Redstate

a solid foundation, we don't have a chance in '08. The culture of Boehner, Blunt and Lott helped get us into the minority and keeping them in leadership will ensure we stay in the minority. The first step is a new leadership culture - it's foolish to move on until we get that part right. Do you really expect Lott and Boehner to 'lead' the party anywhere except into permanent minority status. We need change. The sooner the better.
====
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." -- James Madison

Do I wish we had different leadership? yes
But I see no major difference between these 3 and very few others. Sessions, Kyl...Zell Miller

We have got to decide that we are going to stop playing the game by the MSM, PC rules if we are ever going to set this country right.

I take it back. Not WE. If ONE man will do that, we can be saved. Just one man. And he need not have a title.

"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

http://gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan

is still in denial and not prepared to take the strong medicine required to turn around in time for '08. It will be a hard sell to a cynical public that the old guard will change the way they have always done business. Experience and strategy will not get us there. New faces will invigorate the party and the public. The 'old guard' should get no longer than next summer to show concrete results - if they can't do it, then a very public kicking to the curb.
====
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." -- James Madison

No 'strong medicine' is needed. We just need a good Presidential candidate. If you don't like what the party's done in the last 6 years, the buck stops in the Oval Office.

Now yes, we've cut off the head of our House leadership already, but the big mistakes made by the Congress in recent years were all directed by the President. Don't blame Karl Rove, either. He's not the President. Blame Bush, Bush, and only Bush.

It all comes down to the man behind the desk, as the President's father said. And in 2008 we get to nominate a new guy for that job.

We MUST pick someone who will heal the rifts in our party, not one that will make them worse. My top three early picks for the job are Sanford, Pawlenty, and Romney. Giuliani would fail, and McCain would be an outright disaster.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

I also think that Tommy Thompson should be considered to make a positive campaign for shrinking the Federal government.

You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance

The 2 you mentioned that I like are Sanford and Pawlenty.

You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance

http://gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan

I've been no fan of either Bush (with the exception of the GWOT and judges). But that doesn't mean the House and Senate have to meekly follow. I didn't see the leaders standing up to Medicare part D and the other spending debacles. Following the President and his middle of the road agenda on domestic issues and we will get crushed. It will be an uphill battle to differentiate our party the public with the same leadership names at the helm.
====
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." -- James Madison

You say that you don't like Dubya "except" for on Terrorism and Judicial Nominations?

Those are pretty big "exceptions" aren't they?

I mean that is like saying "I don't like anything about this restaurant EXCEPT for the food and the service."

Defense of the homeland is the President's primary resposibility. If he has been good at that and at appointing brilliant young originalist judges who will serve 30 years or more, then I say he has been a great President.

Remember, even Ronald Reagan, the greatest President of the 20th century screwed up on Judges.

"Life is too short, can't we all just eat pork and kill some terrorists?"

William Safire wrote that line; Agnew merely spoke it.

Rudy is a conservative Democrat. Line up his policies with Casey's from Penn or Lincoln Chaffee and there isnt a difference.

...that you wanted candidates who understood conservative values. How does that posistion square up, when you'd rather vote for the Corvair Killer, than Trent Lott?
Perhaps a moment of insanity?
The conservative movement certainly won't gain anything, with that attitude. Nader is (and always has been) a bad joke. I shudder for my country if that hack is ever elected to any prominent office.

Many of us are mad at the party not for losing, but for not getting the message and passing over conservatives for the same old retreads in congress.

Don't compare us to KOS, unless you can point out the swearing, personal threats, wild conspiracy theories, and blatant anti-Americanism that exists at that other site.

"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" - Defoe

stay the course and reelect the folks that put us in the minority to ensure we stay in the minority. We need a leadership CHANGE - the sooner the better. The House and Senate leadership still don't understand - they are the problem.

====
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." -- James Madison

a president who hasn't used the veto pen once

that is about to change dramatically.

Anything that gets through Congress, Bush is likely to sign off on.

"When somebody wants free money, government has got to move."
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

Unless I'm off the mark, he vetoed federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research on new cloned cell lines.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

Reagan vetoed more than that during the brief two years when he had both houses of Congress controlled by his party. Bush came as a "divider not a uniter" and a "compassionate conservative" by which he meant right-leaning moderate. He is likely to sign anything that is purely sf-democrat red meat legislation.

