seem to have difficulty in learning is that the people are conservative and when presented a conservative agenda they will vote for it. And if you don't agree with his roadmap 100%, you're not a "real conservative", whatever that means. What a horribly arrogant little screed - I'm almost sorry I missed it when it was fresh.
Since the original author of that thread is no longer with us, you can take his place, if you like. Let me introduce myself - hello, I'm the Republican candidate for Congress for your district. How are you today?
The reason I'm here today is to talk to you about a certain set of voters, those voters questioning my conservative principles because I sometimes take a pragmatic, incremental road to implementing a conservative agenda. Now, you may disagree with my characterization of what I'm up to, but that's not really what I want to talk about. What I want to talk about is that set of voters who are publicly trying to flex their muscles in order to steer the ship of state in their preferred direction, using their preferred methods. Recently, one of those voters stated that his vote should not be taken for granted, and that he would require candidates who wished his votes to "bid" for it, in the form of platforms that drew ever closer to his personal political preferences. And if his bid is not met, he'll simply stay home and sit out the election this fall.
Now, as a candidate, I certainly respect the right of voters to vote for whomever they see fit, for whatever reasons they see fit - that's one of the great things about this country, after all. But what's really implied by this sort of thing is an assertion that a particular voter is inherently indispensible. Based on that belief, that voter is, in fact, making a veiled threat to insure the defeat of candidates he finds unacceptable, by simply staying home.
This is certainly an intriguing notion, without a doubt. But it occurs to me that the voter who made such a proposal isn't really putting his assertions to the test - he isn't willing, apparently, to actually risk anything in making such assertions. By that, I mean that he demands 100% of his particular minimum agenda be implemented, or no conservative anywhere will have any of it - it's an all or nothing proposal. Either he gets everything he wants, or he forces everyone else to take nothing at all.
But what if he actually put the value of his vote to the test, by risking the thing he seem to dread most, far more than he dreads any liberal - moderation and incrementalism? After all, I dispute his basic assertion, that he is as indispensible as he thinks he is, so why not put it to a real test?
So, with that in mind, here's the counteroffer I make. I provisionally accept the aforementioned voter's minimum bid - in exchange for his vote, I will agree to implement every one of his proposals to the very best of my ability. But by doing so, I'm taking a risk - I may sign on to his agenda, only to be proven right in my concern that his vote isn't as valuable as he says it is. Or even worse, I may find that signing on to his agenda causes the liberal candidate to be elected, in which case he'll have done more harm than good.
And if I'm taking a risk, it's only fair he should take a risk as well, besides just the risk that my liberal opponent will be elected. So when I say "provisionally", what I mean is, in exchange for his vote, I will, if elected, implement every one of his proposals to the best of my ability, but if and only if I win by exactly one vote. Ater all, if I win by more than that, I didn't really need him, and the value of his vote is precisely as imaginary as I suspect it is. And in that case, he gets nothing of his agenda, now and forever - he'll never get anything from me, except what I see fit to give him. And he'll be stuck with yet another middle-of-the-road pragmatist, the kind he so loves to hate.
So how's that deal? He can prove that he's as important as he claims he is, and thereby get what he wants, or he can get stuck with exactly the thing he appears to hate most - folks like me. Do you suppose he'll take that bet, that he's as confident of his importance as he appears to be?