Redstate

For an issue to get traction you need to have a group that strongly opposes your views.

Today's Democratic Party pays lip service to AA but little more, other than with a small handful of special interest politicians.

I think it is going to be difficult to woo the Suburban voters to a Republican issue with the 800 lb Iraqi gorilla in the room. If the Republicans want to take control of the issues debate they need to come up with a palatable solution to the Iraq imbroglio, at least palatable in the eyes of the typical soccer mom and taligaiter Dad.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

"For an issue to get traction you need to have a group that strongly opposes your views.

Today's Democratic Party pays lip service to AA but little more, other than with a small handful of special interest politicians."

Nonsense. The pro-quota views of the party powers that be are so great they can bend the normally sensible Lieberman into statements like "Mend it, don't end it." The Kennedys, Durbins and Leahys routinely whine that Bush judicial nominees will end affirmative action.

If you're right, all Republicans need to do is introduce a bill banning affirmative action, and Pelosi anc company will help pass it. I don't think so.

If the GOP wants a clear distinction between the parties, it should clearly oppose affirmative action. If some moderate Democrats join in opposition, great. They will only serve to isolate the Pelosis and Kennedys of the world. More likely they will be frozen into indecision, and left politically vulnerable.

If you're right, all Republicans need to do is introduce a bill banning affirmative action, and Pelosi anc company will help pass it. I don't think so.

So what would you like the Republicans to do specifically? Upend the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Which Affirmative Action programs would you want to see the Federal government abolish? State programs that cover state schools?

I'm curious to see what you specifically would like to see the Republicans do.

There's a reason why both sides are content with letting this sit in the Court's lap.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

I would ban deciding public jobs, academic admissions, or other public benefits on the basis of race. So would most voters.

So how exactly would you go about having the Federal government decide how state schools, or private schools for that matter, determine who they will and won't accept?

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

Um, the federal government already tells states and localities that they cannot discriminate on the basis of race or sex.

It's just that quota supporters have persuaded the judges that this really means "cannot discriminate on the basis of race or sex" except when whites or males are being discriminated against.

To paraphrase a William F. Buckley column from the time of the Bakke decision, we should amend the Constitution to say that no person shall be denied equal protection of the laws, and that "this time, we really mean it."

So we go back to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

You wish to pass a law that MANDATES that states and municipalities cannot provide preferred status to less privileged classes.

This would be political suicide.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

"You wish to pass a law that MANDATES that states and municipalities cannot provide preferred status to less privileged classes.

This would be political suicide."

Well, not in California, Washington state or Michigan. Or just about any other state I can think of.

But don't worry. If the Republicans ever screw up the courage to actually do this, there's at least one major American party whose leadership would welcome your rhetoric.

(But the way, though I consider myself a conservative, I am not a Republican. The country club support -- or at least tolerance -- of affirmative action is one reason why.)

Those states let referendums on the matter decide the issue. The Federal government has no such mechanism.

While I personally don't much care for Affirmative Action I fail to see why it bothers so many people.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

has always bothered many people. Why would that be different now?

Social Security Choice - Club For Growth

I guess I just have a hard time equating this form of discrimination to other more pernicious forms.

I can see why people object to but it hardly equates to the evil of Jim Crow laws.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

The problem with AA is that it allows people who are less qualified for the job to be selected or promoted over people who are better qualified.

This is the big problem that bothers so many people. AA also assures that mediocrity will prevail. It's not a good program, that's why liberals like it.

Don
===========================
Democratic is a process.
Democrat is what they are.
===========================
http://loud-n-clear.blogspot.com/

There is no exception in the Civil Rights Act which permits discrimination on behalf of "less privileged classes". Affirmative action is already illegal, and is only currently permitted because we have an illiterate Supreme Court. The text of the bill refutes any sort of quotas, and its authors insisted that no preferential treatment for any group was permitted by their bill.

The various anti-affirmative-action measures are an effort to get the 1964 Civil Rights Act enforced, not to repeal it.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

Why do they keep letting you back in?

You don't quote the actual language because there is nothing in the Title and section you mention which permits affirmative action.

Title VII, Section 703 does specifically prohibit ANY discrimination based race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, with no exceptions for phoney "protected classes". Which is why the author of the act said he'd eat his hat if the law was ever held to allow group quotas.

