At 09:15 AM 12/13/02 -0800, Mike Rosing wrote: ... [Discussion of the lack of pro-freedom candidates.]
The thing that's being missed here is that, if elections can be won by running on a pro-freedom slate, politicians will be found to do that. Note that guns are still legal in the US, despite the fact that armed private citizens are apparently *very* unpopular with the decisionmaking elite in the US. (This makes sense, too. My risks of being shot by anyone are quite low, as I live in a middle-class neighborhood and take reasonable precautions. But if you're a politician or public figure, you're much more likely to be a target, and much more likely to be able to hire an off-duty cop or other carefully-screened person to carry a gun and defend you.) But gun owners will largely show up for the Republican candidate when the Democrat makes gun control a big issue, and will largely stay home (thus hurting the Republican) when both candidates have the same position on gun control.There are more choices than that. It just takes a while for the masses to figure that out. When there are no choices, then we can fight with weapons. For now, words are sufficient.
IMO, the Republicans won the midterm elections because most Americans are more scared of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden than of George Bush and John Ashcroft. As long as that continues, being seen to take bold and far-reaching steps to fight the war on terrorism is going to be necessary for anyone who wants to win an election. So we're going to continue to see cosmetic security measures (like confiscating nail clippers at airport gates), and security measures that have horrible potential for abuse (like letting the president disappear anyone he claims is an unlawful combattant), and even security measures that are likely to make citizens less safe from terrorist violence (like invading Iraq).
Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike
--John Kelsey, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
