- The Washington Times - Thursday, June 12, 2008


No ballot for a president

Unfortunately, Thomas Sowell has dropped a notch in my esteem (“Making a choice,” Commentary, Sunday). Staying home from an election because he didn’t like the choices for the top of the ticket is akin to a 10-year-old refusing to play a ball game because he can’t play his favorite position.

Like Mr. Sowell, I voted for neither Richard M. Nixon nor George McGovern in 1972. However, I realized that there were other elected officials, from the governor down to the local dog catcher, who could have a positive impact on me or my community as a whole and even might mitigate the mischief that could stem from the election of the better of two bad alternatives at the top of the ticket. In addition, don’t forget those state tax and bond referendums that can cost you lots more than any federal income-tax increase. They are on the ballot, too.

So, although I voted for neither presidential candidate in 1972, I went to the polls and cast my ballot in every other contest where I felt there clearly was a good man available to be elected or a referendum that needed defeating. It was such a relief not to have to hold my nose as I pulled the presidential lever that I have continued this practice ever since. Although I am a regular voter, this year will make the 15th time I have declined to cast a ballot for a presidential candidate.


Bowie, MD.

The real debate

Audrey Hudson’s story cheerleading a rare bipartisan debate on the use of the E-Verify Internet system totally missed the real debate on this immigration issue (“DHS role using E-Verify system gets panel talking,” Nation, Wednesday). The real debate would show that the disagreement about E-verify is not between the parties, but between those who favor enforcing immigration laws and those who champion open borders and amnesty.

The debate between proponents of the Secure America through Verification and Enforcement Act (SAVE), which emphasizes enforcement and using E-Verify. Opposed to it were supporters of the New Employee Verification Act (NEVA), which, using the guise of a supposedly better database called the “deadbeat dad” system. That system is actually a backdoor amnesty plan whose most important provision is the federal pre-emption and nullification of all existing and future state and local laws combating the illegal immigration that the feds have ignored.

NEVA, sponsored by Rep. Sam Johnson, Texas Republican, and Rep. Gabrielle Gifford, Arizona Democrat, is the creation of the Chamber of Commerce and the business lobby exploiting illegal labor. They want highly effective laws like those passed in Arizona, Oklahoma and Virginia’s Prince William County and Herndon eliminated.

NEVA does just that. It exempts all current illegals because it applies only to new hires. It also exempts subcontractors, allowing big companies to use the subcontracting ploy as a way of avoiding accountability. Finally, it does not improve on the accuracy of E-Verify.

The “deadbeat dad” system employed by the NEVA bill has its own horror stories of falsely accused men having their bank accounts and wages seized because of wrong identities.

Rather than cheering the process, Mrs. Hudson should have described the hypocrisy-laden product. Amnesty and open borders are opposed by a large majority of the American people. Congress once more is trying to subvert the will of the people.

When somebody read its members the first three words of the preamble to the Constitution they probably missed it in law school and in grade school.



Unrealistic expectations

Understanding that politics is a blood sport, I am nonetheless appalled at the constant bloodsucking regarding the issue of race in which the Democratic Party is engaged, with the delighted assistance of the media.

To endlessly quote racial voting patterns is to stir and aggravate angry racial sentiments. People always make polls, but in this election, there is a fixed obsession with racial references or racial voting preferences in the media and especially the Democratic Party.

Yes, it would appear that 15 percent of the population would never vote for a black candidate. Is that so surprising? Will it ever be zero percent? Can we force people’s attitudes? Every person has prejudices of one sort or another and might choose not to vote for a Catholic, Jew, woman or atheist.

The great sadness of this presidential campaign is this: If Sen. Obama wins, what unrealistic expectations has he put on his own shoulders, with “profound humility,” as he assumes to change 232 years of American history?

Also, given the media’s worldview, will his (yes) imperfect presidency be viewed as sabotaged by race mongers? Or leered at as paradigmatic by racists?

If Mr. Obama loses, the outcry will be even greater that race played a part. The “race card” will again play out and hector endlessly. The Democratic Party seeking victim status and the gorging media will clamor for and receive endless enabling attention.

Shouldn’t elections be decided on past voting record, specific platforms, merit, bipartisan legislative record, sponsored legislation, character and experience? Are emotional outbursts or racial considerations relevant to a candidate’s true worth or lack of worth? Do newspapers, seeking profit over integrity, intend to thrill or to inform?

Finally, did I miss something about our seeking to become a “colorblind” society?



Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times is switching its third-party commenting system from Disqus to Spot.IM. You will need to either create an account with Spot.im or if you wish to use your Disqus account look under the Conversation for the link "Have a Disqus Account?". Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide