Romancing The Voters

 

Chapter 2 
Liberals and Conservatives Think Differently
“Scientists know now that there is, in human nature, a divide between what we sometimes call ‘liberals' and 'conservatives. --- Al Gore, January 30, 2013

Thomas Sowell opens his book, A Conflict of Visions, with “A curious thing about political opinions is how often the same people line up on opposite sides of different issues.” Sowell does not use the political words liberal and conservative to describe different visions, but uses the politically neutral terms “unconstrained” and “constrained.” Terms to explain why invariably the same people are on one side or the other of minimum wage rates, gun control, the death penalty, right to life, government spending, taxes and oil drilling, etc.; most of which seem unconnected to each other. In fact, “right to life” and the “death penalty” seem like opposites but actually go together like a horse and carriage. The proponents of each vision, Sowell notes, “have fundamentally different ideas of how the world works."

The unconstrained (Liberals) share some conservative visions and the constrained (Conservatives) share some liberal visions. The uncon-strained, however, are primarily concerned with “equality of results.” They “feel” this is the only way to prove fairness, equality, and justice --- often stating, “They are socially liberal but fiscally conservative.” The constrained vision “believes” equal results are impossible without resorting to authoritarian rule and they advocate “equality of opportunity” for obtaining desirable results --- often stating this creates a “fair field without favor.” To liberals “intentions” are crucial. To conservatives intentions are irrelevant.  To them it is “incentives” that are crucial. Both visions want to improve social results; however, they interpret the meaning of words differently.
THE MEANING OF WORDS:
Years ago, just after being freed, a seven-year Vietnam Prisoner of War spoke at a Board of Realtors luncheon on what impressed him most about his captors, The North Vietnamese. They felt they lived in a free country just as much if not more free than Americans. Ho Chi Minh, after all, had proclaimed independence in 1945 writing, “Nothing is more valuable than freedom and independence ... All men are born equal: the Creator has given us inviolable rights to life, liberty, and happiness!" (Obviously, this is a contradiction in the meaning of these words within its Constitution that gives the state almost unlimited power). Karl Marx taught that "The theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property." Marx felt “independence” meant freedom from property, freedom from religion, freedom from profits and freedom from government. Dr. Bernie Cordes, 1975 Chairman of the County Board of Public Welfare hung a 6-foot poster of Chairman Mao Zedong on his dining room wall. He told me that Red China had the answer to universal health care. Stuttering, I said. “But, but, but what about the people’s loss of freedom?” He said, “So what?” China’s intentions for universal health care were all that counted, and the Chinese Communists had achieved it. Liberals are able to overlook the failure of or unintended consequences of many programs because they focus like a laser on “intentions.”
When on the San Diego City Council I was so proud to cleverly wangle the hiring of 100 additional police officers, I met with the head of the POA (Police Union) to celebrate.  Jack Pearson told me, “Fred, we don’t want more officers, we don’t want two-man patrols, and we don’t want shotguns. We want more money! Got it?” I was crestfallen. Jack was echoing the celebrated labor leader Samuel Gompers who said, “We want more, and when it becomes more, we shall still want more! ... Show me the country that has no strikes and I'll show you the country in which there is no liberty.” Abraham Lincoln, prior to Gompers noted, “We all declare for liberty, but in using the same word, we do not mean the same thing.”
CHANGING THEIR STRIPES:
Road to Damascus conversions are rare by either camp; however, after decades of criticizing it, conservatives eventually embraced FDR’s Social Security. Responding to President Obama’s State of the Union address Republican Senator Marco Rubio said, “I would never support any changes to Medicare (Social Security) that would hurt seniors like my mother.” In the other camp, Democrats, which for three-fourths of their party’s history, were racists, anti-Semites, and KKK members responsible for untold lynching of Negroes, have made an earth shattering transformation, although Thomas Sowell writes that Democrats still treat “Blacks as Mascots and Trophies.”
Nobel Laureate F.A. Hayek, one of the most honored proponents of individual liberty, interestingly, thought of himself like Milton Friedman, not as a conservative but a “Liberal” before the word liberal was preempted by “Progressives.” Friedman said he opposed the “Draft and backed the legalization of drugs,” and still I’m called a conservative. Both men preferred to be known as and called “Classical Liberals.” Hayek, in The Constitution of Liberty has an interesting chapter on why he is not a conservative. When you watch Fox News, the only major network that concedes there actually are legitimate conservative and liberal viewpoints on many subjects, the split screen will show two protagonists speaking right past each other seldom hearing, connecting or directly answering the other.  They smile, grin, scowl, and appeal to likeminded listeners and seemingly write off those in the broad undecided middle. Facts, in most cases are not persuasive to either side. Sowell points out that, “Theories can be devastated by facts but can never be proved to be correct by facts.” 237 YEARS OF LIBERALS V. CONSERVATIVES: (since 1776) The divide is not new.
The constrained view has been represented by Adam Smith (Inquiry into the Wealth of Nations, 1776), James Madison (U.S. Constitution, adopted 1789), Friedrich Hayek (The Road to Serfdom, 1944), Ludwig von Mises (Human Action, 1949), and Milton Friedman (Capitalism & Freedom, 1976). The unconstrained view has been represented by William Godwin (Enquiry Concerning Political Justice, 1793), Thomas Paine, Jean-Jacque Rousseau, John Rawls (A Theory of Justice, 1971), John Kenneth Galbraith (The Affluent Society 1998), and Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman (The Conscience of a Liberal, 2007). Liberal Professor Louis Michael Seidman said in early 2013 on 60 Minutes, “Suppose that Barack Obama really wasn’t a natural-born citizen. So what? Constitutional obedience has a pernicious impact on our political culture.” The Constitution to liberals can be both, “an irrelevant relic” to be ignored or “living document” interpreted at will. The Constitution means whatever they say it means. Human nature and the state of mankind have been the same for eons, short, nasty and brutish. To conservatives the Constitution sets forth fundamental principles that both limits the government more than any government has ever been limited and at the same time frees mankind, frees the common people. This has resulted in an unprecedented era of growth and development. More human progress has been made since 1789 than in all previous recorded history. The Constitution is the most important political document ever written and sadly, conservatives recognize it is not a living but a dying document.
IGNORANCE IN GOVERNMENT:
Friedrich Hayek in The Constitution of Liberty cites The Harvard Business Review. "Consider for a moment that any one person can only know a fraction of what is going on around him. Much of what that person believes will be false rather than true . . . At any given time, vastly more is not known than is known . . . It seems possible, then, in organizing into a hierarchy of authority for the purpose of increasing efficiency, we may really be institutionalizing ignorance." Hayek elaborates, "The case for individual freedom rests chiefly on the recognition of the inevitable ignorance of all of us concerning a great many of the factors on which the achievement of our ends and welfare depends. . . . It is because every individual knows so little and, in particular, because we rarely know which of us knows best that we trust the independent and competitive efforts of many to induce the emergence of what we shall want when we see it." Leonard Read (The Foundation for Economic Education) put it more succinctly, “There is wisdom in the free market a trillion times greater than within any discrete group no matter how smart each individual.” (Whether they are intellectuals or politicians.)
INDIVIDUALISM V. THE COMMON GOOD:
In some respects, this is a contest between the “rugged individualism” of the constrained vision and the unconstrained vision of the “public good, or good of society.” The latter encompass liberals or Democrats acting as self-appointed surrogates with superior wisdom speaking for not only the benighted poor, hungry, and downtrodden, but self-appointed surrogates claiming to speak for “everybody.” However, since no one can go out and talk to “society” the constrained view maintains that for something to be for society, the people, or the public good, all-inclusive terms, it would have to be for the good of every man, woman and child. It’s hard to name anything liberal or conservative meeting that criterion. Liberals frequently use the terms “fair” or “for the children” and opinions with which they disagree are dismissed as “simplistic,” or from “the best minds of the 19th century.” Former Democrat, Ronald Reagan retorted, “They're wrong. I have 18th-century ideas. I learned them from our founders.” With rare exceptions, prominent conservatives have been more generous in their opinions of adversaries, attributing their visions as misguided or uninformed. Hayek in his remarkably influential book, The Road to Serfdom, characterized his adversaries as “single minded idealists,” and “whose sincerity and disinterestedness are above suspicion.” Many of his adversaries nonetheless think Hayek a moral leper. Paul Krugman, wrote in his New York Times column, “[Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan] want to expose many Americans to financial insecurity, and let some of them die, so that a handful of already wealthy people can have a higher after-tax income.” ABC News’ David Chalian, “[Ann and Mitt Romney] ... are happy to have a party with black people drowning.” Allison Yarrow on the Newsweek/Daily Beat Web show, “[Dick Cheney] may be one of the most evil people in the world.” Liberals consider their adversaries evil with malice towards all while wishing “heart attacks or death” on conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh and Dick Cheney. According to liberals, when conservatives use the words, “apartment, Chicago, illegal, golf, law and order, food-stamp President” and “states’ rights,” they are using code words for racist hate speech. Bill Maher and Howard Stern call Sarah Palin and Michele Bachman the C-word. Mike Malloy said, “[Dick] Cheney is a murderer. He's a killer. He's a torturer. He is evil personified! He is a walking mass of horror and when he's gone, this planet will be cleaner!” No code words here! When minorities such as Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, and Clarence Thomas are promoted to high positions, Republicans get no credit because they merited promotions. Under Rawls, Theory of Justice, as President Obama might say, they “did not earn it,” they were “born” with exceptional abilities (or high IQs) and their emoluments are not fair.“ Inequalities of wealth and authority are just and fair only if they result in compensating... the least advantaged of society... [The greater] injustice is the greater benefits earned by a few”                     ---John Rawls
A LIBERAL OR CONSERVATIVE? THAT IS THE QUESTION:
What do Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, Sarah Palin and Barack Obama have in common? They emote! They exude emotions and have a charisma that cannot be taught or learned; otherwise, campaign consultants would be turning out similar personas by the thousands. It’s not what they say but how they make you feel --- that causes their devotees to overlook any flaws. Feelings may also apply to issues. Few voters can articulate why they are for or against “Same-sex Marriages” but nearly everyone can tell you if they “feel” positive or negative. Or think of how your favorite songs make you “feel” while not hearing what the words say.  The liberal New York Times made an interestingly observation in 2008, “The upshot is that Democrats, who speak passionately about the hungry and homeless, personally fork over less money (30% to 50% less) to charity than Republicans — the ones who try to cut health insurance for children.” Conservatives like to point out that liberals love humanity, but hate people. Abortion is only one example. Regarding compassion, liberals get so-called “Two-fers:” One is credit for their government funded compassion and two, their compassion is cost free to them. Both liberals and conservatives, by different names, support “Regulated Capitalism” as an economic system. For politicians, Democrat or Republican, being either for or against taxes and regulations is a never- ending source of campaign contributions for both political parties.   http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html
    
