Simple Answers

You ever notice that some of the answers to some very important issues in life are very simple? Marriage counselors talk about the simplicity of each spouse making sacrifices for the other. Parenting experts outline the essentials of love and consistent boundaries. Doctors and nutritionists explain that a healthy diet and exercise as critical to a long, quality life.

There are obviously exceptions. We all know people who've done everything right with their children and who now agonize over a child's destructive lifestyle decisions. We know people who have always eaten healthy and exercised regularly and yet suffer massive illness. But, by and large, it's often these types of simple answers to so many apparently complicated issues.

I only say "simple" because it doesn't take rocket science and rarely even takes any expert consultation. However, the effort and the change required is far from simple.

Politics has its own "simple" answers. I was just listening to my very favorite talk radio host, Sean Hannity, responding to a caller who asked about how we can ensure quality picks for the Supreme Court. "The answer is elections," was Sean's response. As we elect good, quality people of character and people who hold a respect for the constitution, they will then appoint like-minded people to appropriate offices. The caller wasn't satisfied with Sean's answer. Yes, there's work to be done now. Yes, we are very far away (in both parties!) from a regard for limited government and respect for the constitution as it is written.

But, in the long run, Sean's answer is exactly right. I welcome conservatives and liberals here. However, I must take a moment to address my fellow conservative and Christian readers. Historically, an average of 60-70% of evangelical Christians do not vote in any given election. I can only surmise that those numbers are worse for mid-term and local elections. Yet, we are often the first and the most vocal of those who grumble and complain about the state of our nation.

At the end of the day, politics really is local. The simple answer for the future of the Supreme Court and future nominees we can trust is getting out and voting good people into local, state and national positions.

This is a simple answer worth working for.


At 8/05/2005 09:08:00 PM, Blogger mlwhitt said...

Only time for a quick reply today :( but great posting as always. And you are correct the only way we can change things is to vote.

At 8/06/2005 03:53:00 AM, Blogger Mark said...

i can't comment. You have covered the point nicely. But I comment to let you know I am visiting.

At 8/06/2005 04:26:00 AM, Blogger Poison Pero said...

A "Simple Answer" that is settled with 2 more simple words, but 1 powerful phrase:


This is why voting is so necessary.......No election can be given away.

I hate it when I hear people say they "vote for the best person".

Well most of us have no real idea about the people we are voting for.....We know what we've been told and we know what they want to project in the media, but we have no real idea what these individuals really are about.

What we do know is about the 2 parties............And any 3rd party is a joke, with no chance to do anything but tilt majorities (Lefties who vote Greens, etc., help the Republicans, and Righties who vote Libertarian, etc., help the Democrats)

What we do know is about the 2 parties........We know exactly what we get.

I'm not completely thrilled with the Republicans, but I am completely disgusted with the Democrats.

At the end of the day, any Democrat who wins any election in America helps Hillary, Kerry, Dean, Schumer, Boxer, etc.

So I make sure to push for every Republican, because MAJORITIES MATTER!!!

And trust me, it's not always easy........I've voted for McCain 3 times now, because as much as he makes me nuts, he's still better than the other option.

At 8/06/2005 03:34:00 PM, Blogger pawlr said...

I liked your post and I agree with you that many answers to life's issues are actually quite simple. We know the right thing to do even though it doesn't make it any easier to accomplish.

However, where Hannity is wrong is that the Congress (both Reps and Dem controlled) have historically interpreted the "advice and consent" clause to mean that they can confirm or reject nominees to the court from the executive branch.

I don't believe it's a good idea to let majority rule in these instances (i.e. force an up-or-down vote). I wouldn't (and haven't) even if the Democrats were in power, and I won't when they surely will be in power again.

It protects against extremism from both sides and acts as a glue to maintain compromise. Always a plus when you're trying to hold a nation together.

At 8/06/2005 11:15:00 PM, Blogger Mark said...

i am learning how to put pictures on my blog. I am a techno-moron so this is a big deal to me.

At 8/07/2005 07:22:00 AM, Blogger Lores Rizkalla said...

pero, as much as i'd love to see a strong third party develop and break the hold of the two party system, i must agree. i'm not a fan of john mccain. too many issues to go into now. bottom line, i miss authentic, consistent and winning conservatives.

pawlr, first i'd like to welcome you! :) i understand your disagreement in light of majority rule. however, the constitution remains as it is. and, at the end of the day, if the candidate is not qualified, he/she gets voted down. i believe that regardless of the way the numbers play out, Rep or Dem, the candidate needs a fair shot at the process.

it's as much a disappointment to me to see liberals obstructing the process and bashing the president for simply abiding by his constitutional responsibilities.

At 8/07/2005 09:02:00 PM, Blogger Poison Pero said...

Responding to Lores' comment about 3rd parties:

1. Third parties are losers.
2. We are better off with 2 parties, this way there is always a majority, instead of a system where it would be possible for a party to control with as little as 34% (33%, 33%, 34%).

This is exactly how the Nazi's took control........Remember, they only won 32% of the vote in 1932, but by 1933, Hitler was able to swindle that 32% into absolute power.

