Redstate

After all, it is a KnownFact that elections are determined by the media and their polls, not by silly peons like you or I who just might vote contrary to their conventional wisdom. Just like in 2002, right?

(I would have put the "TM" symbol after the well established left-wing phrase but this new notebook isn't cooperating and I have a race scanner to program for tomorrow's race).

Did you really just say that about Calvin. Wow.

Anyhow, refer to the signature for my thoughts on pre-ordained elections.

A poll taken 48 hours before the election showed Blanchard leading Engler by 14 points. ... Yet Engler eked out a stunning win by seven-tenths of one percent — less than 18,000 votes.

The polls were all over the place for most of the election campaign, and often had Bush behind or with weak leads in the mid 40% range. These same pollsters pointed out over and over that no incumbent president polling below 50% ever won re-election, because all undecideds go to the challenger.

They were dead wrong.

is that they go to whomever the pundit wants them do go to (at least before a single vote is counted)

everyone knows the undecideds always break for the challenger --- except in those years when they don't.

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

A common myth propagated by liberal media sources. As a matter of fact, undecideds largely "break" for 3rd party candidates and independents, most assuredly Libertarian candidates.

But of course, the liberal media does not wish to report Libertarian (or Constitution Party) vote totals. (Watch for an almost complete media blackout of the LP and CP on election night.)

You see, if the liberal media reported on the Libertarian Party, they'd be forced to admit that the overall electorate is even more "limited government oriented" than they'd like.

The LP and CP who want to slash government, make Republicans who merely wish to "hold the line" look to be reasonable.

Eric Dondero
www.mainstreamlibertarian.com

Hello, tongue-in-cheek

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

the momentum continues to build

unfortunately what you are suggesting would be illegal; the republicans don't think that Moe can handle the responsibility of choosing for himself whether or not to place a bet on the internet.

For the record, my prediction: a strong majority of the races deemed close by the pundits will break for the GOP with the upshot being that the democrats will only pick up two or three seats in the senate and sixteen or eighteen seats in the house to take control by just the slimmest of margins. I would be much less surprised by the GOP holding the house than I would be by the domocrats picking up more than twenty-two or twenty-three seats.

-exits

depending on which state Moe lives in -- assuming he is an American, of course -- his placing a bet on the Internet is probably not illegal. The federal UIGEA that Frist passed applies only to those "in the business of betting or wagering", which means it makes Tradesports illegal. (Even that is arguable since Tradesports is structured like a futures exchange, not a casino.)

Based in Ireland. It's good.

A poll taken 48 hours before the election showed Blanchard leading Engler by 14 points. ... Yet Engler eked out a stunning win by seven-tenths of one percent — less than 18,000 votes.

I borrowed his crystal ball last week and ran the battery down; he's just winging it.

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

Barnes is one of the infected who needs to go ANYONE inside the beltway for any length of time has the virus there is no cure for it liquidate them before they spread to other people

Sometimes I wonder if longtime Beltway Conservatives like Barnes, Novak, Will, etc are just trying to snag the "Token Conservative" invitation to Sally Quinn's Cockatil Parties.

Also, that may explain Joe Scarborough's recent behavior.

Sitting out is a vote for KOS.

I hope on Wednesday we don't hear, "Gee, if we'd taken the money we spent trashing Laffey and spent it on X instead, maybe he'd have won."

The only thing worse would be, "Gee, if we'd taken the money we spent trashing Laffey and spent it on X instead, maybe he'd have won and we'd have maintained a majority."

Blocking Laffey was more important (to the $$$ folks) than majority control.

However, for us ordinary folk, we should save the inside baseball stuff for the leadership elections. Now is the time to turn out votes for votes for cloture on our issues and nominees.

Save the knife fights for Nov. 8. Now is not the time.

Sitting out is a vote for KOS.

not mentioning things that are probably true.

We're not going to retain the Senate because of Liddy Dole, we're going to retain it despite her.

I would have rather seen money spent in August helping Rick Santorum, instead of Lincoln Chaffee.

Senator Santorum would make a great President, and he should remember that losing a Senate election two years before running for the Presidency didn't hurt Abraham Lincoln.

You are making this up based on your hopes and not on any concrete evidence. Might the Republicans buck conventional wisdom and scientific polling methods? Maybe. However, the reality is that the GOP will lose the House big time and maintain nominal control of the Senate (50/50 or maybe 51/49). Lieberman will caucus with the Dems. In any other year in any other situation, the current GOP would never accept Lieberman as one of their own. He is an unabashed Liberal. His only "Conservative" credential is that he stuck by the Prez on the war in Iraq for far too long. He has been bashing Bush and the administration on the prosecution of the war since just before his primary loss.