Look, I give him points for sticking to his principles, and he has, I think, done a better job than most of his critics could have in fighting the Iraq war. I voted for him twice and given the same choices, I'd vote for him again. But that doesn't mean I don't recognize him for what he is.

>>Reagan vetoed more than that during the brief two years when he had both houses of Congress controlled by his party.

Which two years did the Republicans control Congress in the 80s? Or did you mean the two years when Reagan was President and his party controlled neither house?

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

that was a bone he threw to the christian wing.

Bush doesn't throw bones to groups. You are projecting the democrat mindset onto a principled man. BTW, at what point does a wing become the breast? Christians make up about what, 75% of the GOP? Big wing.

http://gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan

BTW, at what point does a wing become the breast? Christians make up about what, 75% of the GOP? Big wing.

---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

I would call that a spending veto. Is throwing federal money at medical research a libertarian principle now? Where in the constitution does it give the federal government the authority to confiscate funds from their rightful owners through force and redistribute them to private individuals chosen by the government to perform this research?
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - "We did not have a revolution in order to have democracy."

I have never heard that quote before - that is fantastic!!!

It is like a crazy SOB looking with contempt at anyone who questions him throwing feces against a wall.

here

In his own Words:

"We did not have a revolution in order to have democracy".
(United International Press, May 24, 2005)

"The road to freedom is seldom traveled by the multitude"Madhouse Thought

...it would probably surprise you to find out just how many people in the rest of the world quite deliberately believe that democracy is equivalent to disorder.

What could be more disorderly than voting a party out of power every four to eight years, and voting in a party with often distinctly different objectives.

The only thing more idsorderly would be taking to the streets with guns, and deposing the government in power through armed rebellion.

That is the preferred method throughout much of the world.

Of course, the most stable form of government is the despot, who rules over his nation with an iron fist, through threats of death to anyone who dissents. Secret police, prisons full of political dissenters, and threats of torture go a long way to promoting a stable regime!

See The World In HinzSight!
Political HinzSight

Only in America......do we use the word 'politics' to describe the process so well: 'Poli' in Latin meaning 'many' and 'tics' meaning 'bloodsucking creatures'.

See The World In HinzSight!
Political HinzSight

re: 'Poli' in Latin meaning 'many' and 'tics' meaning 'bloodsucking creatures'.

"Politics" comes from Greek and the root is "polis", the Greek word for "city". You may be thinking of the Greek word "polys" which does mean "many".

it was a joke...I received it in an email, and it's such a good joke I had to include it!

sheesh! Stop trying to impress us!
See The World In HinzSight!
Political HinzSight

what the 311 stands for in arabic

1- Four days before The Ides of March
2-BC or AD
3-an alt rock band
4-the age at death of one of methuzala's hard living friends
5-the total number of libertarians in the US
6-the number of bowl games this year
7-time to drink dr pepper
8-speed limit in wyoming
9-the predicted ave temp in 2008 if we dont sign kyoto according to gore
10-number of negative stories about Bush in the MSM for every positive one

www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com

http://www.redstate.com/stories/congress/hey_people_stop_your_crying#com...

www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com

we wouldn't have no class at all!

See The World In HinzSight!
Political HinzSight

...but I thought I'd ask if you've ever had the experience of debating history and politics with well-educated Western Europeans. I've had the pleasure of doing so with some quite powerful people. I think it's really true that most Americans have a stunted view of history, and also a fantasy that liberty and democracy are axiomatically good things and part of human nature. In Europe, not only do people tend to relate today's politics to thousand-year sweeps of history, they also tend to think in terms of empires rather than nation-states. And they often view today's European political landscape as something of an interregnum or an historical anomaly. They certainly don't seem to think democracy is natural.

But it doesn't really surprise me. Walking through Zurich, doing the tourist thing, and examing a church that was last renovated in 1298; Or riding through the canals of Venice and viewing buildings that were old before our continent was even discovered by Europeans; you get a sense of how very young our nation really is. While on Cape Cod, I stayed in the "old" section of a home that was one of the oldest structures in MA. I remember thinking at the time that this was the "history" of our country.

We are a young people, and an incredibly optimistic people. Historically, Americans do not know the meaning of the word "can't."

Whether it was the "Manhattan Project" or placing a man on the moon, the American spirit refuses to accept defeat. Europe has known too much defeat to maintain that optimism. Europeans are cynically pessimestic.

The fact that Europeans think in terms of empires is their misfortune. They are living in a past they had no hand in bringing about, and that they have no hope of ever returning to. The days of empire have faded into the mists of history, more myth than fact, more fiction than reality.