(a) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -

(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or

(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

(b) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employment agency to fail or refuse to refer for employment, or otherwise to discriminate against, any individual because of his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, or to classify or refer for employment any individual on the basis of his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

(j) Nothing contained in this subchapter shall be interpreted to require any employer, employment agency, labor organization, or joint labor­management committee subject to this subchapter to grant preferential treatment to any individual or to any group because of the race, color, religion, sex, or national origin of such individual or group
on account of an imbalance which may exist with respect to the total number or percentage of persons of any race, color, religion, sex, ornational origin employed by any employer, referred or classified for employment by any employment agency or labor organization, admitted to membership or classified by any labor organization, or admitted to, or employed in, any apprenticeship or other training program, in comparison with the total number or percentage of persons of such race, color, religion, sex, or national origin in any community, State, section, or other area, or in the available work force in any community, State, section, or other area.

Since some people here are more interested in making discussions about me rather than the topic I will ignore people that engage in such practices. So if you wish to continue to engage in attacking me, then I'll simply stop responding to you.

As for the section in question...

feel free to ignore me. I'll feel free to point out your errors.

For example, "an affirmative program of equal employment opportunity" does not in fact equate to permission for racial or other discrimination, though presumably you think it does. The rest of Title VII specifically says that such discrimination is not permitted.

law, not taken from the legislation per se. You are right that there were, and may, I emphasize may, still be institutional barriers to employment of minorities. At the time of the law, AA was pretty much universally understood to require employers to seek out applicants from minority groups. This was thought to be a way to get around the perceived, and perhaps real, "old boy network" advantage that Whites had. The Courts and the regulators morphed it into a "quota system" through a series of actions based on the reports, specifically through developing the disparate impact doctrine. If an employer didn't have the population level representation of minorities in a particular job classification, its criteria for hiring in that job classification was held to have a disparate impact on members of protected classes, i.e., it was discriminating against protected classess by insisting on certain qualifications. Unfortunately, some employers were indeed guilty of imposing qualifications that had no business utility, but a few healthy jury verdicts pretty much ended that, at least with regard to race; women still are disadvantaged by college degree qualifications in some occupations where there is no real utility. Most employers, especially public employers, responded by reducing their minimum qualifications for all but licensed professionals to "still fogs the mirror."

Over time, the Courts, if not the regulators, began to realize their excess in disparate impact and required some showing of real harm. That dried up a lucrative practice for plaintiffs' attorneys. Celebrating diversity became the rallying cry, and that is where the quota crowd hangs their hat now, especially in academia.
In Vino Veritas

Interesting stuff.

I certainly agree that the barriers to success for minorities are far smaller than they were but they do still exist.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

Why not let the schools decide who to accept based on their SAT scores and high school performance? They use that the primary selection criteria anyway.

Drop ANY reference to race as a way to increase or decrease your chances of getting into the college. It's wrong to discriminate against anyone based on what their skin happens to look like.

*********************************************************
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.

Leaving aside that I wasn't advocating AA, do you also think that universities should not allow students in based on their relatives being former students or the fact that their parents provided a large endowment?

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

So you agree that RACE has no place in determining college placement?

*********************************************************
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.

That is an odd response to my questions. But I'll answer you.

I think that AA is a self-defeating program. If I thought it was effective then I would encourage it.

When academic admissions become truly merit based then I'll start worrying about this one aspect of non-merit based restrictions.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

nontest or grade based means of selecting students too? Interesting.

*********************************************************
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.

Let's start off with a brush up on some definitions...

racism:na belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

Now perhaps you can show where I advocated ANY such thing?

Prejudice, discrimination, and racism are 3 different words with different meanings. Is the NAACP a racist organization because it looks to help one specific race? How bout various Jewish advocacy groups? Or the AARP?

If it is clear that a specific group is unfairly discriminated against in our society I see nothing wrong with looking for ways to even the scales. If you wish to call that unfair, that's your choice.

Still waiting to hear you answer my questions to you.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

(Hmm... that was in YOUR link too, somehow it got left out...)

Affirmative action quotas are discriminating based on race. That's racism.

So do you agree that using racist preferences in college admissions is wrong?

To directly answer your previous question... no I don't care if colleges prefer students whose families are alumni or give large donations. Those are not racist preferences.

And yes the NAACP is a racist organization (by definition). Jewish and AARP organizations are not, they're religion or age based.

*********************************************************
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.

Is rarely used. The former definition is, by far, the definition used by people. I suspect you know that but you know that using that word can help you gain a moral high ground.

So, NO, I don't consider them racist because they intention is not racist in any way.