--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

You will need to try to outwit me instead. :-)

after all, how far did they get with polling?

... is defined as any poll that comes up with a result that confirms my preconceptions.

So shoojfly - what are we to believe? Are we to buy-in to the Cook/Rotherburg model that takes national polls of roughly 1000 adults (i.e.: no screens for voters, non-voters, etc.) - or about 2.25 adults per congressional district - and projects a Democrat tsunami?

Or, are we to buy-in to the Cost/RCP model which recognizes, among other things, that:
1) We don't have a national election for the House - we have 435 individual elections
2) The polls in those individual elections are, in general, much closer than the "generic ballot" questions, and
3) A poll of 400-700 likely voters within a congressional district is far more predictive for that race than is a generic national poll with an average of about 2.25 adults sampled within the same region.

YMMV.

-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"

Let’s see how much you understand those "scientific" polls...

Polls are supposed to be a representative sample of an electorate. They sample say 1000 people (the larger the sample the more accurate they are) and apply various filters to determine "likely voters" and match their polls against representative weighting of Rs, Ds and independents based on previous data for the districts. There's LOTs of room for error in all this. Assuming the way the questions were phrased or the choices given didn’t slant the results (common) the 90% confidence level will usually give them a +/- 4% error rate. That's 4% PER Candidate. That's right, a poll with +/- 4% has a 90% chance of being within 8 points of calling a race correctly. And there's a 10% chance that the poll is an "outlier" meaning that the sample was randomly able to pull out completely useless data (usually a poll that’s not like the others is an outlier).

So go ahead and put money on the "scientific" polls, you have a 90% chance of being within 8 points of being right.

As to Lieberman, we are aware he will caucus with the Dems. He's said so. One of the reasons we respect Lieberman is that he usually says what he means and does what he says*. He's a lib and is at home with the Dems, but this election will embolden him to never play party line politics again. We R's would welcome him to our party, but his voting record wouldn't match the rest of the Rs on most domestic issues.

*The exception seemed to be while he was a vice presidential candidate.

*********************************************************
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

flipped by Timmy with Cook, Rothenberg, and another idiot who all thought 25+ seats in the senate and 4-7 senate seats, with at least a 50-50 chance of a senate takeover (one said it would take a miracle for the Repubs to hold the house and probably the senate as well)

20 House seats go to the Dems. Maybe as many as 25. We lose.

Senate... either 50-50 or 51-49 in our favor. We keep. (Specifically - we win in VA and maybe MO - lose the other close ones, MD, MT, NJ, etc - sorry, Steele)

have the kervorkian vote, and any serius pollster that thinks Shiavo is driving this election is a fool.

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

your fortitude brings a tear to my eye GC!

Cook seems to have something in his craw about Schiavo. He has mentioned it at least three separate times in the last 3 days after not talking about it for a year and a half.That was 19 months ago (I should know-in a twist of irony, my daughter was born minutes after the Joint Congressional bill was passed that Sun night/Mon morning). Sadly, few remember that deal, save a few people. Also, Cook was wrong in 2002 and 04, but since I have heard from former coworkers who still live in the Beltway he is a heavyweight in the DC Cocktail Party Circuit (along with Russert), that's why he still gets the love. National Journal is the home of some very unhinged lefties like Murray Waas, so I take what they say with a grain of salt. The only media whore missing from that roundtable was Sabato. I guess he was busy stalking Allen and trying to "recall" some more stuff from Allen's glory days at UVA.

Sitting out is a vote for KOS.

one or is defensive due to a close relative that had the plug pulled by a loved one. I'm serious about this. I know several otherwise conservative friends that are like this.

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

Anyone who would call the MD race "slight" isn't paying attention to the race. Nobody thought Chambliss would win in GA either.

Face it. MD is heavily Democratic State in which only 34% approve of GW Bush. Steele is lucky to be down by as little as he is. He is an attractive candidate who has been running away from Bush and the GOP as fast as he can.

http://www.surveyusa.com/50State2006/50StateBushApproval061017State.htm

Translation: Posting History plus Longevity equals Credibility! Credibility equals Zero!

See The World In HinzSight!
Political HinzSight

I make no excuses for being new here. Everyone was new at one time or another. If you would like to debate on the issues, I will gladly engage. If you insist on ideological purity on this board, what's the point of it all? An echo chamber has little value.

And that's... yup... one more and I've got bingo.

