Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Victor Davis Hanson: Why the Democrats Won't Win
realclearpolitics.com ^ | June 22, 2006 | Victor Davis Hanson

Posted on 06/22/2006 6:31:31 AM PDT by Tolik

Will President Bush's current unpopularity translate into a Democratic recapture of either the House or Senate this fall - or a victory in the 2008 presidential election?

Probably not.

Despite widespread unhappiness with the Republicans, it is hard to envision a majority party run by Howard Dean, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

Why?

All sorts of apparent and not-so-apparent reasons. First, recent events and trends have complicated Democrats' talking points about George W. Bush's purported failings.

The so-called "jobless" recovery has seen low unemployment rates comparable to the Clinton boom years.

Last September, many people blamed what they viewed as a stingy federal government for the chaos following Hurricane Katrina. But now we learn individuals' fraudulent claims and spending accounted for $1.4 billion in federal largess. Too much was apparently thrown around from big government too generously, rather than too little, too slowly.

Karl Rove was supposedly going to be "frog-marched" out of the White House in cuffs for a role in outing CIA agent Valerie Plame. Instead, the special prosecutor recently found no evidence that he was involved in any wrongdoing.

And then there's Iraq. The recent killing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and the establishment of a complete Iraqi democratic Cabinet will not ensure a quick victory, as we see from the recent slaughter of American captive soldiers. But both events still weaken the liberal clamor that the American effort at birthing democracy is doomed in Iraq. Calling for a deadline to leave, as Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., and Sen. John Kerry, D-Ma., advocate, is not so compelling when the current policy is based on training the growing Iraqi security forces so that American troops can come home as soon as possible.

Thus, looking ahead to the elections, there is little that the Democrats will be able to capitalize on.

Take the budget deficit. Total federal annual revenues have increased despite, or because of, the tax cuts. Yet at the same time budget expenditures in the first Bush term grew at a much faster annual rate than during Bill Clinton's administration. So the time-honored remedy for the shortfall calls for cuts and a more conservative budget cruncher, hardly a liberal forte.

Even in an area like illegal immigration where Bush is getting hammered by his own party, the Democrats aren't in good shape. Their similar support for amnesty and guest workers gives them the same Bush negatives on those issues. But they suffer the additional burden of apparent laxity on open borders.

Meanwhile, the Democrats face a more fundamental, existential problem. The addition of China and India to the world capitalist system has brought well over a billion workers into the global marketplace. The planet is now flooded with cheap consumer goods - at precisely the time the U.S. economy keeps creating national wealth at a rapid clip.

The result is that while there may be more inequality than ever before in the no-holds-barred world mart, the middle class and poor in the U.S. have access to "things" - TVs, sound systems, clothes, cars - undreamed of in the past. We are now in the age of MTV and mass conspicuous consumption, not of the grapes of wrath. American class warfare can no longer be defined by the Democratic Party as an elemental need for a 40-hour workweek, unemployment and disability insurance, or Social Security.

Unfortunately, the liberal debate has devolved to why one person has more opportunity for leisure and even nicer things than others do. A sort of envy rather than hunger more often fuels the gripe - and that should require a subtle Democratic acknowledgment that things continue to improve for everyone.

Finally, in the past, savvy Democrats understood the need for a conservative package for such liberal contents. To win the popular vote in presidential races, the formula was to nominate a Southern governor or senator - as in 1964, 1976, 1992, 1996 and 2000 - and then hope either for a Republican scandal such as Watergate or Iran-Contra, or a populist third-party conservative like Ross Perot.

In contrast, recently any time the liberal base got its wish and nominated a Northern progressive - 1968, 1972, 1984, 1988 or 2004 - the party lost the presidency. So far even Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, Katrina and Haditha have not equated to past national scandals; nor will there likely be a prairie-fire independent to draw votes away from the Republicans.