That some still cling to those myths, hoping for a rebirth of empire says more about their own ability for delusion, than the American fantasy about democracy.

See The World In HinzSight!
Political HinzSight

Well, I don't mean to say he "missed" it. He wasn't addressing it. But I want to, so here goes.

Whittaker Chambers described the crucial choices that determine history are not economic as as Marx asserts, nor are they explicitly choices between nation-states and empire or liberty or tyranny, though the latter comes close.

The choice is between faith in God or faith in Man. Faith in God makes freedom workable due to self restraint. Faith in man makes tyranny inevitable as as man must continually slaughter men that won't conform to the plan.

Europeans' jaundiced view is primarily a spiritual deadness. They are directionless zombies whose lives have no meaning. So they aren't excited about being free, since they don't want to do anything except satisfy vices for temporary pleasure. So their "hope" if there is any, is that a benevolent dictator comes along and gives their life meaning. better bureaucrats...

God created us to create, which is only possible if we follow his plan. Man without God cannot create Utopia. Man is fallen and needs doctor to fix individual men, not fix the structure of society so that man will become perfected due to that.

more later

www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com

in a million years. Thank you.

One thing that I have learned from watching Europe and the U.N. over the last thirty years is, if there is a way to screw up the world, they will find it.
We holler a lot about Viet Nam, from both sides of the argument. Who got us involved there? France and the U.N.
Same with Korea, but we didn't have 'Hanoi' Jane Fonda and the rest of the 'useful idiots' in pop music to spit on our returning troops, then.
Bosnia-Herzegovinia? Talk about a U.N. mandated disaster.
Haiti? Puh-leeze.
Waiting for 12 years to actually do SOMETHING about Saddam? Then telegraphing our actions for 14 months???
No wonder we 'didn't find any WMD'!
Talk to me about Europe, when Europe finds the sense (or balls) to actually live up to their high-minded ideals, instead of knee-jerk reactionism to American action.

Except for Britain (and they are getting more "Euro" by the day), I think Europeans are royalist by nature and in their understanding of history. If you look at the way they set up their economic life apart from agriculture (large businesses run by unaccountable managers in tight alignment with government officials), it's practically no different from life under any of the empires they have had. From talking to well-connected Europeans, I think the debate for them is which royal house will assume the mantle of Charlemagne. Nation-states with popularly-elected governments are declasse' to the bien pensant.

What scares me is that something similar may be happening to us. When I look at the nexus of well-educated members of the Democratic Party and the Fourth Estate (who literally consider themselves a coeval branch of government), I see nothing but people who think they know far better than us conservative, religious morons how a country should be run.

And that attitude more than anything explains why they have no trouble with judges making law for the rest of us.

I think Gamecock might agree that a too-nice appreciation of history provides people with a lot of reasons to stop trying to make a better life for themselves and place their hope in the next king or emperor (or President) who comes along. (And I say that as someone who majored in history.)

very thought-provoking. You need to come around more often.

See The World In HinzSight!
Political HinzSight

who literally consider themselves a coeval{sp?} co-evil branch of government

Misspelled Freudian slip perhaps?

(See there are people reading this stuff :-)

John
--------
Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it.
... Jean-François Revel

...all I can say is that your comment makes it all worthwhile.

But Freudian? No.

;-)

But read Francis Fukuyama: "Trust".

There are different traditions in different parts of Europe. Germany and Britain are high trust societies with highly developed, world-beating, private sector companies. There are some politicians who want to cultivate 'national champions' and in Germany, through state banks, there is some state level involvement in industry, as well as a 'tripartite' tradition of negotiations between government, unions, and employers. But, nonetheless, there are many highly successful private businesses that have grown out of northern Europe. Holland is, for its size, particularly successful.

In southern Europe - including France and Italy - there is no tradition of middling businesses, which is the most dynamic and successful part of the German economy. Businesses are all either family run or government "guided". This is because they are low trust societies in which strangers do not cooperate well. This does not mean that capitalism cannot succeed there - Hong Kong is another such, and is probably the most dynamic developed economy in the world. It has the 8% average growth rate (double America's) that is common in developing countries but from a much higher base - overall GDP per head there is comparable with the best in Europe and not much behind the US.