Come on... all I need is to get "The evidence is all around us. If you don't see it, you're in denial" or "Which would you save: a child or a cooler full of embryos?"
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

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

Have you been to the Daily Koz lately? Ideological purity and orthodoxy are not noble goals. It is possible for Conservatives to not agree on every issue and even to (gasp!) agree with a Liberal once in a while.

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

Here on earth we tend to put a high value on our heads.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

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

Retire Lindsey Graham. Support Thomas Ravenel for Senate 2008

Talk is cheap, and Tradesports is ready when you are. There's a parlay right now trading at 18.0 for the GOP to retain both houses. That means you could buy as many contracts as you want at 20 or so, and get back 5x your investment if you're right.

If Dems win one or both chambers of Congress, there will be changes in the Iraq war policy but not major ones. Very few Dems want an immediate pull-out from Iraq. Likely result is that Prez and Congress work together on a compromise policy that makes both sides look good.

I think Xinhua is in fact the Chinese State News Service!

Excellent source, v. trustworthy. :-D

that even the "Chinese State News Service" has the democrats pegged as cut-and-runners.

I guess they, too, were able to crack the thinly-veiled code, and correctly interpreted "A New Direction" to mean surrender.

After all, isn't that what Bin Laden said the US Paper Tiger does when the going-gets-tough?

***

"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 Congress supposed to force a pullout from Iraq? Un-authorize the use of force? Sign a treaty with, er, somebody? They could try to cut funding, but there is absolutely no way they'd get a veto-proof majority on that. We're in Iraq for as long as George W. Bush (or his successor) wants us to be there.

about an actual pullout.

But the proposition, debate, bills introduced, MSM "lobbying", etc., will all embolden the enemy. Initially the troops will pay the penalty as the bad guys try to up the ante to move public opinion even further left. But ultimately we will all pay the price in loss of credibility with our allies and friends, threats and attacks on Americans at home and abroad, etc.

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

They can simply not authorize funds in the next Congress to pay for the war. A veto does not come into play.

Couldn't Bush just veto the budget if it didn't include funding for Iraq?

But he can't use his veto pen to ADD body armor for the troops in Iraq. A veto doesn't create appropriations.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

How many people who follow polling know how margins of error actually work? Not enough, I'd wager.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

While scientific polling methods are nowhere near perfect, they are better than guestimates. However, lets get to the real issue here. The issue is that those on the "losing" side of published polls are always complaining about errors, biases, and black magic. Right now, the left-leaning blogs can barely control their glee based on the majority of polls and the right-leaning blogs are arguing about how unreliable or downright wrong the polls are. I just find it pretty funny.

I'd say the "right-leaning" (is that anything like 'Pisa, Tower of, Leaning') are on better ground.

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

Remember that these folks are politicians. If they see a benefit to them personally (politically) they will do it. It is in Bush's and the Dems best interest to make changes in Iraq before the '08 elections.

the cougar will not do anything.

Oh wait, let me amend that to fit the Dems.

If Bush does everything that the Dems want, then the poodle will not yap at him, as much.

More important that that is the fact that a significant number of black leaders are backing Steele. It is those same leaders who have done the GOTV in their communities for decades.

If they don't turn out the vote for Cardin, that is a huge tactical advantage, and in practice that makes a blue state look red.

Remember that most blue states are blue because only the Dems have a credible GOTV machine. Republican candidates must run almost entirely with their own resources.

This is interesting reading. http://www.slate.com/id/2152780/

Bottom line...we won't know for sure until Wednesday morning.

1) Slate --- why not refer to the Xinhua again?
2) Wednesday - thus far the most accurate thing you've said. I refer you to others here (GC, blackhedd, Neil, mbecker, et al) who've been saying this all along so you are in good company but way late for the train.

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

Plus, I was the one who noted that Xinhua was hardly a credible news source! :-p

I did not offer the Slate article as authoritative, merely interesting and credible. Can you offer anything as rebuttal?

I'm with you. We're in a lot of trouble.

Though that is no reason not to keep working as hard as we can. There's a chance we can keep the house, of course. A lot of races that looked very tough even a week or two ago, like Sodrel and Wilson, are coming back, but there are just too many in play and way too many seats where we have just given the seats away (PA-7, PA-10, OH-18, FL-16, TX-22, AX-8 off the top of my head).

I still think we keep the Senate, but it's going to be tough. It's a tough year. No reason to ignore that.

According to the NYTimes, both sides are spending money in 50 congressional districts. If there are 50 competitive seats at this late-stage-of-the-game, it means incumbent-Democrat seats are being targeted for Republican pick-up, the GOP-GOTV ground-game has been fully mobilized and the Democrats will be forced to try and counter that ground-game in places they can least afford it.