Yes, much of the public is grumpy at high gas prices. It does not like the costs in Iraq and continuing budget deficits. And people worry about unchecked illegal immigration and dangers on the horizon, from Iran to North Korea. But when Americans get inside the voting booth, they probably will think the envisioned Democratic remedy is worse than the current perceived Republican disease.

Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and author, most recently, of "A War Like No Other: How the Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponnesian War." You can reach him by e-mailing author@victorhanson.com.


TOPICS: Editorial; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2006; 2008; electioncongress; electionpresident; elections; electionushouse; electionussenate; vdh; victordavishanson

1 posted on 06/22/2006 6:31:32 AM PDT by Tolik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Tolik

Hey, Tolik.


2 posted on 06/22/2006 6:32:17 AM PDT by rightinthemiddle (Islamic Terrorists, the Mainstream Media and the Democrat Party Have the Same Goals in Iraq.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem; Lando Lincoln; quidnunc; .cnI redruM; yonif; SJackson; dennisw; monkeyshine; Alouette; ...


    Victor Davis Hanson Ping ! 

       Let me know if you want in or out.

Links: FR Index of his articles:  http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=victordavishanson 
His website: http://victorhanson.com/     NRO archive: http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson-archive.asp

3 posted on 06/22/2006 6:32:35 AM PDT by Tolik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rightinthemiddle

IBP!


4 posted on 06/22/2006 6:33:58 AM PDT by Tolik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Tolik

Let's hope and pray VDH is right.


5 posted on 06/22/2006 6:35:46 AM PDT by hershey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolik

It's a big moment for me...I'd like to thank my family, my wife, my high school baseball coach....


6 posted on 06/22/2006 6:37:13 AM PDT by rightinthemiddle (Islamic Terrorists, the Mainstream Media and the Democrat Party Have the Same Goals in Iraq.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Tolik

You need to come over to the Rush threads...you'd be a welcome asset there.


7 posted on 06/22/2006 6:38:13 AM PDT by rightinthemiddle (Islamic Terrorists, the Mainstream Media and the Democrat Party Have the Same Goals in Iraq.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: rightinthemiddle

Thanks for the laughs, we need them sometimes, er, I mean always.


8 posted on 06/22/2006 6:39:12 AM PDT by Tolik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: rightinthemiddle

Thanks. Rush is bigger than universe, I don't have enough mega-dittos...


9 posted on 06/22/2006 6:40:36 AM PDT by Tolik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Tolik

The Republican Party often seems to have no real guiding principles at all, while the Democrats obviously do have them. Only trouble is, the Democrats' principles are the wrong ones, the principles of the Left. A lot of people can see that, and they won't go for it. Besides the fact that anti Americanism is not so popular in the actual USA as the Dems seem to imagine. So I'm guardedly hopeful that Hanson is right on this.


10 posted on 06/22/2006 6:42:06 AM PDT by Sam Cree (Delicacy, precision, force)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolik

Here's the money quote from this piece:

"Finally, in the past, savvy Democrats understood the need for a conservative package for such liberal contents. To win the popular vote in presidential races, the formula was to nominate a Southern governor or senator - as in 1964, 1976, 1992, 1996 and 2000 - and then hope either for a Republican scandal such as Watergate or Iran-Contra, or a populist third-party conservative like Ross Perot."

That pretty much sums things up. If the Republicans/Conservatives can stay united, we can keep the 'Rats at bay. Fail in the Leadership, and the Republican Party will fail.



11 posted on 06/22/2006 6:44:28 AM PDT by Bean Counter (Stout Hearts!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rightinthemiddle

LOL!

Good summary analysis by VDH. We still need to work hard, from now until November. I'm in a hugely safe Republican Congressional district (GA 6th), and still had two Tom Price canvassers come by the house yesterday. I hope it's the same throughout the nation.