So you don't care about other non-merit based criteria for selecting students. Ok. So we can take merit off the table in this discussion, right?

As for you claim that the NAACP is racist because of their charter, well I don't know what to say to that. Are Italian-American or Irish-American clubs, racist? Or are you looking to put such a fine point on your definition as to exclude all other discriminatory groups in hopes being able to ignore the elephant in the room, which is your misuse of the term racist?

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

BOTH definitions are actively used... that's why both are listed. The act of discriminating based on race is racism.

Yes, flyerhawk, any club or organization that bases membership on race is racist, though I'd argue that Italian and Irish are national backgrounds rather than racial backgrounds, but you can include them as racist if you like. I'm not stating that these clubs and organizations are wrong, only that basing membership on race is a racist act. But the government isn't funding those groups...

The government IS funding colleges.

And NO, Merit isn't off the table. It should be the primary gate to college entry.

*********************************************************
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.

the backers of affirmative action are racist. They do indeed believe that some races are smarter than others and that the government must press its thumb on the scale to equalise things.

The entire purpose of Affirmative Action was to equal the scales because some groups in this society faced institutional restrictions on their opportunities to advance. And anyone who denies such restrictions exist are simply ignoring the realities of life.

While I personally think the program hinders, rather than help, those groups, I oppose it. But to suggest that the reason that these programs are in place is because people think that certain races or genders are inferior is beyond absurd.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

If you want to suggest that rich white liberals do not regard blacks as inferior, then that is absurd. I live in the same part of the world you do and know the same people. I know what they think of blacks. They despise them.

view.

This is just one man's opinion, but I am a former admissions officer for an ivy league university, When I hear things like "Backers of AA believe some races are smarter than others.", I am annoyed that people draw these conclusions when they seem to know nothing about what makes a quality university experience.

Sure, some backers believe some races are smarter. I don't, nor am I necessarily a backer of AA. But I still think that race should be able to be taken into consideration for college admissions (among other things), and I'll tell you why.

Someone above said "Why not let the schools decide who to accept based on their SAT scores and high school performance?". Because then you'd be leaving out important sources of merit (yes, merit. I'll get to that in a second.).

First of all, assuming "smarter" is the goal, SAT scores and high school grades cannot be relied upon to accurately reflect exactly how much smarter one student is over another. Sometimes it reflects that one student could afford to take an expensive college-exam prep course, and one could not (and believe me, those prep classes really do make a big difference in most student's scores). Sometimes it reflects that one student is just worse at test-taking. And even if we could trust those testing scores alone, I think that everyone would agree that past "performance" is not an indicator of future performance. In fact, students that tend to score well on standardized tests tend to be good students - but often NOT as successful in the business world.

As to grades, many high schools have bumped up the grade points to a 5-point scale for more challenging "AP" or "Honors" courses. That means a B is worth 4 points. That also means that many students who apply to colleges have OVER a 4.0 grade average. It was quite common at our school (not to mention, it was also common to have a larger number of applicants with the exact "same" test scores and grades than we actually have openings--then what do you do?). An "A" at one school can be like a "B" at another school.

Scores and grades can be useful tools in evaluating prospective students. Absolutely. But they should NEVER be used as the only criteria of merit.

Second. What I want to know is, how in the world did you get the idea that the *smartest* person would contribute the most to their college classmates? Because admissions IS like a hiring process for a job as classmate, not some kind of final solution to one's highschool life. Nine out of ten of our graduates cited classmates as the most valuable part of their college education. In particular, the fact that they were able to learn another point of view that they probably would never have come into contact with otherwise.

So how do we evaluate whether we should "hire" an applicant as a student? One tool is to look at how different this person is from the other classmates, so that you can have the broadest quality learning experience possible. This could include things like socio-economic backgrounds, geographical locations, number of languages spoken, how much someone has traveled, someone who has a more unusual experience like Outward Bound, a year as an exchange student in another country, the Peace Corp, or yes...race. You can't tell me that women or people of color growing up in the U.S. today can have EXACTLY the same perspective and experience as their white male counterparts.

Let's say you have two applicants, with the exact same SAT scores and grades. Your current student body is 80% white male. One of the applicants is in fact a white male, from a privileged background in a large U.S. city. The other applicant happens to be an Asian female, who grew up in a small town in another country before living in the U.S. If you were tasked with making a "hiring" decision as to who would make a better classmate, it would seem reasonable that the second classmate should be selected. Now what if the second applicant has a SLIGHTLY lower standardized test score, and the only other information you have is race and gender? You would probably not be making a better hiring decision by choosing the first applicant. In fact, it still seems pretty clear to me that the second applicant is probably going to provide more diversity of point of view if added to that student body. As long as someone is meeting certain academic thresholds, this area of merit is the most important, in my opinion.