Additionally, I don't think the Democrats have the organizational skills or the infrastructure to put that many boots-on-the-ground. Besides, the GOP's got plenty of money to spend, and there are only so many available ad slots for any given market in any given district. Spread the wealth.

***

"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

If they see 50 competitive seats I'd say the Dems recognize that the fat lady isn't even in the wings yet.

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

but not on the competitive races. The contested races are mainly GOP held or vacant. There are a couple of Dems in precarious positions (e.g. Melisa Bean in Illinois)
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/05/us/politics/05elect.html?hp&ex=1162702...

I know it's the NYT, but still...

The Base is pissed at the MSM and wants to prove something. I think that cancels out the Dems. I'm not sure how angry Indies are going to be at your average Incumbent, who is usually a Nice Guy.

I expect us to lose the House, but Nancy will probably be sitting on a five seat majority. Nothing much to write home about. I think we turned it around in the Senate in Montana, Missouri, and yes, Maryland. The Pubs are coming home and getting out, despite every effort by the news media to suppress Pub turnout.

"History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it"-Winston Churchill

Perhaps the Fiscal Conservative/Libertarian's last best hope is a Dem House and Senate. It's definitely worth considering.
http://news.bostonherald.com/editorial/view.bg?articleid=165495&srvc=hom...

the Democrats grow up and start behaving like adults maybe. Until then, oblivion is the best solution.

I have long been of the opinion that the Founders created the Congress as they did with stalemate in mind --- in keeping with the principle of 'that government governs best that governs least.' Gridlock is a good thing except in time of war, and especially when the opposition party thinks that their time in Kindergarten was the high point of their lives.

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

So you, as a Conservative, support an ever more poweful Executive? When did debate become sedition in our country? Is it not remotely possible that the Dems love their country and want to win the war on terror but perhaps disagree with our tactics? Quite frankly, leaders of both parties are childish and we, the electorate, are their enablers. It's come down to "stay the course" vs. "cut and run" and "Bush is evil" vs. "The terrorists want the Dems to win". That is entirely unproductive and just makes it harder to make the course corrections necessary to win in Iraq.

When are more people going to cross party lines on this war like Lieberman and McCain... both are far from libertarian as myself. But, they see the bravo papa (big pic) better than all these idiotic commercials that are necessary to win elections.

www.fairtax.org
Sick of Government Expansion? Liberty-Minded Republican? Check This Out... Republican Liberty Caucus!!!
www.rlc.org http://www.republicanliberty.org/
Support Congressional Republicans
www.nrcc.org

I am not ain favor of an even stronger executive. I am from the school that says the Federal Government should raise and maintain an army and a navy, defend borders, collect customs duties and deliver the mail -- the things the Constitution allocates to them. Other than that they should stay the H*ll out of it --- that's why we have 50 sovereign states. If it were up to me the entire federal government would fit in an abandoned strip mall outside Otumwa, Iowa with space left over for a Starbucks.

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

if the Democrats were capable of intelligent debate and rational behavior I'd welcome it.

But as long as their public face and voice are poeple like Kerry, Pelosi, Rangel, Durbin, Kennedy, et al, and they think that people like Whoppee Goldberg, Michael Moore, Susan Sarandon, etc, represent the true heart of America, they can stay in the wilderness and be kept away from sharp objects.

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

but I think that all goes out out of the proverbial window when I have friends... dear friends... fighting in war right now, as Mr Steele says. I know I'm not supposed to wear my uniform, etc, when I advocate a party... but, I am in the USAF, and am extremely concerned that we will have a major when Dems get control. I have deployed for both the Iraqi and Afghan campaigns, and am pissed I can't deploy right now (long story). Morale is low for the troops right now... but not for the reasons the press is reporting. It is completely about the citizenry's lack of knowledge about what we are against.

And as far as taxes, etc... when the Dems let the tax cuts expire, well I won't be pleased.

www.fairtax.org
Sick of Government Expansion? Liberty-Minded Republican? Check This Out... Republican Liberty Caucus!!!
www.rlc.org http://www.republicanliberty.org/
Support Congressional Republicans
www.nrcc.org

And morale is low, b/c we don't have all of the tools we need to put the Iraqi insurgency away. I strongly agree with many of the things that Gen Zinni and Ralph Peters have had to say about the war in Iraq.

www.fairtax.org
Sick of Government Expansion? Liberty-Minded Republican? Check This Out... Republican Liberty Caucus!!!
www.rlc.org http://www.republicanliberty.org/
Support Congressional Republicans
www.nrcc.org

In 2001 and 2002, most Dems supported eliminating the marriage penalty as well as increasing the child tax credit. Those are the tax cuts that affected 90% of the American public. They will let the tax cuts on dividends and the inheritance tax expire, but that won't tip the economy into a recession. Plus...as far as I know, Prez Bush still will wield the veto pen for the next two years.