12 posted on 06/22/2006 6:46:28 AM PDT by FreedomPoster (Guns themselves are fairly robust; their chief enemies are rust and politicians) (NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Tolik
But when Americans get inside the voting booth, they probably will think the envisioned Democratic remedy is worse than the current perceived Republican disease.

The money quote. The R's could very well lose over immigration, but not on Iraq or gas prices (this last one is so ridiculous I can't believe he brought it up; anyone with a brain knows it's the market, not Bush).

That said, however, the dems are even worse on immigration than the R's (discounting the House. They seem to have their sanity about them and they are doing the Senate R's and Bush a big favor, even if they don't know it yet). Dem control would be a nightmare at this juncture of history.

That said, I will vote against any Senator or rep that supported the Senate amnesty bill. I will vote for those that didn't. This might mean the R's lose control of the senate, but the House is more important, IMO. That's where all the spending legislation starts.
13 posted on 06/22/2006 6:47:24 AM PDT by JamesP81
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolik
I hope he's right. Unfortunately, his arguments assume that a large percentage of Democrats are discriminating enough to notice these things and progressive enough to stop knee-jerk, check-by-the-D voting.

Thanks for the ping.

14 posted on 06/22/2006 6:48:21 AM PDT by Pirate21 (The liberal media are as sheep clearing the path along which they will be lead to the slaughter.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sam Cree

What is surprising is that elections ARE so close.

One of my favorite authors Arnold Kling of TCSDaily had an essay recently called Are You a Conservative? (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1649142/posts) where he argues that many liberals do live their lives by what now is considered to be conservative standards, they just vote Democrat because of a habit, or idealistic utopian ideals of how they imagine things should have been.


15 posted on 06/22/2006 6:52:01 AM PDT by Tolik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Tolik

So many words for such a simple answer, because the Rats are idiots!


16 posted on 06/22/2006 6:52:48 AM PDT by tobyhill (The War on Terrorism is not for the weak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pirate21
Unfortunately, his arguments assume that a large percentage of Democrats are discriminating enough to notice these things and progressive enough to stop knee-jerk, check-by-the-D voting.

The proof that some are that discriminating is that Victor is, himself, a traditional Democrat.

17 posted on 06/22/2006 6:58:21 AM PDT by KC Burke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Tolik
The elite power critters of the DNC behave like inbred princes and princesses, who have no sense of reality nor common sense.

As the elite rats's MSM looses its hold/power over America, Americans get to see and hear these lunatics in action. This costs them more moderate votes everyday and makes us broken glass Republican voters.

18 posted on 06/22/2006 6:59:10 AM PDT by Grampa Dave (There's a dwindling market for Marxist Homosexual Lunatic wet dreams posing as journalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: KC Burke
...Victor is, himself, a traditional Democrat.

Hey, I didn't know that! Thanks. (Plus, that's very encouraging.)
19 posted on 06/22/2006 7:07:02 AM PDT by Pirate21 (The liberal media are as sheep clearing the path along which they will be lead to the slaughter.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Tolik

20 posted on 06/22/2006 7:14:19 AM PDT by mirkwood (Gun control isn't about guns. It's about control.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sam Cree

I disagree
I think the democrats problems come from the fact that they are not unified
they are actually several differnet groups cobbled together
some are tree huggers, some are pro abortion, some are pro gay marriage and some are anti war
that is why kerry was such a flip flopper and no democrat can ever give a straight answer they always have to go through this huge mathematical equation to figure out what to say to piss off they fewest memebers of their patchwork base...


21 posted on 06/22/2006 7:21:52 AM PDT by edzo4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Tolik

Of course we will win, I voted for the war before I voted against it.

/Sarcasm off

22 posted on 06/22/2006 7:23:16 AM PDT by sr4402
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sr4402

Shut up John, who asked you?

/Sarcasm OFF

23 posted on 06/22/2006 7:23:59 AM PDT by sr4402
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: sr4402

Yeah, I was working up a speach to give every Iraqi Citizen health care, and every Iraqi woman an abortion. How dare you step on my message?