Overall, Britain (or Holland, for its size) has the best global businesses in Europe. The very biggest German companies have mostly outgrown the country and floated some shares in London and/or New York. London has, by far, the best stock market in Europe, and therefore the best way of financing the biggest companies. Germany has the best 'Mittelstand' or midde-sized companies. Pre-Thatcher, Italy had the best small business sector, but that shifted, suddenly and dramatically, in 1980.

That sudden shift is the thing which more than anything else gives me confidence that the right political leadership can make a big difference. Britain saw more business startups than any other country among the (then) 12 EC member states every year in the 1980s. Not only was Britain bottom of the league for startups when Thatcher came to power in 1979, but had been every single year for 25 years. Wow! That still amazes me a quarter of a century later.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

...given that this thread is about politics, but thanks for your well-considered taxonomy of the various industrial environments in Europe. Several points:

All of the nations you discuss, regardless of the natural "size" of the industrial organizations they tend to form, share an unquestioned assumption that the state is a primary actor in the people's economic life. This is true whether the state's role is embraced (Germany), counteracted (England) or contained (Italy). And the state's role is unquestioned, I believe, because of Europe's long monarchic and imperial history.

Have you ever noticed that large European businesses are often run primarily for the benefit of their managers, not their owners? (Except in the Mittelstand and in Italy, where the managers usually are the owners.) In America, the shareholder is supreme (and frankly, far too much so, a pattern that does not necessarily work in our favor in the global competition). But the managers of large European businesses are today's aristocracy, paying fealty to the state, and enjoying the intangible benefits of high social status even in "egalitarian" countries like Sweden.

Neither you nor I mentioned "New Europe": Poland, the Czech Republic and Ireland are in the process of forming dynamic economies with very healthy internal demand and relatively free of government interference.

Of all the "Old Europe" countries, Britain is the only one that seems to accept the idea that business formation is basically a good thing. And even there it has its limits. It's anyone's guess where Britain's current flirtation with dhimmitude will take it.

It was gamecock upthread who stressed that America is different because we have a great many people who find personal fulfillment in the challenges of starting and growing business enterprises. Europe just doesn't have that to the same degree. And we have a culture that rewards risk-taking. This sounds like a trivial statement to an American, but it's far from trivial. Take for example Italy, where a bankruptcy means you have to wait ten years for permission to try again.

I think this is the real difference between America and Europe. Fukuyama's taxonomy of "trust" societies is interesting in a way, but doesn't account for underlying economic vitality or lack of it, which is also rooted in demographics to a great degree.

As regards the new American politics in relation to business: I think the most important reality is that the Truman era has ended. America no longer sees itself as having an essential global role to play. However, large numbers of well-educated Americans have internalized the European model of a paternal (maternal?) state, and this will compromise our economic vitality as a whole nation. However, the few people with entrepreneurial spirit will continue to develop terrific new ideas and new markets. Our national politics will drift in the long Democratic era which has just started, but I expect our society to stratify to an unprecedented degree. It's the ultimate irony that the Democrats (well, the Progressives) came to power promising more equality of outcomes, but their policies will result in vastly more inequality.

henhouses better no matter who occupies what in DC. And if their mess too greatly affects the henhouse, well there's always Ft. Sumter....

www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com

Good point.

Let's see if the election turns Boehner and Blunt into Gingrich of '94. If it has, then I will be the first to admit I was wrong about them.

Guillaume Buell
Boston College Law School '09
gb2040@gmail.com

...but it does seem that most of the 'leadership' has been taking ethical cues from the opposition. I liked Randy Cunningham for years; imagine my chagrin to find out he was crooked as a pretzel.
Maybe sticking with the veterans is a good plan, but only if the veterans LEARN from their mistakes. Above all, they need to be told early and often, that they work for us. We can send them back, term after term, but when they step on their nether regions, they must be spanked.
I don't like the current situation any more than you do. But if it will cull the hacks from the party, it might be for the best.

In case you missed it, I've been throwing punches all week and doing what I could to get Pence and Shadegg elected to leadership. Heck, I had our editorial up by 1am on election night calling for that.

We did what we could, but the House Republicans disagreed. I am a conservative before I am a Republican, but I'm also a team player.

There will be plenty of time to smack our guys around on a policy level when they deviate. But just because we don't like today's outcome doesn't mean we should keep bitching and throw in the towel.

At the end of the day, I'm on the GOP team. And I'm willing sometimes to suck it up because there is no credible, viable alternative party to advocate my views. Were there, I'd consider them. But there is not. And I recognize the GOP needs more than just me and my views to have a majority in Congress.

I deal with it. We all should.