Regardless of the results stemming from the unconstrained and constrained visions, President Obama in 2012 (like nearly all Presidents) received less than 1/3 of the support  from those legally “eligible to vote,” (the VEP/Voter Eligible Population).     This, by no measure, is a legitimate mandate. Additionally, for over 2 decades, about twice as many Americans have claimed to be conservatives as liberals, 46% to 20% in 2012, according to a Gallup Poll.
 
Which vision is most persuasive? SUMMARIZED IN THREE QUOTES:
“To understand the working of American politics, you have to understand this fundamental law: Conservatives think liberals are stupid. Liberals think conservatives are evil.” Charles Krauthammer

“Conservatives and liberals may have one less thing in common: neurology. ProCon.org has gathered 13 peer-reviewed studies of behavioral and neurological studies and has come to the conclusion that differences between Republicans and Democrats are more than skin-deep. Democrats had larger anterior cingulate cortexes, which are associated with tolerance to uncertainty, while Republicans had larger right amygdalas, which are associated with sensitivity to fear.” Conservatives and Liberals Have Different Brains, Studies Show – ABC World News with Diane Sawyer, September 3, 2012, cited by Al Gore.

"If you're not Liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not Conservative when you're 35, you have no brain."

Chapter 1

Democracy and Majority Vote Not What You Think

“Under our Constitution it is We The People who are sovereign. The people have the final say. The legislators are their spokesmen. The people determine through their votes the destiny of the nation.”
                                                           ---Justice William O. Douglas

Contrary to what Justice Douglas said, the people do not determine through their votes, the destiny of the nation, at least not through a democracy by so-called majority vote. “Democracy,” simply means majority rule --- for good or bad. The heart of politics is the art of romancing the voters (pretending with intent to deceive).

No U.S. President or Congress has ever represented the majority of the people, and in fact, almost never more than a third of the Voter Eligible Population (VEP). Once elected, however, most politicians believe that a first kiss inexorably leads to a total surrender of virtue and thereafter think they can honeyfuggle the voters whenever --- and on whatever issue --- they choose.

Facts are stubborn things. Americans, in reality, are ruled by factions. If the media reported the facts about how few votes win elections, Presidents and for that matter, all elected officials would never have the chutzpah to do what they do. Politicians would have to return to being administrative watchdogs over the public purse, as originally intended.

Since Teddy Roosevelt (1904), no President has received more than 36% support from the voter-eligible-population (VEP). A country divided is not something new, or something old.

President Obama won just 31% of the VEP. The media characterizes this plurality of votes as a mandate to justify the President (any President for that matter) imposing his will, or vision upon us. Not one President in over 100 years, in fact, has received a legitimate mandate to impose his vision on America.

This also applies to nearly all elected officials who rarely receive more than 27%, some less than 10% of the VEP. As Casey Stengel used to say, “You can look it up!”   Check with your Registrar of Voters.

“Newspapers don’t print the truth they print what people say.”         
                                                                   Rick Paddock, L.A. Times           

It’s important to understand this reality. It explains a lot. Think about it. Reporters covering politics seek out a catchy quote --- or they make up a controversial one --- and ask for a response. Then they print what is said. Reporters vie for as many readers’ “attention” as possible. That is what headlines are about (and teaser TV spots). You have to get someone’s attention before they can become interested in what you write.

The rules of the game determine the outcome of any contest. For instance, most people agree no woman’s basketball team can beat the L.A. Lakers. But change just one rule and you’ll get a different outcome: make everyone play in high heels. The rules of politics (for those actually turning out to vote) are the ancient doctrine of “might makes right” whereby 50% plus one = 100% and 50% minus one = 0. This boils down to “We won --- Elections have consequences --- Get over it.”

Fortunately, we do not live in a Democracy. When Benjamin Franklin departed from the Constitutional Convention of 1787, he was asked, what kind of government did you give us? Franklin replied, “A ‘Republic’ if you can keep it.”

In fact, the founders loathed democracy. They knew democracies often descended into Mobocracies (today, think Libya and Egypt), and did everything they could to guard against “Majoritarianism.” They tried to developed a vaccine (a republic) against the contagion of “popular delusions and the madness of crowds” so politics would not be infected.  They knew that Plato and Aristotle thought democracy ultimately led to tyranny.

They created a system whereby Senators are elected for six years, Presidents four years and Congressmen two years so the entire

elected body could never be swept up in the passions of a movement. One Senator represents about 19 million people in California but only 288,000 in Wyoming, which makes it hard to contend that voting is equal representation or majority vote.

The founders gave the several small states, regardless of population, equal representation in the Senate as an incentive to join the Union. To make doubly sure the populace could not be swept up by unforeseen events they created the Electoral College to trump the popular will. They believed it would not be possible to bribe all the electors of all the states at the same time.

For good measure, the founders established an unelected Supreme Court, whose members do not have to worry about running for office, which can overrule any majority vote.     

The entire system they designed acts as a buffer against a popular, charming, captivating, charismatic orator (aka, A Cult of Personality).