"The problem with AA is that it allows people who are less qualified for the job to be selected or promoted over people who are better qualified." No, some of these people actually are more qualified (though perhaps not as good at test-taking). As I said, I don't really believe in quotas, or necessarily AA. But I object very much to the idea that I can't EVER take race into account as a way of evaluating differences in background/experience. Despite what the average uninformed voter thinks. It doesn't mean one person is smarter; it means one person is much more DIFFERENT from all the other people in the student body, which results in a more valuable learning experience for everyone. It doesn't have to be based on race, but it could be. Heck, you could argue that you are only looking at the "result" of race, and not race per se.

Again, just one man's opinion. Thanks for considering it.

We Republicans must accept that patriotic Americans, including many conservatives and apparently including the president, are prepared after twelve years to give the Democrats a fair chance to show that they can legislate competently. No one but us hard-core RedStaters is even paying any attention to the Republicans right now. We can do as we please; it makes little difference at the moment.

However, two years is a long time. The Democrats will make mistakes and hand us issues. And, John is right: the immigration issue is huge and it isn't going away.

Under the political radar at the moment, but soon to re-emerge, flies another major issue: free trade and America's vanishing industrial base. What makes this issue so interesting politically is that the Republicans themselves -- elected officials and the base -- do not at all agree which side of the issue the party stands on. Refer to

http://www.econnat.us/

for example, for a Republican view of the matter which contradicts the view RedState's editors most often express. The issues of economic nationalism and liberal global markets cut pretty sharply across established party lines, promising some pretty unstable, unpredictable political action to come, I think.

We ought to admit that the best outcome would be that the Democrats legislated so wisely, they left the Republicans no opportunity to return to power. However, as far as I know, no parliamentary majority in the English-speaking world has ever to date legislated so wisely over a prolonged period of time.

Ambitious Republican politicians need not fear, I think. Nancy Pelosi is not FDR. This Democratic majority is not going to last the better part of sixty years as the last one did. We'll have our chance again; the question is whether we will be ready for it when it comes, don't you think?

>>>>We ought to admit that the best outcome would be that the Democrats legislated so wisely, they left the Republicans no opportunity to return to power.

I guess that's why Steny Hoyer has gone on TV already and killed Charlie Rangel's draft reinstatement. Besides, if you scratch the typical "Fair Trade" advocate hard enough, you'll find that most of his arguments are taken out Kapital. It usually boils down to the economic nationalist telling America's consumers what they are allowed to buy and for what price they may obtain these goods and services.

2006 is done, 2008 is another day and another fight

Bush's ownership society was a Potemkin village. It didn't offer much substantial at all, just a lot of rhetoric. The GOP does need to get out in front on these issues, but they need to come up with real choices and alternatives-- and also pay attention to what the public wants, not offer solutions that thte public will not buy.

Decathlon Man is right--Social Security reform (with personal accounts) was a great issue that was poorly packaged. President Bush had a great idea here, but tried to sell it by traveling around the country. He would get a few thousand people cheering at meetings and a sound bite, while the Democrats got the whole MSM saying that Bush was trying to "privatize" Social Security and THEY (Democrats) were "saving" Social Security by doing nothing! What they were really doing was kicking the can down the road and making it harder to solve later, but the MSM never mentioned that!

The major mistake was going public with an issue without working out the details with Congressional leaders. President Bush thought that "Congress" would fill in the details, but we ended up with three or four Republican proposals in the House, none of which had a majority, and the Democrats filled every blank with zeroes, and won the propaganda war.

Democrats also tried to say that they were in favor of personal accounts as an "add-on", with contributions coming out of taxpayers' pockets, not payroll taxes. There are two names for such personal accounts: IRA's and 401K's, and they are great ideas for those who can afford them.

But what about those who can't afford them? A couple making $40,000 per year with children might have the right to put $4,000 a year into an IRA, but can't afford to save 10% of their income, and the tax saving means nothing, because they don't pay income taxes anyway! But give them the chance to set aside and invest part of their payroll taxes (which they must pay anyway) and retire with $150K or $200K in the bank, and the existing Social Security doesn't look so hot anymore, especially if it's broke by the time they retire. The program would have to be structured so that those opting for personal accounts lose a proportionate share of their ordinary benefits, but most 30- or 40-year-olds don't expect Social Security to be around when they retire anyway.