Really? Better for libertarians if the GOP loses the House and our libertarian Republican lose their reelection bids?

Please explain how it would be better for us libertarians if Ron Paul lost his Congressional seat?

Please explain how we libertarians would feel better if Reps. Jeff Flake, Tom Feeney, and Dana Rohrabacher were defeated?

Please explain how it is that we'd be better off with libertarian-leaning Republican Joe Negron losing his Florida/Foley seat race?

Just doesn't make sense to me. "Libertarian Republicans are better off if they lose elections." Wow! What a concept. I'm intriguied. Offer us an explanation.

Eric Dondero
www.mainstreamlibertarian.com

Many bonafide Conservatives believe that the best thing that could happen to the GOP and Conservatism is for this spend-a-holic GOP Congress to lose and lose big. There is a battle for the soul of the party between traditional Libertarians and Social Conservatives. Libertarians want the government out of our wallets and out of our bedrooms. Social Conservatives have proven to want the government both in our bedrooms and in the wallets of our children and grandchildren.

If your Congressman or Senator is a fiscal conservative/Libertarian, vote for him/her. If not, boot them out.

http://news.bostonherald.com/editorial/view.bg?articleid=165495&srvc=hom...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/04/AR200610...

There is a battle for the soul of the party between traditional Libertarians and Social Conservatives.

Which camp are you member of? Or are you, shall we say, more of a free-lancer in this battle for the soul of the Republican Party?

See The World In HinzSight!
Political HinzSight

I am also a Christian, but I don't believe in creating a theocracy in the US. I am for keeping the government out of my Church and the Church out of the government.

Now, you seem to have passed the first few tests here, but this is one of the big ones, and you're flubbing it. To wit: this is not a forum where you may safely rag on social conservatives. Some social conservatives may want the government in our bedrooms and our wallets. Others do not, being real people and not convenient caricatures mugging for the camera.

Grokking this will substantially increase your chances of survival on this site. I say this as a pro-gay marriage, anti War on Drugs, pro-globalization RiNO. You are insulting friends, here, and that will stop.

Moe

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

PS: The only accepted response to this will be "Yes, Moe."

I am not ragging on social conservatives, but I am challenging them. If there is no room for debate or polite disagreement here, I suppose I will stop posting. There is nothing wrong with being anti gay marriage or pro prayer in schools oer se. I just don't think the government should be involved in codifying those beliefs into law. People of good will can disagree on these issues. Do you disagree?

Falling back on the old TalkingPoints™

If there is no room for debate or polite disagreement here,

That is such a Troll remark...

See The World In HinzSight!
Political HinzSight

Both in the aforementioned post and in your most recent one. Here's a news flash: we've seen passive-aggressive stuff like "I am also a Christian, but I don't believe in creating a theocracy in the US" before. Really: how dumb do you think the readers here are?

Speaketh the moderator: modify your posting behavior forthwith. Thanks in advance for your compliance.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

I believe in limited government. I don't buy into quite a bit of what social conservatives support. I would like a Congress that spends less, regulates less and stays out of personal decisions. I fear that social conservatives, while sharing some libertarian values, have pushed the GOP beyond its core libertarian values. I also believe this Congress has spent more (non-defense) than any Dem Congress has done in the past and that our president has not used his veto pen to hold the line on spending but did pull it out to kill a bipartisan bill to support fetal stem cell funding.

So, how can I state this without being labeled a troll or without being accused of being rude?

I thinks its suspicious that you show up here a couple of days before a vital election and instead of contributing, you seem interested in spreading dissension.

That aside, your asserions are just wierd. It's not "social conservatives" who are behind increased spending and regulation. Its the socially liberal wing of the party you need to address your complaints to. People like "Nurse" Bloomberg, Specter, Snowe, and the north east wing of the party in general. This wing is both fiscally and socially liberal. The Western Republicans are similar. Its only the Southern wing of the party which pays more than lip service to controling spending.

There is a very close relationship between how socially conservative and how fiscally conservative a Congressman is.