At 8/07/2005 09:04:00 PM, Blogger Poison Pero said...

Responding to Mark's lack of techinical no'how:

I figured out the pic in my profile, but have no idea how to put them on my blogs..........And still can't figure out how to make a Blog Roll (Which I'd love to put you all on, but have no clue)

At 8/08/2005 02:07:00 AM, Blogger tugboatcapn said...

The problem with third parties (in presidential elections is that no matter how many parties you have, it takes 270 electoral votes to win the Presidency. If no candidate gets 270, then the selection process goes to the Congress. (Anybody remember the phrase "Selected, not Elected?")
And as underwhelmed as I have been with the current crop of Republicrats that we are putting up with now, the Idea of us having a situation like they have in Isreal, where they have 12 to 15 seperate single issue parties all competing for one presidency is nightmarish at best.

At 8/08/2005 02:10:00 AM, Blogger tugboatcapn said...

I love your blog, by the way...
I visit a lot more often than I leave comments.
You, Daffy, and Xena are my three favorite blogger chicks!

At 8/08/2005 02:17:00 AM, Blogger Lores Rizkalla said...

thanks tugboatcapn! i'm a fan of your site too! and, i'm honored to be among the three. never thought of myself as a 'blogger chick.' huh...i think i like it :)

At 8/08/2005 03:28:00 AM, Blogger pawlr said...

Thanks for the warm welcome!

I think you're being unfair to the Democrats; in the case of the Roberts confirmation, they're simply requesting the same documents that were freely given for both the Rhenquist and Bork nominations.

Also its rather humourous to watch the hypocrisy of Republicans who are hiding Roberts' material behind atty-client privilege--the same privilege that Ken Lay tore down to get at Clinton.

At 8/08/2005 04:40:00 AM, Blogger tugboatcapn said...

Lores, that actually puts you in higher company than you know...
Xena is my wife, and Daffy is my baby sister...

At 8/08/2005 05:34:00 AM, Anonymous Otis R said...

I hope that we here in PA learn that lesson well and do what must be done at the next election. Our legislators have served us (or should I say "serviced") by giving themselves a HUGE increase. From Ed Spendell on down, it's time to change things here. What Sean didn't make clear is that indifference is what perpetuates a sad situation. Becoming aware and voting WILL make a difference.

At 8/08/2005 06:15:00 AM, Blogger Lores Rizkalla said...

tugboatcapn, that's cool to know...and i feel even more special :)

otis r, welcome. thanks for visiting. i agree with you about the indifference factor. it's more powerful than i wish to admit. the most passionate, most vocal and most active are really more in the minority. it's red state america that needs to shake of the apathy.

At 8/10/2005 05:52:00 AM, Anonymous Perkins said...

Ok. couple things here. Firstly, much as I admire the sentiment, I really hate it when people say "oh, we all need to get out and vote, every last one of us." If you havn't been following politics, and don't know who stands for what. If all you do is listen to a couple ads where at least one of the candidates is undoubtedly either saying nothing or stretching the truth. If he's not lying outright, DON'T VOTE!!! If you don't understand the implications of the decision being taken, don't vote. There are too many people these days who simply look at the pictures and vote for the candidate with the best haircut. It's disgusting.

Secondly, all of us who are in the majority need to get up and make ourselves heard. I realize this is difficult. Most of the liberal groups have large demonstrations and letter campaigns because they're composed of people who for one reason or another have nothing better to do with their time. When you see a politician doing something that pisses you off, take the time to write a letter and give him a piece of your mind. Be polite, but make your position clear. They're not total idiots, they will listen if enough people speak up.

Thirdly, about the whole third-party candidate thing. Our system was designed to have many people running for president. The founding fathers hoped that there would be many people running for president. The electoral college exists for two reasons. The whole balancing small states against the large ones is actually the second reason. First and foremost, they are there to make certain that a president is elected. Period. The electors do not even have to vote for the people they were sent to vote for. Most states require them to do so during the first round of voting, but if there is no clear majority, they are free to negotiate. And if they cannot agree, then the decision passes to the House because they are the people's representatives and the nation must have a president. Unfortunately the parties have gotten their grubby little hands into the nomination process in most states. They both force the states to pay for them to select party candidates, and effectively shut out the smaller parties. This has got to stop. Anybody should be able to run, with or without a political party behind them. Then maybe we'll get some decent people in public office.

At 8/10/2005 06:14:00 AM, Blogger Lores Rizkalla said...

points well stated, perkins. i know that listening to Hannity's 'Man on the Street' interviews and watching Leno's 'Jay Walking' confirms that there are definitely people who SHOULD NOT vote. it could do more damage than good.

And, i am a living breathing mantra of your second point. we MUST make our voices heard. it's their job to represent us. we have so many avenues available to us (phone, fax, email, internet) that no one has an excuse.

thanks perkins!

At 8/14/2005 08:08:00 PM, Blogger Doug said...

Again, pawlr's comments and questions go unaddressed...


Post a Comment

<< Home