Friday, May 2, 2008

When Children Vote

The State Senate passed a resolution allowing seventeen-year-olds to vote in primaries that are held for general elections they will be eighteen years old and eligible to vote in. And I am very pleased about it!

Let's be clear about why liberals want seventeen-year olds to vote in primaries. These are young, usually liberal minds, far more prone to radical nonsense than adult voters. At this age, most of them are little more than children who have had their first hormonal surge. They embrace the immature, fatuous tennets of liberalism and socialism with great zeal.

In Connecticut, there is an ongoing effort from within the Democratic party by the far left to purge its party of moderates. Doubt me? Look around the state and observe how many moderate Democratic state legislators face a primary opponent this year. There is a concerted, organized effort to purify the Connecticut Democratic party as a far-left entity.

This proposal fits snugly into the plan. Allowing seventeen-year olds to vote in primaries helps further radicalize their party base, and gives them added electoral power when it comes to nominating extremist left-wing candidates.

Republicans should embrace this. As Democrats make the internal decision to radicalize themselves, they are deciding to move further away from the mainstream moderate Connecticut voter. They are sowing the seeds today for tremendous ballot failure tomorrow. We should nurture this effort, and allow it to bear bitter fruit for them.

There should, however, be limits. If we start allowing thirteen-year olds or nine-year olds to vote in primaries the Democrats may end up nominating Batman, Count Chocula or Pokemon characters for office. That woud be too refreshing.

11 comments:

Judy Aron said...

Actually more young voters are leaning towards Ron Paul Republicanism and a return to our Constitution.
They want less government intervention in their lives.
The proof is his presence on the new media (YouTube, Digg, Meetup, and other social networking sites) when they all congregate.
The Revolution is in the making.

Headless Horseman said...

Sorry but I would have to respectfully disagree. Ron Paul's people are active in new medai, that's true, but they don't represent any significant number among Republicans young or old.

If they did, he wouldn't have polled so abysmally low.

I love ya Judy, but I think Ron Paul isn't a revolution. He's a sideshow.

However, the sweep of young Democrats toward socialism is vast, abd beneficial to Republicans when they have a voice in selecting their party's candidates.

liberty_or_death said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
liberty_or_death said...

Headless...

While I agree that the move to total socialism in CT by the Democratic Legislature, and purging of moderates will help the CT GOP... all pendulums eventually swing back to the middle and Sen. McCain (RINO) will help that...

I disagree with your analysis of Ron Paul's candidacy... I think that there is a large segment of the GOP that feels that the "elected party" is out of touch with the rank and file members of the party.

Paul touched on issues that are vital to all true Conservatives!

He may have been a fringe candidate (primarily due to his resistance to the war that the GOP has had to adopt), but he also set records for the amount of cash raised in a single day via the internet.

Which,

I don't have to remind you,

is the best way you have to utilize your 1st Amendment Right of Free Speech!

mccommas said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
mccommas said...

Of course you are absolutely right in your analysis but there is something else about the so called youth vote you missed.

-- They don't vote!

They don't vote, they don't' vote,

ha, ha, ha, ha, ha,!!!

Fat lot of good it will do the Democrats when these kids find excuses not to vote. That "Obama girl" that did the video (which I have still not seen) didn't vote in her primary.

That is they instinctively don't vote. I didn't vote the first time I was able in 1986 ( I also could have voted in the town elections in 85) because I didn't know what the heck was going on. I didn't have the confidence so I let people who knew better than I vote on my behalf.

Liberal Norwich Bulletin political news writer Ray Hackett have scrapped on this a number of times but I think it's the duty of those who don't have a clue NOT TO VOTE.

http://hackettonpolitics.blogspot.com/search?q=youth

Recall how they didn't show up for another media darling Howie Dean and how he lost and that subsequent climatic scream that ended his political future?

That still brings a smile to my lips every time I think of it...

I started voting in 1988 after I started reading the newspaper every day (actually I read three a day back then) and I was horrified, just horrified!, at who the Democrats nominated for President.

I have only missed one referendum since and that was because my buddy Eric didn't correct me on the date. I had it wrong and he let me believe it while he sneaked off and voted.

We were on opposite sides on that one. One day I will get even!

Judy Aron said...

Hmmm .. funny - Ron Paul's new book revolution the manifesto is selling quite well.. it made #1 on Amazon this past week.

I love ya too Headless... but I think you underestimate the movement that is calling for the restoration of the Constitution and these young people attracted to it DO Vote.

The only reason Paul was deemed a "sideshow" was because the media portrayed him as such, and I gotta tell ya there are some very hard core Conservatives who agree with Paul; Viguerie, Cavuto, Napolitano, to name a few.

Personally I think we are headed for a party realignment. And from what I am hearing in many different circles is that no one seems to be thrilled with any of the three candidates.

I am glad to see the Dems split so ferociously over Marx Obama and Lenin Clinton. LOL

Headless Horseman said...

I'm sorry but Ron Paul is from Mars. Touching on issues tht are important to conservatives doesn't make you the centerpiece of a "revolution." Look at Pat Buchanan.

McCommas you do add an interesting angle to this, which is young peopledo NOT vote.

Secretary Sledgehammer has actually advocated this propoal saying it would inspire kids to vote.

The ony ones who will are the radicalized ones, which goes to my point. As a national policy it wouldmake little difference. But on the statewide front, and particularly in legislative districts where some races have been determined by a handful of votes, trowing a handfulof radicals into the candidate-determination process can absolutely change the outcome.

Headless Horseman said...

Oh, and on the realignment point...

Hmmm. Perhaps. It's what we get when there are two sides; those being the political system (GOP, Dems) on one side, and the rest of the electorate on the other side.

McCain could help escort us into such a time. But if it is going to happen, it's more than a decade off.

liberty_or_death said...

RE: Buchanan....

Headless you are wrong on that point. If Buchanan had not made his conservative stand vs Bush 41's liberal-light campaign, there would never have been the Clinton Constituency that now exists and looks at him as a rock star.

If Conservatives continue to stick together instead of trying to make money off their start of a movement, a movement can occur.

Need I remind you that this country has gone through 6 Major Party realignments.

A strong, relatively young Conservative that is not a super-moralist could cause a party realignment.

Headless Horseman said...

Bahhh... Ron Paul is a fluffer on the porn set of politics.