The government has gotten itself involved in "the bedroom" through a series of court ruling going back fifty years. Whether you like it or not these decision will be made by government.

but not as many as before. We can point to Mike Pence in the House and Tom Coburn in the Senate among others. I am not trying to sow dissension but rather to try to persuade others to hold their representatives accountable to their campaign promises. You can't just blame Specter, Snowe, Chafee and other NE "liberal" Republicans when the last several spending bills were approved with overwhelming GOP majorities. Did you approve of the new Medicare Drug bill? The overbloated highway bill? I think that we all agree that even if the Dems win the House, it won't be be by huge margins. Dems probably won't take the Senate. Perhaps two years out of power in the House would be the best thing for fiscal conservatives.

As to the bedroom issues, I agree that we have let the government creep in for many years but that doesn't mean we shouldn't push back.

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

but I wont. Pedophilia is illegal because it harms the child who is the victim of it.

harms children and society as a whole too.

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

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

I have better things to do with my time right now than argue with you.

Perhaps two years out of power in the House would be the best thing for fiscal conservatives.

Yes, I understand that you want the GOP to lose the House, you don't need to keep repeating it. For the record, fiscal conservatives don't control the House at present. They won't control it if the Dems win on Tuseday. And its very unlikely that they'll control it after 2008. In spite of what you seem to imagine most GOP congressmen did not run on campaign promises to cut spending. Most Americans don't want government spending cut.

The unwillingness of "libertarians" like yourself to hold the biggest offenders responsible (Specter, etc) while making ceaseless attacks on solid conservatives like Santorum speaks volumes about what you really want.

Does it have something to do with the white whale or the creepy musician?

is someone who asks, with wide-eyed innocence, "What's a Moby?".

"You're good, kid, but as long as I'm around you're second best. ..."

I was almost ready to believe you...

See The World In HinzSight!
Political HinzSight

Once upon a time, Moby said something on his blog to the effect of "It's very important that we defeat the Republicans. Maybe we should do stuff like log onto Republican web sites and spread rumors."

I think the example he gave was something like "I heard that Bush took his girlfriend before Laura to an abortion clinic. Do we really want someone like that as President?"

It was something like that. It's someone pretending to be a Republican but is posting with the intention of doing harm to Republican causes.

On Kos, the term for this is "concern troll".

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

Man, this is a rough crowd!

And other words that allow you to distinguish between policies, the people that agree with those policies - and the people on this discussion forum that agree with those policies.

You may find this an unfair standard to live up to. Sometimes, it might even be unfair. Them's, frankly, the breaks.

Moe

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

First, you got under our hide with the "setting up a theocracy" deal. We have heard all we ever want to hear about that. We are irritated with having our opinions disregarded because the basis of our beliefs regarding right and wrong come from our moral convictions which are also formed by our relationship with God.

If you want to see a real, live theocracy, visit Saudi Arabia, then come back here and complain at us about the manger scenes in the park.

Second, the GOP is not libertarian, nor does it have libertarian roots. It was formed to oppose slavery, and that opposition was rooted and fed by Christian leaders who saw it as a disastrous, destructive evil, straight from the pits of hell.

It has survived with a belief that we should not throw the baby out with the bathwater. What works, works and we don't change things without a real good reason. And 'because I want to' is not a good reason.

We don't like excessive spending and someone spent some research time showing that the most socially conservative House and Senate members were also the most fiscally conservative members. The RINOs were the ones most likely to support excessive spending. Someone with a faster download speed will have to help you with the data if you want it.

I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.

I agree that anti-slavery movement was fueled by Christians and Christian morality. Remember, however, that the slave owners also thought they had God on their side and were able to lean on the Bible to (erroneously I think we agree) make a case to keep people enslaved. And of course we are not close to a theocracy and I am guilty of gross hyperbole to make a point. To be clear, I do not think we need to keep our morality out of public life and I realize that for most of us our morality is derived from our faith. However, I believe we need to be careful in mixing government and religion because at some point the religion supported by law may not be one that you or I support.

You and I have had our run ins because I am more libertarian, but you are correct. The social conservative and the fiscal conservatives have a lot of overlap. Its the "I want to get in front of the camera, and be a maverick" conservatives who are causing most of the problems.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

on gay marriage and prayer in schools into law or have judges overturn laws on those subjects that you oppose.

Let's be clear.

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 don't think the government should have a say in those things one way or another.

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

have the law reflect your will....uh huh

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

Look, we all want our values reflected in society. However, I think that it is best to keep government out of our personal lives. That way, I can live my life according to my values and you can live according to yours as long as we cause no harm to others. Basic libertarianism...

Navel gazing and home schooling are personal. try those

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 a government with the power to forbid.

Just like school prayer has been forbidden.
I am under the impression that gay marriage is inevitable... and agreeing that the federal government has the power to say that this is or that isn't a marriage will result in a government powerful enough to say that gay marriage is marriage.