PRAY FOR GRIDLOCK     
           
Hard as they tried they never imagined a time where all of the problems attributed to an unaccountable federal government would be the result of compromises between factions (later called Democrats and Republicans) and a compliant press.

Compromises, however, are how we got a $16 trillion national debt. We should pray for gridlock. What we call “gridlock” the founders called “checks and balances.” They fully intended to pit ambition against ambition. Whenever there is gridlock it is a win, win for the taxpayers.

The media, bless their hearts, keeps reporting that the American public demands things for which it is unwilling to be taxed.  It’s not the silent majority surprisingly, that is asking for endless handouts.

Most Congressional spending as reported in a 1991 study by James Payne confirmed that of 1,400 witnesses before Congress only seven could clearly be classified as opposed to spending.

More significant however, "Of 1060 Congressional witnesses in favor of spending, 47 percent were federal administrators, and another 10 percent were state and local officials.  An additional 6 percent were congressmen themselves." In other words, 63 percent of the pro-spending witnesses were from government.

There is little doubt a similar ratio of supplicants demanding other people’s money occurs before local city councils, supervisors, and state legislatures.

Very few responsible people “expect” something for nothing from government, although politicians are diligently trying to change this in exchange for votes.

Proposition 13 in California was one of those rare events which proved politicians can say “no, no, no” to the “gimme, gimme, gimme” crowd and still get elected. I know, I supported 13 and got elected.

“ALL POLITICAL POWER DERIVES FROM WHAT YOU CAN DO TO --- OR --- FOR SOMEONE”

Whenever you think the government is doing something stupid --- follow the money. If you want to understand politics assume 100% of what a politician says and does is for votes and campaign contributions.

A cardinal rule of politics is “watch what they do, not what they say.” The actions of the few straight arrows are too rare to matter.

There is an old joke that 96% of the members of Congress give the other 4% a bad name.

People attracted to political office seem to have been born with two extra genes – the tax gene and the regulatory gene. They want to tax everything that moves or stands still and even tax the very air we breathe through a carbon footprint tax.

Can you think of any significant business they don’t want to tax or regulate?

The story goes that Senator Edward Kennedy was listening to a speaker who began, “Let me tax your memories for a moment” whereupon Kennedy immediately exclaimed, “Why didn’t I think of that.”

“DEMOCRACY IS THE THEORY THAT THE COMMON PEOPLE KNOW WHAT THEY WANT, AND DESERVE TO GET IT GOOD AND HARD.”                                       -- H.L. Mencken

Consider the brilliant, beguiling, billionaire Mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg who wants to regulate not only 16-ounce sodas, but also salt, butter, trans fats, popcorn, milkshakes, guns, and prohibit tobacco products from being displayed in public.

Other politicians want to tell us how to flush our toilets, what light bulbs to use, regulate guns, and health care, prohibit us from spanking our children, decree no smoking in our own homes, regulate potato chips,  car colors (California 2009), etc., etc., etc., all for our own good. Both political parties have succeeded in turning free market Capitalism into overbearing “Regulated Capitalism.”

Do not misunderstand; government is not a necessary evil, as often   heard. It is absolutely necessary for a free society to work, but it should act as an umpire in enforcing the rules and should not be playing the game using its monopoly on force and violence. We cannot afford to have politicians continuously discrediting the government by their actions. Only when government is limited to its proper role can it earn and retain our respect.

The latest clever device used by government is to hide behind the cloak of complexity by passing laws with thousands of pages. “We have to pass it to know what’s in it,” was House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi’s response to the 2,700-page Obamacare Bill (with 20,000 pages of implementing rules).   

James Madison in Federalist Paper 37 warned us against “the obscurity arising from complexity.”

Since many laws today, particularly in the tax code and health care are incomprehensible --- who gets absolute power under their obscurity?

The answer is whoever has the power to interpret them. Without transparency, it is the politicians, planners and poseurs who interpret them on a daily basis.   
           
