Ray Malone's Commentary

Take for example the common conservative view of the 2006 elections. That view states that the voters were unhappy with the Republican Congress's failure to cut government spending.. they were unhappy with the congress's willingness to embrace big government so in order to punish the Republican congress the voters turned to far more liberal Democrats to run things.

Does that make any sense? Supposedly the voters did not like the liberal tint of Republicans so they voted for candidates even more liberal than the Republicans. If the elected sheriff was a crook would the voters replace him with an ever bigger crook?

Replacing elected officials with those the voters think of as worse only punishes the voters.

That makes zero sense to me.

The political parties have changed views over the last 75 years but the voters have tended to stay with the same political views. In the thirties the Democrats were the party of cutting taxes and deficit spending to spur the economy. In the thirties it was the Democratic party that was for international intervention. In the thirties it was the Republican party that was for reduced government size and reduced spending. It was the Republicans who were isolationists.

But in the first years of the 21st century, it is the Republicans who are for stimulating the economy with deficit spending and tax reductions. It is the Republicans who are for intervention in international events. It is the Democrats who promote isolationism and balanced budgets.

It was the Democrats who lost the 1946 election as people thought the foreign and domestic policies of the balanced budget and isolationist Republicans might improve things here at home. But the failure of the Republicans to effect positive change in 47 and 48 allowed the Democrats to win the 1948 election.

Note that Ike started the Republican party down the road of adopting the policies of the Democratic party. That allowed Ike to serve 2 terms. Ike after all had been offered the support of Harry Truman if he had chosen to run in 1952 as a Democrat.

Reagan continued the move of Republicans to adopt traditional Democratic domestic and foreign polices. Reagan openly announced in his 1980 campaign his plan to return to the foreign and domestic policies of J. F. Kennedy.

Bush 43 has continued to adopt both the foreign and domestic policies of the1930s and 1940s Democratic party.

The remnants of old style isolationist and smaller federal government Republican Party are eager to tell us all that the problem is a failure to return to the policies of the 1930s Republican party.

That can only be believed by those who have failed to read the election returns of the last 75 years.

Reagan used to say that he became a Republican after 30 some years as a Democrat because the Democratic party was no longer the party of Roosevelt and Truman. What he did not say, but must have believed was the Republican party was becoming the party of Roosevelt and Truman.

It is a amazing to me that that for nearly 3 generations the views of a majority of voters have not changed. They have for 3 generations remained the same.

It is the political parties that change ideology... not the American voters.

I would like to make a couple of points about President Ford's reasons for pardoning President Nixon.

What most people don't understand is that the constitution only allows a president to be impeached and removed from office for what the constitution calls high crimes and misdemeanors. That pretty much covers the range of illegal activities. A president can not be tried in a regular court for actions taken as president. He can only be impeached by the House and then convicted by the Senate. The only punishment is removal from office. That is what the constitution says.

If an ex president could be tried and convicted in a regular court for crimes committed while in office, then the constitutional provision for impeachment by the House and Conviction by the senate would be meaningless.

There is only one punishment for a president convicted of committing high crimes and misdemeanors while in office and that is removal from office. He must be impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate.

All any prosecutor and judge would need to do is wait until a president is out of office and then indict and try him. The reason for the impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate provisions of the constitution is to ensure a president is not subject to judicial blackmail. If all the judiciary had to do was wait until president was out of office and then indict and try him, that would totally subvert the meaning of the constitution. It would make every president subservient to every prosecutor who wanted to threaten the president with indictment once he left office. It would leave every president to the mercy of every Nifong in the country.

Ford was well aware of what the Constitution said. He pardoned Nixon so the Democrats could not use the Nixon situation to play for even more votes in 1976.

Imagine the public's reaction if some prosecutor and grand jury indicted Nixon only to have the courts rule that the indictment unconstitutional. Imagine the damage to both Republicans, the presidency and the constitution.

If the Democrats and the media had managed to take Nixon to court only to find at some point that the courts ruled that the prosecutors and judges had no right to try Nixon, they would have won a much bigger victory in 1976.

Those who fail to even consider what President Ford was doing by pardoning Nixon fail to understand how Ford stopped the Democrats and the media in their tracks. He stopped public opinion from turning on the constitution. He took the heat instead.

The Democrats and the media were certain Ford would not sacrifice his presidency to keep Nixon off the front pages for months.

Pardoning Nixon was not done to save Nixon from prison. It was done to thwart Democrats and the media in their attempt to subvert our constitution for political purposes.

DANG THAT MADE THEM ANGRY