Better that the Feds don't have that power, if you ask me.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

etc, are of such paramount importance that they must apply to the whole nation. (Having a republican form of government, private property rights, due process in criminal prosecutions, habeas corpus also come to mind)

I don't necessarily disagree that EVENTUALLY gay marriage is inevitable. The eventual fall of the United States is also inevitable and of course there is the apocalypse, but given that Rome had 500 years, I'd like to leave behind a nation Slouching more slowly Towards Gomorrah than the one the 60s crowd has transformed via culture, universities, the media, judges and the secularized appeasement democrat party since 1972.

With Reagan we have tried to begin the world all over again. To try and recapture that nation that beat Britain for Independence, the Nazis and imperial Japan, the Communist threat of the USSR and hopefully the Islam-fascist threat.

But the threat from the left is the most dangerous ultimately, and surely no one doubts that a nation of John Kerry's and Gloria Steinem would have defeated any of the above.

Marriage is the numero uno institution responsible for civilization, in terms of taming men, protecting women and creating a civilized next generation. it also encourages economic stability and provides a reason for fighting to stay free.

Nightmare scenario: My 7 yr old son spots his 2nd grade teacher in the mall and tells me, hey look, that's Mr Jones with his partner Mr Smith. They are married just like you and mom.

A public affirmation of a relationship based upon sodomy and then equating it with marriage is asinine.

Over time it would completely divorce child rearing from natural parenting. It would also cause there to be a large increase in especially female lesbianism.

It would exponentially speed up the slouching

see Europe

I am a lawyer and have been for 17 years. Adultery was illegal when I started and still is on the books in SC, as are laws against sodomy, etc, though are now unconstitutional now.

These laws were never enforced, but they served a purpose. I would not have favored enforcement but i did favor the societal approbation against sex outside marriage. And I committed sex outside marriage, between marriages although not the adultery variety, so this is not a hypocritical argument. I have sinned. But I recognize that things are right and wrong. I don't lobby to have what i may do wrong to seen as right.

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 said it before and, looky here, I'm saying it again.

When the definition of marriage became "some legal protections given by the government to people who are 'in love'" was when marriage was trivialized to the point where there was no real reason that sodomites shouldn't be allowed to participate.

Having a constitutional amendment will not protect the institution. It's a cast over a gangrenous leg. Yes, it may hold stuff up for a while, but it does nothing to address the real source of rot.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

problems unrelated to proposed re-definitions. Of course it does. Men are fallen and sinful. All institutions have problems. I have health problems. But that doesn't justify re-defing health, cutting and disfiguring myself or committing suicide.

see diary for more debate and discussion as this thread is getting thin

http://www.redstate.com/blogs/gamecock/2006/nov/05/federalism_and_defini...
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

The general gist was that any given marriage ceremony held by homosexuals is protected by the First Amendment (Speech and Free Exercise) and so banning "gay marriage" pretty much amounted to denying legal protections to established couples.

Which, I imagine, would grow depressing after a while.

My diary is here, but it's from before the new site kicked in so the comments are all wonky.

http://www.redstate.com/story/2006/7/11/151533/258

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

than Islamo-terrorists, Nazis and the Soviet Union, do you? We can disagree with Liberals but to demonize them (the way they demonize the Prez) is not helpful.

Just for discussion: Might it not actually strengthen the institution of marriage to allow same-sex marriage? After all, it is the promiscuity and infidelity of the "gay lifestyle" are what is anathema to a stable family life. If they were allowed to get married until civil law, wouldn't that actually help society?

By the way, I would not agree, under any circumstances, to have the government force churches to conduct religious marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples unless they made that decision on their own.

don't even TRY that strawman! Try READING what GC wrote.

What he WROTE is that leftists like we have today could never have defeated the Nazis or the USSR, and can never defeat the islamofascists because of their total lack of backbone!

That bs you are pedaling

You don't really believe that Liberals are more dangerous than Islamo-terrorists, Nazis and the Soviet Union, do you? We can disagree with Liberals but to demonize them (the way they demonize the Prez) is not helpful.

that is such a transparent moby act that you have unmaksed yourself totally!

See The World In HinzSight!
Political HinzSight

I misread GC's comment and I personally apologize to him/her. I must say that I find this "moby" stuff pretty funny. I don't see why we have to fear a dissenting point of view. The strength of our ideas can overcome liberal arguments. No?

What we object to is the obviously obtuse. The deliberately misunderstood. In other words, someone who is not really interested in dialogue, but merely to irritate.

I guess time will tell, huh!