We are told, “Ignorance of the law is no defense,” implying we are supposed to know all 200,000 pages of laws on the books that were identified in a 2006 review.

The founders were aware of politics in practice for 180 years from the founding of Jamestown in 1607 to 1787. They were not neophytes and had learned from the experience of others about governing.

They understood that majority vote might be appropriate for selecting politicians to administer laws, but wholly inappropriate for voting on which laws to implement. This is why they gave us a republic with representatives chosen to make informed decisions.

Even so, on various issues, both Republicans and Democrats have changed sides over the years as easily as changing a suit of clothes.

Before becoming President, then Senator Obama railed against President Bush’s budget deficits. Seems pretty funny now. Recently Democrat Congressman John Conyers said, “Deficits don’t matter.” Under President George W. Bush, it was Republican Dick Cheney saying, “Deficits don’t matter.”

Republican President, Dwight, Eisenhower, however, said, “...there must be balanced budgets.” Sometimes the party in power favors “Free Trade,” sometimes not, favors the Patriot Act, sometimes not, or favors closing Gitmo, sometimes not.

When you get to taxes, Liberals argue that raising taxes will increase needed revenues to the government while Conservatives argue that lowering taxes will increase needed revenues to the government. Beyond the core functions of government --- we should ask: revenues needed for what?

Who knows best how to get the greatest benefits for the greatest number of people from “investing” money --- the government --- or those who know how to earn it --- a Bill Gates or a Joe Biden?

After the Presidency, real power in Washington resides in the Congressional committee chairmen as evidenced by the amount of campaign money they raise. Why do you think there are over 12,000 lobbyists in Washington D.C. spending a “reported” $3.3 billion annually?

If all political power comes from what you can do to --- or for someone --- it becomes apparent this is a two-way street between politicians wanting something and others wanting something from politicians.

WASTE AND FRAUD

We have heard about “Waste and Fraud,” at least since Senator Proxmire’s Golden Fleece Awards in 1975. Government Waste and Fraud will always be with us because they constitute someone’s income.

Many politicians subscribe to the Keynesian notion that every dollar the government spends, wasted or not, results in $2.00 of economic activity. Nancy Pelosi said on the House floor, “Unemployment insurance, the economists tell us, return $2 for every $1 that is put out there for unemployment insurance, it injects demand into the economy, it creates jobs to help reduce the deficit," Just imagine if everyone became unemployed, we’d all be twice as rich.

The federal government spent about $3.5 Trillion in 2012! Generally speaking, the more money spent the easier to get a handle on it. An analysis of campaign spending indicates that about 1/3 of campaign contributions by large corporations is divided between both parties as big business likes to hedge its bets.

Think solar panel company, Solyndra. It contributed $100,000 or more to President Obama’s campaign and “coincidentally” received $535 million in taxpayer loan guarantees. Other corporations have benefited similarly under other Presidents. Some call it “Crony Capitalism.” It would be more correct to call it “Crony Socialism.”

I once walked into a business meeting without an appointment between a top Democrat and a top Republican in San Diego

They were sharing inside information on likely city council decisions to the advantage of their partnership and could care less about the ideology of those they supported, Democrats or Republicans.

Most Washington law firms purportedly have both Democrat and Republican sections. Why do you suppose that is?

Contrary to popular belief, many businessmen, particularly those running large corporations, are not supporters of free enterprise or defenders of Capitalism. They prefer privatization of their profits, government underwriting their losses and ever-increasing regulation of their competitors.

If you want to get the hell scared out of you sit in an elected body’s “Executive Session” (legally secret).  In one City of San Diego session, a councilman wanted to destroy a paramedic service for taking more than 5 minutes to respond to his mother’s emergency. Another said the Gas & Electric Company had no property rights regarding an eminent domain “takings.” He was elected and obligated to save the taxpayers money by paying no compensation, and a third wanted to double a cable TV company’s Franchise Fee for some unstated slight. All three were Republicans.

POLITICIANS ONLY HALF THE PROBLEM

Winston Churchill thought the best argument against democracy was to have a 5-minute conversation with the average voter. He felt a democracy was the worst form of government except for all others.