/Sarcasm OFF

24 posted on 06/22/2006 7:25:37 AM PDT by sr4402
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: sr4402

Yes, John, move of out of the way, I have some troops in Iraq I need to persecute and take Nancy's job.

/Sarcasm OFF

25 posted on 06/22/2006 7:27:55 AM PDT by sr4402
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: sr4402

Congressperson Murtha. You made an agreement with me. You aren't going against your agreements with me like the other Democrats do?

/Sarcasm OFF

26 posted on 06/22/2006 7:29:42 AM PDT by sr4402
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Tolik
"liberals do live their lives by what now is considered to be conservative standards, they just vote Democrat because of a habit, or idealistic utopian ideals of how they imagine things should have been."

Yes, I believe you are exactly right. I know a lot of guys, middle aged guys at that, who are just ordinary guys, good guys, but still vote Dem regularly. They don't even necessarily consider themselves "liberals," though they might accept that label at a pinch, without any real idea of what it means. Mainly they vote Dem because they always have, or their parents did, no better reason than that, exactly the same as rooting for the hometown team. 'Course, their state of mind on this is reinforced every evening by the MSM, most of 'em sit in front of the TV without a very critical eye, though they are intelligent otherwise.

The point I make to myself, and occasionally on a thread, or to others, is that I believe it's important to understand one's own guiding principles regarding the role of government in society and the freedom of men. People who are like the ones we're discussing, and many who actively consider themselves "liberals" haven't really given much thought to what their principles on these matters should be, and thus are free to vote on individual issues and emotion without any regard at all to the "big picture." 'Course, the trouble is, a lot of our guys are much the same.

But given the above, I suppose it makes enough sense that voters will swing one way, then another, sometimes having eyes only for whatever bright and shiny bric a brac is being waved in front of them.

It's all well and good to be in favor of helping the poor or sticking up for the little guy, but most don't think about the longer term consequences of giving tremendous coercive power to government, or building massive bureaucracies which wield the power of law, in the service of those things. Unlike our founding fathers, they trust their government, at least if it's being run by their party.

27 posted on 06/22/2006 7:31:05 AM PDT by Sam Cree (Delicacy, precision, force)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: sr4402

Don't worry, we will keep the agreements going as long as it helps us overcome America. Remember Nancy, our goals of political correctness and socialism.

/Sarcasm OFF

28 posted on 06/22/2006 7:32:07 AM PDT by sr4402
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Tolik

It doesn't hurt the R's to have the contrast of 2 of our soldiers being horribly mutilated and beheaded only a couple of days before the D's proposed 2 separate bills in the Senate in favor of running away, errr, withdrawing. Oh, and finding 500 nerve gas bombs in Iraq doesn't hurt, either.


29 posted on 06/22/2006 7:35:10 AM PDT by Ancesthntr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: edzo4
"they are actually several differnet groups cobbled together some are tree huggers, some are pro abortion, some are pro gay marriage and some are anti war that is why kerry was such a flip flopper and no democrat can ever give a straight answer they always have to go through this huge mathematical equation to figure out what to say to piss off they fewest memebers of their patchwork base...

Yes, you are right that there are all these subgroups in the Dem party, and that there is a lack of unity, but IMO, one reason Dems don't give straight answers is that if they tell the truth, that they are leftists, many of them would be out of a job. Flip flopping is more a function of general dishonesty than principle, IMO, and happens with politicians of all stripes.

In any case, my point is that the Democrat Party is the party of the Left, and thus generally follows leftist principles, which are fairly well defined. Even if a good many of Dem voters don't seem to understand this. But the tree huggers, "anti war" folk (who aren't really anti war), "gay marriage" advocates, media and entertainment types, they are all united at least by being followers of leftist ideals. The individual issues still grow in one way or another from the fundamental principles of leftism.