See The World In HinzSight!
Political HinzSight

Is there anything I could write that would convince you to abandon your principles? Of course not. I would then have to revert to insults and similar provocations to really annoy you. I hope I am not guilty of that. I think, over time, you might find that we agree on many if not most things but disagree on others. There's nothing wrong with that, I hope.

see "Hen" for her

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

___________________________________________________________
Thou art the Great Cat, the avenger of the Gods, and the judge of words...-Inscription on the Royal Tombs at Thebes

However, there are some tough chicks out there!

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

Isn't the same thing as having the law reflect one's will.

I mean, I got into this argument at the beginning of the Iraq war. People argued that we were "forcing democracy on the Iraqis" when, really, we were getting rid of a totalitarian state. This completely misunderstood what we were doing in Iraq.

Same for saying that the Federal Government shouldn't have an opinion on, say, high school education. By saying that education is outside of the scope of the Feds, I would not be having "the law reflect my will" but having it be an issue left up to the various localities.

If people in San Francisco want to teach evolution, great. If people in (insert locality here, as I don't want to name a city and be called a bigot) want to teach Scientific Creationism, great. The Federal Government should not have an opinion one way or the other. If a particular president wants to get on his bully pulpit and say that kids need 3 years of math and 4 years of English, well... he can give a speech about the importance of 3 years of math and 4 years of English. But it shouldn't go farther than that.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

doesn't always fly in conservative circles anymore. That is one negative legacy of the two Bush Administrations.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

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

strong arm tactics regarding unfunded mandates to states done in Republican administrations. Not good. Too much centralized control in the education bill, and too much centralizing in the boondoggle agricultural bills. And Justice Department strong arm tactics vrs. states who vote for medical Marijuana.

these are some of the things which have led to some disaffection in the fly over country republican ranks.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

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 actually do favor a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage nationwide, but in the meantime I favor following existing law as passed by the people in state's and not made up federal judge law, ie state's rights with the full faith and credit clause protecting states ala the redundant DOMA (but with activist judges, who knows when redundancy begins!

On schools (and free religious speech in the public square generally incl Alabama court houses, i also favor state's rights and not federal judges making up new law under the guise of preventing laws respecting establishments of religion.

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

Will all end in tears.

Besides, I think that a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage can't pass anymore. I can think of 13 states that wouldn't ratify (from reasons dealing with "gays should be allowed to marry" to "do we really want to put *THAT* in the Constitution?").

But that's neither here nor there.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

Seems to me the GOP used to be a pro free-trade type of folk...

www.fairtax.org
Sick of Government Expansion? Liberty-Minded Republican? Check This Out... Republican Liberty Caucus!!!
www.rlc.org http://www.republicanliberty.org/
Support Congressional Republicans
www.nrcc.org

Seems to be pretty clear:

The president, Vice President Dick Cheney and GOP strategist Karl Rove have all predicted the Republican party will retain control of both houses of Congress in the Nov. 7 elections

Some conservative commentators also agree, like Dean Barnett ("In the tied races, the Republican will win. In the close races, the Republican will win. It adds up to Republicans running the table in the Senate."); it's also been pointed out here that, e.g., Barron's predicts (R) retain control of both houses, and they use an interesting and different kind of methodology to arrive at that conclusion - although I grant that Barron's may not necessarily be a partisan (R) slanted magazine, I simply don't know (neither whether Tradesports is known to be a partisan (D) leaning website).

That is why I am ambivalent on the Dem's taking the house this time around. on the one hand, I don't want to see it, but on the other hand there will be uninterrupted Republican fatigue in 2008, and as you point out, that is the important election.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

I am anything but ambivalent about Dem's takeover of the House in 2006. I understand according to CW it will be difficult for the GOP to hold the House this year. If they do hold the House then there will be a major crackup of the Pelosi, Rangel, Conyers, Murtha leadership of the Dems. We are at war in 2006, and we can not risk the damage that the lunatic fringe running the House Dems can do if they get in charge of the House rules.

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

the damage they could do with a slim majority in one house is not all that great.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

It is interesting to note also that the Democrats who are contending in many of the close House races are running as far more conservative than the national party...

What you have in red states are Democrats running under a mantra of: "we need to do a reset in Iraq but I'm conservative on everything else (just don't check my record too closely)".

But IF the Dem's fail to take either house, I will rag them unmercifully for two years.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

I believe it has never happened.

Odd, huh? Given that all the House seats are up each time and only a third of the Senate, so you would expect the House to switch more often, but history says no. And I doubt that it is entirely down to the fact that House seats can be gerrymandered while the Senate cannot.

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