Partisan Is Not a Dirty Word

Stop the partisan bickering and get something done! 

You hear it every night on “Lou Dobbs Tonight.”  You read it in newspaper editorials.  It’s the basis of the Barack Obama campaign and maybe the impetus for an independent “moderate” third-party run for the presidency.

I’m sick of it already.

The Republicans and the Democrats fight on Capital Hill because they disagree.  Their value systems are different, and they want to move their respective sides forward.  The fact that the other party often stands in the way is precisely how the Founding Fathers set this country up.

The Founders realized that it would be detrimental to the country if it were easy to pass laws.  So they made two branches of Congress and three branches of government, all as checks and balances.  A law has to get through the House and the Senate and get signed by the president.  If that law runs afoul of the Constitution, the Supreme Court can knock it down.  And going to war — the Founders made it really tough but recent presidents have found ways to get around that. 

The two-party system makes it even tougher to pass laws because the parties have different agendas.  When I think of Democrats, I think about Big Government, socialism, countries-without-borders, negotiating with dictators, giving up in Iraq, homosexual rights, diversity, and people who oppose the death penalty except when the person being executed is in the womb.  I DISAGREE with those people.  I don’t want to compromise with them.  I want to defeat them.

So when the University of Oklahoma holds its little conference about “moderate” politics and Lou Dobbs pushes the independent candidacy of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, I have to reach for the barf bag.  Chuck Hagel is a “moderate?”  Michael Bloomberg would be a uniter?  Please don’t insult my intelligence.

If Bloomberg were to get elected as an independent, God forbid, he would govern from the Left just as much as an Obama or the missus Clinton.  However, the Congress would still be composed of Republicans and Democrats and neither side would feel any obligation to work with him, so nothing much would change.

But let’s say it did.  What would we get through all this moderate compromise?

We could pull half the troops out of Iraq and hope our sons and daughters aren’t in that poor group that stays behind.  We could outlaw half the abortions in the country.  We could socialize some of the hospitals.  We could tell Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that we’ll meet him half way — wherever that might be.

The one big compromise that recent presidents have tried is the ridiculous idea of a two-state solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.  To Bush and Clinton, that was a win-win situation.  But to many Palestinians and Israelis, it only means that both sides lose. 

That’s the way it would be if Washington “worked” the way so many people want it to.  The government would easily pass laws — compromises — and our country would be so messed up that we’d never get it back together.

If the country and the Congress would back a sensible independent, more power to them!  I’ll jump right in there with the independent who wants to lower taxes, abolish the IRS, reduce the size of government, spend more on the military, deport illegals, protect our borders, destroy terrorists, sanctify life, and solve our nation’s healthcare crisis with market-based ideas. 

But wait a minute!  That sounds like a conservative Republican. So if THAT candidate were to win the White House, we’d bicker again, right?  But if Bloomberg or Obama or some other liberal gets elected, we’ll live together in harmony because that candidate says he a “moderate”?

Not likely.  And not desirable, either.  The more laws Congress passes, the more miserable we all are likely to be.  The Federal Government has a unique ability to mess up almost anything it touches with the exception of our great fighting forces. 

Our Founding Fathers knew that.  That’s why they made it so hard to get things done.


View All