TexasCHLforum.com

It is my hypothesis that the old Democrat party died when it was shanghai'd by the doper dirtball hippies in the McGovern-McCarthy (Gene, not Joe) era, and hooked up with the Communist Party USA, which had been so infiltrated by the FBI that they couldn't even hold a picnic. Nobody would admit to being a Commie back then, very high negatives as the saying goes, so they made an alliance with the doper dirtball hippies, and here we are, the Fondas, Kerrys, Clintons, plus the Chicago crowd, Ayres, Daley's, Alinsky's, and that ilk:

The Communists formerly known as Democrats.

It is more or less inevitable, in a democracy where the only thing that matters is the number of votes.

Most people are stupid, sad to say. Worse, even smart people sometimes value security over all else. They don't give a flip for freedom, liberty, opportunity, etc. or at least not enough to override their insecurities.

These people will vote for whoever is going to assure them, protect them, from harm, from want, from the vicissitudes of life, illness, infirmity, the effects of irresponsibility, the ill effects of their own stupid decisions. These people are neither driven by, nor susceptible to persuasion with, success stories. None are going to found a Microsoft, or build a business. They want a place to live, a way to pay the rent, or pay their mortgage, convenience, help getting the old lady in a rest home, free school for the kids (I did not use the term education on purpose!), a safe abortion for little Susie if it comes to that. Politicians who promise the most of that get those votes. These are not necessarily the lazy lay-abouts, but the people who will work at a job all their working lives if they can. They don't care about being Vice President of the company, or even a manager. What they care about is security.... the job will be there next week, next month, next year.

My first f-i-l was like this. He was a machinist at the bomber factories here. Most of the time there was work, sometimes there wasn't. He was not bedeviled by ambition, or burdened with a lot of education. He kept his lawn mowed, his house payments made, the beer cooler in the den filled, his car running, and not much else. He bowled in a league with others from the bomber factory. He snuck in a trip to Vegas every few years. As long as I knew him and my m-i-l, I never saw a book in their house, or knew him to read one, or even aspire to do so. He was a law-abiding citizen, but had no aspirations to better himself, to see his daughters better themselves beyond the narrow confines of his experience. If there was work, and he could pay the bills, that was as happy a life as he could wish for or imagine. I don't know how he voted but I have to think it was however the Machinist Brotherhood wanted him to. He wouldn't vote for an avowed communist, likely, but these guys know better than that and seldom announce themselves as such.

It's been 100 years since the Russian Revolution. The Commies have been busily working away, a little here, a gain there, an occasional stumble now and then, a setback, but they are committed, in ways the typical citizen is not. "We will bury you!" Khrushchev boldly announced, and we all thought he meant militarily, when the Cold War turned hot while we hunkered down under our pitiful wooden school desks. That's not what he meant.

57Coastie wrote: I would think that the burden is on you here, not me. I do not know your "friends/acquaintances."

Wait, maybe I do. Justice Clarence Thomas? Ex-Florida Congressman and ex-cashiered army officer, Allen West?

Jim

Well as long as we're name dropping, there is William Jefferson, Alcee Hastings and all the Democrats caught in Abscam years ago.

Alcee Hastings is an interesting case. Hastings had distinguished himself sufficiently to be nominated and confirmed as a US District court Judge, for life during good behavior. This is pretty big deal for those of us in my profession. Wikipedia continues the rest of the sordid details:

In 1981, Judge Hastings was charged with accepting a $150,000 bribe in exchange for a lenient sentence and a return of seized assets for 21 counts of racketeering by Frank and Thomas Romano, and of perjury in his testimony about the case. He was acquitted by a jury after his alleged co-conspirator, William Borders, refused to testify in court (resulting in a jail sentence for Borders).

On March 23, 1987,Rep James Sensenbrenner introduced an impeachment resolution, H.R. Res. 128, againstJudge Hastings. The resolution was referred to the Judiciary Committee.[195] On March 31, 1987, the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Criminal Justice met in executive session to discuss Judge Hastings' impeachment inquiry.[196]

In the summer of 1988, the full House of Representatives took up the case, and Hastings was impeached for bribery and perjury by a vote of 413-3. He was then convicted in 1989 by the United States Senate, becoming the sixth federal judge in the history of the United States to be removed from office by the Senate [emphasis added]. The vote on the first article was 69 for and 26 opposed, providing five votes more than the two-thirds of those present that were needed to convict. The first article accused the judge of conspiracy. Conviction on any single article was enough to remove the judge from office. The Senate vote cut across party lines, with U.S. Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont voting to convict his fellow party member, and U.S. Senator Arlen Specter voting to acquit.[197]

The Senate had the option to forbid Hastings from ever seeking federal office again, but did not do so. Alleged co-conspirator, attorney William Borders went to jail again for refusing to testify in the impeachment proceedings, but was later given a full pardon by President Bill Clinton on his last day in office.[198]

Hastings filed suit in federal court claiming that his impeachment trial was invalid because he was tried by a Senate committee, not in front of the full Senate, and that he had been acquitted in a criminal trial. Judge Stanley Sporkin ruled in favor of Hastings, remanding the case back to the Senate, but stayed his ruling pending the outcome of an appeal to the Supreme Court in a similar case regarding Judge Walter Nixon, who had also been impeached and removed.[199]

Sporkin found some "crucial distinctions"[200] between Nixon's case and Hastings', specifically, that Nixon had been convicted criminally, and that Hastings was not found guilty by two-thirds of the committee who actually "tried" his impeachment in the Senate. He further added that Hastings had a right to trial by the full Senate.

The Supreme Court, however, ruled in Nixon v. United States that the federal courts have no jurisdiction over Senate impeachment matters, so Sporkin's ruling was vacated and Hastings' conviction and removal were upheld.

Apparently on the theory that if you can beat 'em, join 'em, he ran for Congress and was recently elected to his 11th term as a good Democrat. I don't understand how respectable people sit in the same room with this crook, let along vote for him to hold public office.