But the way you just stated your view in your reply (very well done) is better stated than the article, which comes across as attacking members of the site who have legit gripes.

Redstate is a place I feel like I can vent some of my frustrations with our party. It keeps my venting "inhouse" or "in the locker room". I'm tired of the same old / same old with our party, and if I have to blow off some steam before I get back in the trenches I hope you can understand.

In the meantime it just doesn't seem right to lash out at the readership the way the article seems to. I'm guilty of recognizing that I am one of those to whom you might be refering to, but the tone just seems a bit strong.

I'm still with you (and you're doing a bang up job at RS in my opinion). I just wish our congress had at least half of your resolve and ideology.

Thanks, and keep up the good work.

HT

"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" - Defoe

A credible, viable alternative party will never develop as long as we suck it and be a team player.

A credible, viable alternative party would ensure that there is no threat of conservative ideas ever being implemented at any level of government.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

The Republican Party started as a third party. Yes, in the short term conservative ideas might not get implemented. But then again, with six years of complete GOP control and they couldn't even defund NPR. So what conservative ideas were implemented: Expansion of the federal role in education? Another federal entitlement program? Bridges to nowhere? and the list goes on.....

Like the Whigs did, there would be room for another party. One to replace the Republicans. Of course you would still have two parties... so much for an alternative. You won't ever have more than two viable parties in the US. The system we have works best with two parties and I can't say I have a problem with it.

I'll take our system over goofy parliamentary systems with arbitrary coalitions of different parties that often aren't remotely on the same page when it comes to the issues.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

zuiko there are a number of good things to be said for parliamentary systems, the most important of which is we don't have one.

John
--------
Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it.
... Jean-François Revel

Twelve years of Republican leadership, vs. forty of Dems. There is a host of reasons why our side lost, all tied to the 'moderates' and 'mavericks' in the GOP.
I've seen plenty of examples with Dems campaigning to the right, only to disappoint their supporters by steering hard left after victory. In contrast, how many Republicans have campaigned to the left of their base? Even the MSM has to admit that Conservative values drive the majority of voters in our country. Why, then, do we put up with hacks like McCain and Chaffee?
It truly boggles the mind.

And as usual, right on the money!!

See The World In HinzSight!
Political HinzSight

better at "leaving you alone." Elections are about choices. Hold on to your wallet. Be thankful that the Dems will protect your children from you should she want an abortion. Little Susie has Two mommies replaces the bible in school curricula. Pledge allegiance to a Nation under...Darwin. Inspiring, huh? Did i mention the wallet? Did i mention that the Dems will be letting in more neighbors to leave you alone?

oh yeah
the wallet
oh yeah, they would rather prosecute nuke bomb detonators after the fact...

All in good cheer Eric. I actually do want to bridge the gap with libertarians and disabuse them of their unfounded fears of dreaded Christian conservatives. The reason most Evangelicals got into politics was that the liberal courts wouldn't leave us alone and let us alone, esp our free speech rights. We are libertarians too. Its just that when we want to be left alone, we home school. Banning God from school is not being left alone.

http://gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan

One usually doesn't see thoughtful analysis like yours even in minds older than my own, these days. Seriously, kudos to your parents and teachers, and to you for thinking clearly.
My recently deceased father often told me, 'So-and-so may be a crook, but he's my crook'. This is particularly ironic, in light of his attitude toward 'Tricky Dicky' Nixon.
Unfortunately, too many in either party hold a similar view; my crook has experience in battling the other guys' crooks. He also brings home the pork, so how bad can he be?
My thought, and apparently yours, is why put up with any of them, if we know they're all crooks?
Wiser men than I are unable to provide the answer to that one. This is but one reason I fear for the future.

we probably all would have left the GOP and joined the Dem party. But racism is worse than even unlikeable tactics, non-racist unlikeable people, self-destruction, and merely cutting losses. The GOP was founded for the purpose of abolishing slavery. We hate racism more than anything. But the Dems rejected a non-racist war hero for a Racist to lead them in the House. Madam Speaker rightly opposed Hoyer, the racist. But the Dem party acted like it has since 1861. Like racists.

If the Dems had only appointed Murtha, given all these repubs we don't like, we would have joined the Blue dawgs. But at least our leaders aren't out and out racists.

see the story below where Hoyer calls blacks "slavish tokens."

http://www.redstate.com/blogs/gamecock/2006/nov/18/gop_silent_as_dems_ch...

www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com