For those worried about transition costs, this could be combined with an increase in the maximum income on which Social Security taxes are paid. Instead of $90,000, how about $300,000 or $500,000? Not many voters would be hurt by this, but it would raise a ton of money, possibly enough to lower the payroll tax rate, cover the amounts lost to the personal accounts (from the government's point of view), and be revenue-neutral. A proposal like this might lose a few well-to-do voters (but how many of them would vote for the Democrats?) but be popular with huge swaths of low- to middle-income people in the cities and close-in suburbs, where Republicans have been losing support lately. It can be presented as a boon to everyone, but sold especially to low- and middle-income voters.

But we can't go out there with a vague proposal about increasing "rate of return" (which non-investors don't understand) and asking Congress to fill in the numbers. We need to have White House economists work with Republican Congressional leaders (even in the minority) during 2007 (when nothing useful is likely to be done) to work through the numbers and come up with a detailed plan that all Republicans in Congress will pledge to vote for (as well as Republican challengers for Dem seats), then campaign in 2008 saying that "give us the majority, this is what you'll get. Vote for the Democrats, you'll get nothing, and Social Security will soon go bankrupt."

Then, if we get the majority and the White House in 2008, go ahead and pass the plan during the first 100 days, and let the Democrats try to campaign on repealing it.

The bad news: Conservatism is hard to sell. The good news is that it works.

One of the interesting phenomena post-election is that the press seems a little less inclined to treat the lack of alternatives to the President's proposals as an acceptable response. A number of articles have lately been published, all with the theme the new majority needs to step up to the plate with ideas of their own if they don't like the ones that have been put forward thus far. These pieces include Jay Ambrose's, David Shribner's, and even one in the Atlanta Journal-Constiution entitled "A fix needed, quickly; Democrats have a chance to do more than criticize."

Re kicking the can down the road, you are absolutely right. The total shortfall facing the program is now $13.4 Trillion, up from $10.5 T in the 2003 Trustees' report. Most of the increase is solely because of the delays in reforming the program.

These people get hammered by bracket creep due to COLA. It costs more to live in DC, so you get paid more than someone doing the identical job to yours in say Huntsville Al, or Killeen, Tx. As a result, if you are middle to upper managaement, you get AMT'd.

They're not exactly looking out for The People with this one, but they are looking out for the upwardly mobile people who chuck a few dollars into the PAC kitties. THis will get some serious attention fairly soon.

2006 is done, 2008 is another day and another fight

Well, more and more people are falling under the AMT, particularly those suburban voters who Barone and Adam mention. This is a much, much bigger issue than the estate tax.

It is generally starting to catch upper-middle class voters in big urban areas. In other words, NYC, SF, DC are about to start paying more in taxes which Ds will probably change. What will be funny is hearing how they explain this "tax cut for the rich."

I did see someone advocating for the opposite result in reforming the AMT. Right now you pay the higher of either the normal tax code (with loopholes) or the flat rate AMT. Someone argued that we should change it so you could pay the lower of either then normal tax code or a slightly higher flat rate AMT. Over time, more people would be using a flat rate tax instead of a loophole ridden tax code. Also, it would give voters a choice between the complex system and a simple X% with no deductions. Finally, it could be a foot-in-the-door for an eventual major simplification of the tax code to a flat rate, no deduction system.

Social Security Choice - Club For Growth

If a politician tried to forbid people from parroting liberal drivel in newspapers or on TV, there would be a huge hue and cry about "censorship" and "First Amendment freedom of speech" rights.

But there may be a way around this: establish political "equal opportunity hiring laws" regulating television networks, whereby all news and political debate shows must have equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats presenting news and political opinion, both of whom have equal air time. Also, for war reporting, require that every report of "X number of civilians killed" in a war be balanced by a sound bite of equal length from an American military spokesperson.

This way, the liberal point of view would still be out there, for those who like it, but neither side could claim unfairness.

The problem is, nothing like this will pass a Dem-controlled Congress. In the meantime, we need to get our most articulate spokesmen out there before the press, as often as possible, with a concise and clear message.

The bad news: Conservatism is hard to sell. The good news is that it works.

I don't like to be telling all of you this: now that the Democrats will be in the federal majority again starting in January '07, the Fairness Doctrine will be brought up again soon by Congress! One of the new Democratic U.S. Representatives has already brought up trying to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, but I don't remember her name. Also, the mainstream liberal press keeps bringing up the idea of reviving the Fairness Doctrine every now and then. Hopefully, it won't pass a probable Bush veto if it even gets to the President's desk at all, but the Democrats will be trying very hard to maintain their majorities for as long as they can and however they can at every political level. If the "political left" can succeed in gagging and silencing conservatism everywhere in the world in both the short-term as well as in the long-term, then they will fully "go for it" in bringing back the creation of the Fairness Doctrine.

Are you sure you know what the Fairness Doctrine is? Tell me, what exactly does it have to do with Equal Opportunity Hiring laws?

1. Iraq:Get it resolved, even if it means "defeat".
Defeat is NOT an option. You are taking the Democrat view that Iraq is simply a political issue to throw around. Iraq, believe it or not, is the central front in the war against Islamofascism. We can cut and run (defeat) and it will solve absolutely nothing. Just because WE quit, does not mean our enemies will quit. AND YES, Iraq IS the GWOT. It is NOT a side issue. Dems might claim that, but they are being entirely disingenuous with that claim. If the US had left Saddam Hussein in power and instead gone into:take your pick; Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, North Korea. the Dems would today be screaming: "WHY didn't you go after Saddam. We all know he supports terrorism and has WMDs."

2. correct. Not for the reason you believe, but correct. We should keep our position on social issues because it is the core of our beliefs. This is not a problem to those who simply take positions based on what they believe the public will support from polling. But if you actually HAVE core values, you should stick with them.

3. Take a look at what is happening to the economy and to the deficits. The tax cuts came first, and now, because of increased economic activity, stimulated by the tax cuts, the deficits are coming down. Tax cuts increase the revenue to the government, and they have done it every time they have been tried.

On the other hand, if Republican lawmakers would stop SPENDING like drunken Democrats, the deficits would come down a heck of a lot faster. We can look for the Dems in power to want to raise taxes, in order to bring down the deficits, while at the same time increasing spending like, well, drunken Democrats. The result will be a slowing of the economy, and less tax revenue, and greater deficits. History is a good source of this phenonomon.

4. I dislike the Fed. They have, all too often cut the money supply in their fears about inflation to the point that they choke it off and cause recession. The Fed swings back and forth...hopefully Vernanke will not swing so widely as greenspan.

See The World In HinzSight!
Political HinzSight

1.) You may feel that way but the American public feels differently. I'm not here to argue the merits of that war. But, until you realize that the argument that's being put forth by the Administration - that Iraq is the central front in the GWOT - is nonstarter you can kiss power good bye.

2) Correct.

3) Traditionally the GOP has embraced tight money, low spending and balanced budgets. Supply-side, laffer curve and all that wasn't adopted until Reagan. And I'm sorry to break it to you, but the record is poor -- at least as far as the budget deficits go. Tax cuts have been met with spiraling debt. It happened in the 80's and it happened in the Bush era. The only break in our national budget got was in the 90's when Clinton raised taxes. Its really as simple as it seems -- raise taxes and the government borrows less.

I understand that Republicans are oppposed to taxes. I'm not arguing that you should ape the Democrats on this. But leave taxes alone until you cut your way to surpluses. That's really what people want from the GOP. They expect Dems to raise taxes and raise spending and Republicans to do the opposite. If Republicans cut and borrow, they can expect a quick boot, and well they should. Ditch Reagan and embrace Hoover. Until you guys get over the phony nostrum of supply-side, you're doomed.

4.) Half right. Supply-siders argue for tax cuts that will stimulate business growth and subsequently fuller employment. The problem is that the business community doesn't want that. Tight labor markets mean higher labor costs. So whatever benefits tax cuts create are negated by the Fed. And this really puts the lie to supply-side. The business community knows that the laffer curve will never achieve what it sets out to do, don't want it to anyways, and if it gets even close will "take away the punch bowl". But it they sell it to the faithful so they can take they're tax cuts AND get they're higher interest rates by lending the government money instead of having it taxed from them.

The Republicans could go three ways with this: 1) Keep playing this shell game and hope the American people don't catch on, 2) go real populist, cut taxes and demand the Fed keep interest rates low (funny but the only ones demanding Fed accountability are on the left) or 3) return to Hoovernomics and keep the employment market "elastic" and growth steady by returning to tight money. The side effect would be balanced budgets.