30 posted on 06/22/2006 7:42:47 AM PDT by Sam Cree (Delicacy, precision, force)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Tolik

Another "expert" stops and smells the roses. I first said the rat would not win and would in fact lose seats, in an essay posted last Labor Day. Welcome Victor.


31 posted on 06/22/2006 7:45:11 AM PDT by jmaroneps37 (John Spencer: Fighting to save America from Hillary Clinton..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmaroneps37

After 15 years of pragmatic triangulation, why would anyone expect principle from politicians or parties?


32 posted on 06/22/2006 8:00:32 AM PDT by ClaireSolt (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Tolik

I forgot to mention, don't you find it ironic that the Republican Pary is increasingly the party of the everyday guy, as evidenced by FR, while the Dem party has become the party of the super wealthy? After Bush was elected it was even common to hear very public complaints from Dems that the people with the money weren't running the country anymore, since the red staters had won.


33 posted on 06/22/2006 8:12:10 AM PDT by Sam Cree (Delicacy, precision, force)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolik

Not everyone there worships Rush...there are some high-quality Freepers. The conversations usually stray to interesting topics.


34 posted on 06/22/2006 8:33:47 AM PDT by rightinthemiddle (Islamic Terrorists, the Mainstream Media and the Democrat Party Have the Same Goals in Iraq.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: JamesP81

(this last one is so ridiculous I can't believe he brought it up; anyone with a brain knows it's the market, not Bush).



________

Unfortunately, the Dems count on people without brains to vote.


35 posted on 06/22/2006 8:35:03 AM PDT by rightinthemiddle (Islamic Terrorists, the Mainstream Media and the Democrat Party Have the Same Goals in Iraq.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: rightinthemiddle
Unfortunately, the Dems count on people without brains to vote.

And dead people. No, wait, I guess that's covered in the "no brains" clause.

36 posted on 06/22/2006 8:43:38 AM PDT by Tanniker Smith (I didn't know she was a liberal when I married her.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave

Love that Toon!

Says it all!


37 posted on 06/22/2006 8:50:58 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach (History is soon Forgotten,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Tolik

In Nov '06 the 'Pubbies will pick up 2 in the Senate and 4 in the House. You read it here first!


38 posted on 06/22/2006 10:34:15 AM PDT by gridlock (In Nov '06 the 'Pubbies will pick up 2 in the Senate and 4 in the House. You read it here first!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JamesP81
That said, I will vote against any Senator or rep that supported the Senate amnesty bill. I will vote for those that didn't. This might mean the R's lose control of the senate, but the House is more important, IMO. That's where all the spending legislation starts.

That was true only until the Supreme Court arrogated to itself the power to define what is Constitutional and just! IMHO, if you want a living Constitution, more decisions like Kelo, Lawrence, decisions citing foreign juris prudence and a new interpretation of the Second Amendment, just ignore the importance of the Senate.

39 posted on 06/22/2006 11:14:09 AM PDT by neverdem (May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Tolik
Interesting analysis because Victor Davis Hanson IS a Democrat. He thinks little of the current leadership of his party or what it wants to do. What the Democrats do want is to make things worse. That alone will be sufficient to induce voters to allow the GOP to retain control of Congress this fall.

(Denny Crane: "Every one should carry a gun strapped to their waist. We need more - not less guns.")

40 posted on 06/22/2006 11:20:47 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
That was true only until the Supreme Court arrogated to itself the power to define what is Constitutional and just! IMHO, if you want a living Constitution, more decisions like Kelo, Lawrence, decisions citing foreign juris prudence and a new interpretation of the Second Amendment, just ignore the importance of the Senate.