I was stunned a few years ago to meet a young African-American mother and her father visiting from Alabama (average voters), who did not know who Bull Connor was, the Birmingham Police Commissioner.

In 1963, Connor unleashed fire hoses and police attack dogs on peaceful children marching for civil rights. You can Google the horrific photos under “Bull Connor.” Is it possible that textbooks in the South have been purged of this unsavory historical fact?1                                            

Younger generations who do not know their history, especially those who do not know Presidential candidate George Wallace and Bull Connor were Democrats and why Martin Luther King was a Republican, may very well be doomed to repeat it.

Condoleezza Rice explained that while growing up in the South it was the Democrats who refused to register her father to vote, something the Republicans did.

Democrats today will throw you off guard by telling you that President Richard Nixon got all the racists to leave the Democrat Party and join the Republicans as part of his “Southern Strategy.” (A few did, most did not). They also contend that the Republicans who for years worked for civil rights and against segregation joined the Democrat Party. A very sweet fairy-tale to assuage the consciences of today’s Democrats.

A lack of historical knowledge is not confined to American youths. Sixty percent of Austrians (average voters), in March 2013 said they want a “Strong Man” to lead their country and 40% think things were not all bad under Adolph Hitler.

I was flabbergasted years ago when a high school buddy married a girl from Germany and she told me one day, “Hitler, Hitler, Hitler, in this country (the U.S.) you only tell about the bad things he did --- never about the schools and highways he built, or “the people’s car.” Wow!

Joseph Stalin was born in the Russian Empire when Georgia was a part of it, where 45% of the people (average voters) still hold a positive attitude toward the former Soviet Leader. However, 39%, (average voters) do not even know who Stalin was.

There is a popular saying variously attributed to Edmund Burke, George Santayana and Winston Churchill, “Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”    
           
Read Leslies Book Storm Of Emotions Paper Back http://www.createspace.com/4289301 & Kindle http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00DZOBOBM#_

 

Humor Supplement for Romancing The Voters

People will pay a million times more money to be entertained than educated

Greatest Political Jokes

Tell some political jokes. I can’t they’ve all been elected

How can you tell when a politician is lying? When he moves his lips!

"Government is like a baby: An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of

responsibility at the other" - Ronald Reagan

“The most important thing in politics is honesty ---- Once you learn to fake it you’re in” Sam Goldwyn

"For me to go into politics would be like sending a virgin into a house of ill-repute" -- H.L. Mencken

“Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason” Mark Twain

I looked up politics in the dictionary, and it a combination of two words: “Poli,” which means many, and

“tics,” which means “bloodsuckers” Jay Leno

Taxing anything less than 100% of your income to some politicians is a tax loophole.

In Sacramento, they call a tax cut an illegal gift of public funds

He’s like Al Gore --- but without the charisma

A true politician can speak on any topic for 2 hours --- and 4 hours if he knows something about it

All the problems in the country today can be traced to the lax immigration policies of American Indians

It doesn’t matter who you vote for --- the government always wins

If they don’t do it to their wives --- they do it to the country –Mel Brooks

Democrats make better lovers. Ever heard of a good piece of elephant? –Democratic Underground

Humor aside: Government’s not a “necessary evil,” not evil at all, but indispensable for a free society

which requires private property, a free market economy with a severely limited government.

Political jokes are an American tradition

John Adams is mentally deranged and a hideous hermaphroditical character. --Thomas Jefferson, 1800

Blaine, Blaine, James G. Blaine, The Continental Liar from the State of Maine – Grover Cleveland

Ma, Ma, Where’s my Pa? Gone to the White House, Ha, Ha, Ha – James Blaine, 1884 Election

There is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress. -- Mark Twain 1835-1910

I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts. --Will Rogers 1879-1935

You ever see them sometimes walking around blindly, with dead eyes, following orders, not caring? “You

mean like Democrats” --Bob Hope, 1939 The Cat and The Canary YouTube Video