The SCOTUS definitely needs to be brought to heel. That's one of the reasons why I support a marriage amendment to the Constituion. The SCOTUS knows damned well that they can't declare something in the Consitution unconstitutional. By passing an amendment, especially one they probably wouldn't like, it will forcefully remind the judiciary that it is, in fact, the servant of the people, and not their master. They can either enforce the law that they don't want or they can go against it at which point the executive and the legislative branches promptly ignore them and tell them to enforce their decisions themselves.
41 posted on 06/22/2006 11:31:57 AM PDT by JamesP81
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: JamesP81
That said, I will vote against any Senator or rep that supported the Senate amnesty bill.

I see your from the great state of Kentucky.

The SCOTUS definitely needs to be brought to heel.

You can't do that by ignoring the importance of the Senate and helping Mitch McConnell's opponent. Unfortunately, that also implies that you need to vote for the RINOs/CINOs in the general election for Senate. Everyone knows it stinks, but what's the alternative? It's almost guaranteed that allowing the dem to become a Senator will make things worse.

This is not an analogy, but look at NY. Not too long ago, it had a relatively conservative dem, Moynihan, and Al D'Amato(R). Talk about their replacements. With Clinton and Schumer, it's unreal. If you want to take down a RINO in the Senate, do it in a primary, pretty please?

42 posted on 06/22/2006 12:20:40 PM PDT by neverdem (May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
There is truth in what you say, and McConnell has been a really good senator. Unlike many congresscritters, he will write me back personally when I write letters to him and he at least appears to take seriously the things people write to him.

And not to get too technical on you, but Kentucky is a Commonwealth :)
43 posted on 06/22/2006 12:30:59 PM PDT by JamesP81
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: JamesP81
And not to get too technical on you, but Kentucky is a Commonwealth :)

Pardon me, but I took that from your "about page." As a practical matter, what's the difference between a state and a commonwealth?

44 posted on 06/22/2006 2:23:49 PM PDT by neverdem (May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Tolik

that link for the Arnold Kling story is dead - try this one:


http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=061406B


45 posted on 06/22/2006 4:43:44 PM PDT by bitt ("Land of the Free, because of the Brave...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: neverdem; JamesP81

http://ask.yahoo.com/20001117.html

...'A search on "state difference commonwealth" turned up some useful results. At the About.com: Lawyers site, we learned that there are four commonwealths in the United States: Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Kentucky.
The difference between these commonwealths and the other 46 states is in name alone -- they elected to call themselves commonwealths, a term drawn from political theory. The About.com lawyer assured us that, legally, there is no difference between a state and these four commonwealths.

http://www.answerbag.com/q_view.php/8310
According to the website of the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts: At the time of the American Revolution, "commonwealth" was a popular term for describing a state/nation where the people came together by mutual consent. It was a term with democratic overtones, in contrast to the monarchic system that the colonies were trying to throw off. John Adams put the word "commonwealth" into his 1780 draft of the Massachusetts Constitution and it was accepted, as opposed to earlier rejected versions that used the term "state". So that's why Massachusetts is a commonwealth. Given that Virginia and Pennsylvania would have written their Constitutions around the same time, a similar idea might have factored in for them. Kentucky came later, so it's anyone's guess, but it's still one of the older states... it seems possible that the same idea could apply.



46 posted on 06/22/2006 4:49:29 PM PDT by bitt ("Land of the Free, because of the Brave...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: JamesP81

"The R's could very well lose over immigration, but not on Iraq or gas prices (this last one is so ridiculous I can't believe he brought it up; anyone with a brain knows it's the market, not Bush)."

Hey, people get frustrated and vote for candidates over all sorts of things. Having a vote doesn't mean you have a brain, or we wouldn't have to deal with Cynthia McKinney.


47 posted on 06/23/2006 12:08:51 AM PDT by LibertarianInExile ('Is' and 'amnesty' both have clear, plain meanings. Are Billy Jeff, Pence, McQueeg & Bush related?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: bitt
it seems possible that the same idea could apply.

Actually, we're just ornery and we want to be different and contentious about it :)
48 posted on 06/23/2006 5:37:51 AM PDT by JamesP81
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson