Redstate

A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli

To keep up your current level of good cheer and good fellowship throughout the coming hearings, ideally in a televised manner. KTHXBYE.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

I have seen more homophobia out of the Democratic party in the last 90 days then from any party in recent memory. For a party full of people screeching about McCarthyism they sure are not ashamed to practice it.

Same for the profanity. One can not engage a LLL in a debate without them resorting to it.

As for pron, the Democrats can't seem to get enough of it.

Plenty of racism too whenever the Republicans run a minority candidate for anything.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

I am sure the Ds are breathing a sigh of relief that the republican lawn jockeys (according to Esquire magazine) lost.

McCain has been on TV all night saying that we need to get back to conservative ideals. But is he the person we need? He certainly is saying the right things. I can't think of anyone in the administration that can. I don't think Condi is the one. Hasert, Frist, the current leadership and the administration really botched this up. Talent is conceding right now.

Romney. Not sure.

and to be honest I suspect having a democratic congress to run against helps him as a candidate more than it hurts him.

Although I still can't stand him, and he won't be getting my support-at least not in a primary.

Is not someone who should be allowed to claim the term 'conservative'. He gets log rolled by the dhimmies all too often.
If it is McCain vs. any dem on the ballot, I will go McCain. But nearly any Republican vs. McCain will go against McCain. Thanks to McCain, Republicans were in disarray on Judges and borders.

being in the opposition/minority than majority.

McCain loves to buck the system-he loves a good fight. I suspect that with the dems the guys in power, we probably won't see quite as much McCain playing up to the democratic side of the aisle. I still don't like him, still wouldn't support the man in a primary, but I suspect he may actually be a better spokesman for the GOP in minority-since he will always have the guys in power to buck-and the media still loves him.

except that for the most part the media only loves him when he's bucking President Bush. When he and Bush are in agreement he gets little air time.

the Dems won, didn't they?

is that trying to be Dems Lite or We Suck Less (I first saw that term here - love it) doesn't demonstrate any sort of leadership. It comes across as cowering to the opponents and offering them concession after concession. Compare to the better days of a Bush getting tax cuts through or Reagan standing up to Congress.

To some extent, we were doing what the Dems have done for years, which is not offer a clear plan. The beauty of Newt's Contract was that it laid out what we were for and you could take it or leave it. Then when we won, he went after what he'd promised and delivered much of it.

Instead the past few years we've seen softness on immigration, love for huge government programs, etc. coming from our side. The Dems have offered little more than Bush lied, no matter how much you spend it's not enough, etc. as opposed to offering any plan, other than to hike taxes. But we've strayed so far off the path that people figured if we're not getting the job done right then let's try something different.

It's not as if we haven't been "cowering" all along. You are right on target with that bk. Where the hell are all the Newts??? Surely there are some staunch conservatives around that don't either scare people off with their hellfire and damnation attitudes (Santorum-not that I don't agree with him but there is a limit to where you can go)or believe in more than just staying strong on the war.
From the very beginning Bush lost the base. Unfortunately there is no other choice for me except to vote the Republican ticket, whether I like the candidates or not. Many voters didn't realize, I'm afraid, what was at stake if they "tried something different." Well, Nancy P. will certainly give them a wake up call now that she's got power. I'll bet many who voted Dem. don't even know who she is & what she's done,(ala Hannity's Man On the Street).

Arizona was a bloodbath for GOP House incumbents, but they passed an "English" proposal there.

I think the evidence is irrefutable that, contrary to the deeply held opinion of many, opposition to immigration is not a viable electoral strategy

The evidence must must be really irrefutable if I, and probably most other people around here, don't know what you are talking about. Is the evidence that being pro-enforcement is unworkable the enormous popularity of the White House, who was consistently for "comprehensive reform" including "non-amnesty" for illegals?

As for Roe, going to the pro-abortion side would reduce the Republicans to permanent minority status.

There is nothing to be gained by becoming the Democrats. The people who want Democrats will vote for the original, not the cheap copy.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

Quote from Zuiko:
"The people who want Democrats will vote for the original, not the cheap copy."

That is probably the best quote to describe what happened last night. Republicans ticked off the base. Most held their noses and voted anyway but there is sure to have been a large drop off of frustrated voters who just stayed home or cast a "protest" vote.

And you cant completely blame the voters, a lot has to go to the candidates for creating the situation. Even Nancy Johnson lost. She shouldnt have since she has been an incumbent for years and not done a horrible job for CT liberal standards. But her promo materials have just been "im the biggest pig at the govt trough!!!"

That is typical, it seems, of many democrats...oops, freudian slip...republicans. So you get an angry base that may stay home and democrats who will just vote one of their own if there isnt a distiguishable difference.

As for immigration (further up the thread), I know many liberals who are also mad at that situation so I wouldnt categorize it as a losing issue based on one race.

The republicans should take a lesson from private sector marketing... you're sales will not be as brisk when you yell, "hey, im just the same!" The first thing every product/service/politico needs is a distinguishing feature.

The biggest problem is that in individual races there were distinguishing differences, not all republicans are RINOs, but without an overall agenda and clear conservative message that sets us apart (WHICH WE DO HAVE) even the good guys get knocked down with the bad. Honestly, if we had more "controversial" conservatives ticking off democrats and creating a stir in the media, people would see through that. Unfortunately whe we were left with was a bland bunch of "me too"s and we let the democrats paint us into an Iraq referendum when we didnt need to.

Was the GOP really helped by those who implied that dissent from the House GOP's hard-line was tantamount to treason?

Does saying, "If you disagree with me on this issue, it's proof you're betraying the country" really going to win votes? Or does it also promote people to decide not to stick their necks out for those who have shown nothing but contempt for them.

Unless those and those like you begin to realize that illegal immigration has been trinagulated against us (thank you, Mr. President), get ready for many, many nights like this one.

If the Republican Party doesn't stand for law and order, it fails.

And this time, it didn't.

But let us begin with those who bear these last names: Dole and Bush, before we begin to get to the more esoteric notions of leadership and all. Let us purge ourselves of them first.

Come on, are you serious?

In case you didn't notice, a lot of high-profile hard-liners lost. Maybe iof the self-proclaimed "base" had spent less time kneecapping President Bush and Senator Dole, and more time going after the Democrats, we might have held Congress.

Whether you are in the mood or not. And it is well deserved. Obviously that word won't be used, but it is about to begin full bore.

I am in no mood to be lectured by any self-appointed zampolit on any issue at this point.

You want to jab at me, you'd better be ready for me to swing back.

leadership, except I don't think Mitch McConnell would be bad as a minority leader-he is a pretty consistent conservative voice, he just had wishy washy Frist out front.

I also think where the dems creamed us is in recruitment of candidates. They recruited a lot of conservative leaning candidates to run in red districts-we recruited Katherine Harris.

I think the saddest thing tonight is that Steele was a great candidate, and I think in almost any other year he would have won the seat but this one.

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

I think we can safely now, go against the President on things like open borders. No longer are Republicans required to try and
defend nearly indefensible things coming out of the white house.

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

but McCain would have to be one of them. His being a maverick insulates him from the anti-GOP spirit that was evident, though he's saying things conservatives want to hear. Would he be able to run as more of a centrist than someone like Hillary?

People outside of Washington like Giuliani and Romney are helped because of all the damage done to the Republicans inside the Beltway. Besides McCain, is there any Republican left in Washington you can see winning the GOP nomination in 2008?

I didn't see any Republican in DC winning the nomination in the first place.

I'm not so sure this helps Guilini either. Nearly everything he has going for him is his 9/11 image and perceived toughness on security. Well, Bush has that too and we can see how that has worked out. What this turn of events tells me is that a very large chunk of the population is tired of the GWOT and wants to give up and go home. They don't want to be reminded of 9/11. I think that has to hurt someone like Guliani, who is so connected to the event.

Romney comes out on top. If there were any other decent prospects from the ranks of governors who were likely to run in 2008, I can't think of any others that would qualify.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

I couldnt disagree with you more regarding your assetion that the public wants to give up in Iraq and go home. I think the opposite is true. The public wants a path to victory, and their frustration was taken out on the GOP because Bush could not, or would not tell them what that path was.

The Dems were smart this time around. They took republican clones (and good candidates) and ran them in red states. We sat back on our laurels and ran crappy candidates in blue states.

But I think these voters know better. Do people really think there is some magic solution to the Iraq problem that it sitting there waiting to be administered by a Democrat controlled congress? I don't think so. There are two options. Fight on or retreat. When people voted for the D candidate, they knew which option they were really voting for. I've never seen as much fatigue on anything as I've seen on Iraq. So many were eager to turn it into Vietnam, and I think they just might succeed on that count. These hideous electoral results serve to confirm this phenomenon.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

However, if we ran moderate candidates in blue states, many posters here would jump up and down and call them RINO's and the Club for Growth would fund some social conservaite in the next primary to defeat them and hand the seat back to the Dems.

To come up with a plan for victory. It doesn't sound like much, but thats what opposition parties do.

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

How many polls does it take to convince you that
Roe is noteven close the the top issue on the mind of the electorate?

Yes the problem is the post-war Iraq/Afghan operations.

Yes the problem is entitlement spending.

Yes the problem is unchecked immigration.

Yes the problem is a culture of corruption. Both parties are guilty of this.

I could go on but the bottom line is the party must return its focus to things that matter to people's every day life. Taxes have been addressed to a large part. Can we move beyond being just the party of tax cuts and be one of fiscal restraint, personal responsibility, government accountability and strong defense? Reagan did not win by crusading about abortion or gay marriage - he spoke his peace and everyone knew where he stood but he knew there were other problems which needed to be addressed that were far more important and pressing. Lets return to that approach.

Rant Street! www.rant.st

I'm a little puzzled on your comments about the death tax though. You almost make it sound like we should just do away with wills and the government takes it all, since the beneficiaries didn't earn it. I know I'm overstating it, but where do you draw the line? The person who earned the money paid the taxes on it, so he should be able to do what he wants with it. If he wants to give it Uncle Sam, fine. If he wants to give it to a charity or his church, fine. If he wants to give it to his relatives, fine. You say it's not fair for you to benefit from money you didn't earn without paying some sort of "guilt" penalty, but what the hell, no one who's looking to take it away never earned it either - the person who earned it is dead.

And to make it more complicated, what about people who work all their lives to build some small business out of nothing? Their family no doubt suffered through years of false starts and lean times before reaching any point of success. Now when that person dies, should the family lose the business? Should they lose half of it? Why shouldn't the family who sacrificed in the building of the business get to continue to run it or seel it or whatever they want to do with it without some arbitrary goverment rule saying that they have suddenly have to chop themselves up?

Which is more fair, letting people decide in their wills how to handle their money or having the government take their hard-earned dollars out of their family's hands?

You make a good point that I'm drawing a fuzzy line here. And fuzzy lines seem to be somewhat unprincipled, since their exact placement is to a degree arbitrary.

But the way I think about it is to compare harms. Yes, it is bad for the government to take hard-earned money from a family that earned it. But it is also bad that very rich families have money that is in essence completely un-earned. Just think about the Kennedy's -- without a death tax they can sequester some of their assets into an income-generating account and their descendants could reap the benefits literally forever, since assets grow exponentially faster than inflation.

Neither situation is entirely fair. That is why I strike what I think is a balance between the two -- dilute a family's assets every generation. This allows descendants to retain a proportion of their family's success, but they also have to continue to earn that success.

njson - under our constitution, where is it said that one man can decide how much accumulated wealth another should benefit from? Is it not at our discretion to decide whom we transfer our personal possessions to? Who amongst us has more authority than ourselves what we do with our labors and assets?

Who is king?

This is not a Constitutional issue, but that doesn't mean it isn't properly under the purview of legislation (whether it's more appropriate for the state or federal government to administer is an argument I can't even think about right now it's so late).

The Public Good and the Sanctity of the Individual are both king, and are at odds here as in many cases. Is it written in the Bible that money should have the ability to grow exponentially, ad infinitum? No, and it is not our natural right.

It is our natural right to provide for our family, however, but as I have said, this must be balanced against the unfairness inherent in our economy for families that have gross surpluses.

Fairness of opportunity, not fairness of outcome. I may outperform my neighbor in droves, that does not give said neighbor the right to benefit from my production. Nor does it give me a right to tax thy neighbor for underperformance. No man has a rightful benefit from another's labors, unless the first lends him that benefit. We are supposed to be equal under the law.

is more that these gross surpluses trickle through generations while growing exponentially.

If investment didn't pretty much guarantee exponential growth, then I would agree with you. If I make $100, it's mine, whether I want to give it to my great-great-great-grandkids or not. But when that $100 turns into $2000 by no real effort of mine? That isn't something I feel I have nearly as much of a claim to. Especially when a family has so much money they don't need to sacrifice anything for those benefits.

I try to understand your public good argument, and I think you lean towards a philanthropical ends. Here is where I think we differ... I think gov't lacks good judgement and markets seek the best return on money. Even when charity or public good is concerned, I think private investment adds more to those in need better than gov't programs. Private investment, even in promotion of public good requires a return, whereas gov't seeds and there is no accountability. This is why I think private enterprise could better serve those in true need of a hand up than gov't.

From an economic perspective, dead money has far less velocity than live money, Meaning, heirs are less likely to use the wealth in the same money generating ways. I would however, allow
a generous exemption for family business and farms to remain intact.

This is my one bow of the head to socialism. It seems silly to me to take a firm stand against it on principle when in fact our entire economic system is replete with socialism of all types and not likely to change.

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

unless the heirs are going to stick that extra money in their mattress I would have to disagree with you. heirs are probably going to invest that money in other corporations through mutual funds and stocks who will, in turn, use it for money generating pursuits.

Much moreso than the government will.

Even if they just spend it like drunken sailors living a life of idle luxury, they'll still be bolstering the luxury hotel, auto, boat, food, entertainment, etc industries better than the government can.

The person who earned the money paid the taxes on it, so he should be able to do what he wants with it.

Is this: The person in question can't do whatever he wants with his money without paying taxes on it, today. If he gives it to someone, the recipient is taxed. If he hires someone with it, both he and the recipient are taxed. If he spends it on something, he is taxed. Sure, he has this pile of money that he paid income taxes on, but nearly any use he puts it to, other than giving it to charity, will result in taxes having to be paid on it.

I don't see how taxing a $5m inheritance is any less fair than taxing a $5m gift or a $5m job or a $5m purchase or $5m in dividends or capital gains. Nearly every bit of money floating around out there has been taxed over and over again. It gets taxed nearly every time it changes hands. That's just how our system works.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

I am the "heir" to this exact situation. When my father passed in '03 I didn't "inherit" his empire...Because of the Death Tax I had to use the insurance $ and go into deep debt to purchase it and still pay taxes on his estate to the tune of four million. This with the aid of an entire accting firm and five estate lawyers. My family & I ended up with a few condos and a 40' boat.

He paid the Lion's share of taxes his entire life. Why should MORE of it go to the gov't???

Can any Dems, or anyone answer this???

Iraq - What do you do about it? I don't see some easy solution just waiting to be implemented. Do we bail and leave the Iraqis to their own devices, or do we stay? At the end of the day that is what it comes down to. We have to decide. I'm afraid that the majority is leaning towards option #1.

Taxes - I don't get the part about "Comparing that to what we've got now...well, I'm sure you'd rather not have what we have now." Would I be willing to trade the higher taxes of the Clinton years for the lower taxes today? No. I'm not sure why I would be. The Clinton tax hikes (after promising "middle class tax cuts") demonstrate that we don't "make too much of Democrats raising taxes."

Death Tax - I really don't have a problem with it either. There's nothing more unfair about the death tax than there is about the income tax or any other tax. It is hard for the government to confiscate your money under threat of imprisonment while maintaining the impression that they are being fair about it.

Stem Cells - Well, we were never talking about a ban there. We are talking about government funded research. That puts it in an entirely different category. Because we aren't talking about a ban on the research, I don't really have to decide whether I think stem cells are worth protecting. It is enough for me that other people have strong convictions on the issue, and it is not a constitutionally mandated function of government to fund research, there's funding available from private industry, non-profits, foreign governments, and even some states.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

I didn't mean to say that you would prefer higher taxes. I meant to say that you probably don't like the profligate spending and its implications for the long-term viability of further reducing taxes.

I don't like the spending at all, but that has been getting better in recent years, with the worst performance (by far) when we had a Democrat controlled Senate, after Jeffords jumped... so that indicates to me that a Democrat controlled House and Senate are not going to be some boon to the fiscally conservative taxpayer, divided or not.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

I dont like it so why would I, then, approve of a Death Tax? You think that it isnt a constitutional issue but it is. The Constitution allows for the taxation of its citizens to pay for solely the purposes enumerated within it.

since the goverment is full of unconstitutional endeavors, such as the department of (place name here), we already have too much unconstitutional taxation going on to even laughably support a confiscatory tax on the dead that for money and assets that they already paid taxes on.

Here is where you are heading in the wrong direction:

Iraq -- You have fallen for the anti-war hysteria of the left, same as the Lamont supporters here in CT. I'd attribute this to the never-ending "all-negative-all-the-time" reporting from Iraq & the relentless attacks on the President from the power-hungry Dems. The public has been duped in this regard ... for one to state "I believe that the war is simply, irretrievably lost ..." is proof-positive of this observation. To actually believe that a fully functioning gov't w/ security forces can be up & running in ~18 months is simply unrealistic, especially in a place that endured centuries of internal strife & decades of iron-handed dictatorial rule. 50+ years after the Korean War & we still have troops in the south, we still have bases in Japan, Italy & Germany ... 60+ years after WWII -- both of which were convention, troop-vs-troop warfare, unlike this conflict. I'd much rather see us engaging the enemy in this theatre vs. our well armed, well trained military, than on the streets on NYC or even Main Street USA.

Taxes --- Your first mistake is believing that the gov't is in the busness of showing a profit (i.e. a budget surplus) ... make no mistake, a surplus is over-taxation. With 80% of the economy being generated by consumer spending, how one could come to the conclusion that the gov't could stimulate the ecomomy by sitting on our $$$'s in a surplus vs. the power of the people (i.e. the consumer) makes no sense, at all.

Death tax -- While you may come from "means" & face this tax, not everyone is. If this tax reverted back to the pre-2001 law, it is not too difficult to see that family-owned property can quickly eat into the $1M exemption. I'll give you a personal example ... The beautiful home my father, a carpenter, built with his own 2-hands in the late 60s for ~20k is now worth well over $400k ... likewise, his forward-looking retirement investment was to build 5,000 sq/ft of commercial property for rental income. This property is worth over $500k, FMV. If my folks live another 20 years, into their 80s, these 2 properties will easily reach over the $1M cap ... this scenario can play out many different ways with people of "lesser means". It is very Un-American to penalize those who feel a sense of accomplishment by providing the next generation with some tangible assets from a life time of hard work.

Stem Cell Research -- I think you are a bit misguided in one respect ... the debate is on gov't funding to manufacture and\or harvest embryo's for research purposes. Ask yourself this question: Do you want embryo factories? I believe most people do not want to see one come to a research-triangle near them. The thought is like a really bad King or Asimov novel.

Finally, like like many guilt-ridden people "of means" ... your statement: "It's just not fair that I'm making so much income for ZERO contribution to society." is so telling. If you really think about this statement ... you would see 2 very different paths to subside your guilt. The first, of course, is to mindlessly give your $$$s to the gov't for redistribution ... but the other ... more Republican solution .. would be to take some personal responsibility & CHOOSE a charity that you can donate your guilt to ... hey, why not walk up to a person of less means & write them a nice-big check instead.

See, your outlook of making "ZERO contribution to society" is of your own doing, not of the generation before you ... just you. If you were so motivated, you could eliminate this self-prescribed guilt all by yourself.

Oh, it all looks and sounds reasonable, but only if you don't dig deeper.

Iraq - Wars are never unwinnable. They are either won or lost. They are either won or lost when the other side loses the will to fight. You do that by killing as many of the enemy as possible, as quickly as possible, and with ruthless efficiency that breaks the will of your opponent to continue to fight. We haven't fought that way. Our political leaders ordered our troops to back off every time we were on the verge of doing that. When we leave Iraq (sorry Moe, I wish I could say if, but the Dems won) the terrorist will return, and having once again kicked our *** they won't hide the fact that they are using Iraq as their Al Queda training ground like they did when Sadam ran the country, they will flaunt it openly. Then, they will strike here, probably in lots of major cities across the country at the same time. This is what your "victory" has brought our country. I say this because even though the President is the commander in chief, the House has to fund the war. They undercut simple covert support to Nicaragua when the confirmed communists there were intent on exporting totaliterianism all over South America. Given that history, they won't have any qualms about cutting overt aid in the Middle East.

Taxes: As has probably already been posted, the so-called Clinton surpluses came about AFTER Newt Gringrich lead the revolution that took the House. This one thing more than any other probably undercut Republican turnout this election cycle. If you can't trust a Republican to cut spending, nobody is going to. And that means taxes are going up. Which in turn means the economy will slow, or slump. Either way, thay means taxes will need to go up because there will be even more "need" for "help" from the government. And we once again will spin into the cycle of malaise from the Carter years that too many have forgotten.

Stem cell research: You should probably start by reading the following editorial at the Washington Times, http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20061107-082914-1508r.htm
I'll wait while you go read and digest it.

...

Okay, got it? There isn't "stem cell research," there are multiple kinds of it. I'm all for adult stem cell research, and all for placental cell research. I think the embryo is a human being and that any time you make a human being an means to an end, you devalue all human life. So for me, embryonic stem cell research is right on par with Mengele and his research on the Jews and all the other "undesirables". JMS had an a good episode of B5 that I always think of when this debate comes up. There was a Dilgar war criminal who devised a serum that would restore youth and vigor to whoever took it. It worked, and the doctor on the station scientifically proved it. The catch, making it would requiring killing tens or hundreds of people for each dose. In the episode the Vorlons eventually kill the war criminal, but here in the real world, there are no Vorlons to save us from our folly.

taxes: This is probably where I believe you least of all.

First, the government doesn't need to take any money from inheritance to dilute it. If you're a typical family, you dilute it within a couple of generations. If you've got two kids, the minimum necessary for population replacement, the initial inheritance is halved on first pass. Then that family uses some of it to pay for things, be it a house, pay off debt, or send their kids to college. So it gets harder to get back up to the original amount that was divided, which is necessary to prevent further dilution.

Second, I don't think it doesn't make a contribution to society. Whether that money is helping someone buy a house, a boat, a business, or a vacation, the money does contribute to the well being of someone somewhere in society. Disregarding that good is typical of the arrogance of most of the libs I've encountered who are sure they know what it best not only for me, but for all of society. If you don't like those options, give it to the church, the peace corp, or the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation. It's your money, do what you want with it. Just don't tell me what to do with mine, even through mob vote.

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

This is why I am constantly surprised why so many conservatives who claim to uphold these values consistently side with people who /want/ censorship, government intrusion, police states, etc. Namely, many people on the christian right, and many of the cryptofascists currently in government.

Hun...

Right now it is the Democrats who are practicing the principles you mentioned.

They want to burn Fox News to the ground because it doesn't spew forth the Democratic line. Same for talk radio and blogs. On the rest of the MSM they intentionally bury/spin anything and everything that may be a problem for the Democrats. They only report on things that are to the advantage of the Democrats and leave out important facts. You never see a Republican given a fair chance on CNN or MSNBC. And just wait, you will see the Democrats try to censor them by trying to place regulations on non liberal Democrat radio/TV/internet that the liberal Democrat sources do not have to adhere to. To me that is censorship straight out of the NSDAP handbook.

You seem to hate "government intrusion" into a persons privacy yet are quite happy to encourage it when it will benefit your side. OMG! We can't listen in on phone calls by suspected terrorists but it is just fine and dandy to pass around video/phone call records/emails and IM records like a bottle of cheap wine when it suits your purposes. Rather hypocritical don't you think?

You talk of "police states". Where in this country might those be exactly? One thing I can tell you is that if you have a "W" sticker on your car in San Francisco you will find your car trashed by some nice upstanding liberals. If they actually see you getting into that car you stand a good chance of getting beaten up. I know that one for a fact after a visit to San Francisco for a convention-don't worry, I will never set foot in that city again. In places like those you have a police state of the mind where anyone who doesn't follow the Liberal Democratic line is subject to hatred and violence. Rather fascist behaviour, isn't it?

Sorry hun but your whole post is just more of the same out of your side of the fence. You do not see your hypocrisy.

First of all, yes there is a lot of spin on BOTH sides -- this is what has happened in the divisive political war here at home. People's self interests [civil liberties, security, etc.] have been pitted against each other because leaders on both sides have more to gain by seeing us fight and align with them. We ALL have to work to defuse our own respective spins and misinformation.

Second, I sincerely and dearly believe in freedom of expression as a fundamental American value. If censorship of right wing media channels were to ever happen, I will personally fight against it - just like I would hope you, as an American, would do for me. Yes, there are a some real "moonbats" in the left and power hungry corrupt bastards in the democractic party that wouldn't, but they are NOT in the majority by any stretch, which is why it is important to keep check on all crazies.

I mean I know there are a lot of contentious points that I am trying to skirt around because I dont want this to devolve into an off-topic flame war, but it still gets back to: we both have COMMON VALUES. And we are both Americans. I've gone out of my way to try and understand the variety of points coming from the right wing -- I read your blogs and your magazines. And what I am trying to say is that if we keep creating bogeymen out of each other, we aren't going to get anywhere.

Finally, America at large is no danger of *ever* being like SF or NYC. You'd sooner see a mass conversion to islam in salt lake city. But this gets back to another issue where both conservatives and libs can find common ground on: STATES RIGHTS.

Four of his kids are lobbyists according to what I heard today, so I'm sure he'd be interested in something that limits them.

It's kind of like how the Dems supported CFR and we see how it's limited the influence of big money from people like George Soros, Steven Bing, Peter Lewis, etc.

I am not swallowing that one-I might if the first thing she does, when they take official control in Jan is ask Jefferson to resign, but I won't be holding my breath.

Pelosi is apparently debating dumping Jane Harman for head of Intelligence and bowing to CBC pressure and installing Alcee Hastings. That would be the same Hastings who was so corrupt that a Democratic Senate impeached him when he was a federal judge.

And if John Murtha backs off Sotny Heyer, he'll get his pick of committees to head - Armed Services maybe? Appropriations? This is the same Murtha who was caught up in the Abscam scandal.

And of course Mollohan was re-elected in West Virginia as was Jefferson in Louisiana. It's amazing that the Dems apparently got great traction from this Culture of Corruption idea. That's an even greater manipulation of spin than they pulled over stem cell research. When Republicans get busted they get ousted in disgrace; when Democrats get busted they get re-elected and advance up the chain.

Now I'm really depressed :(

First point, its easy to keep a party together when its the opposition party, Just watch what happens to the Dems now.

Second, if you have no principles then what happens? You are rejected by the voters, happens EVERY TIME to conservatives.
Stick to your principles and you can win in most parts of America, stray from those principles and you lose.

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

on the war.

http://gamecock.townhall.com/g/83175423-353a-414e-bc98-32065f205ae1

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

After hearing Murtha spew his putrid trash, I know that there is only one way to go: Fight, resist, shove back, obstruct, attack, attack, attack and attack them some more.
They are the party of corruption. They are the party of destruciton. They are the party that hurts America. We won the Cold War over their objections. We lost the Vietnam war by listening to their liars. We build up our economy when we do what they disaprove of. We get along better when we treat each other as Republicans.
The dhimmies deserve what is oming to them. And what is coming to them will be their undoing.

after which bi-partisan teddybear said Bush concocted a war for political reasons. Vision? Is a democratic Middle East not as visionary as a cops and robbers routine post 911s ala clinton and kerry. Fiscal responsibility to the democrats means taxing us into the poorhouse. screw all that

We are "mainly" for free speech even for religious speech, winning wars the dems vote to engage in, and drilling for oil, etc

we can walk and chew gum

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

Hah!

thanks for the laugh. how much screaming for bipartisanship do you think you will hear from pelosi after she becomes majority leader?

the answer is 0.

please.

a new gang of 14 deal in the Senate to prevent judicial filibusters, raise your hand.

that you may be right in part, mainly because we we haven't reduced government, except for taxes. Now, we did put some accountability and responsibility into existing programs and Bush tried to get Soc Sec reform, but other than that its just been talk. I suspect that actual small government proposals would be rejected by a majority of voters, and that's why I did not like the Bush bashing on the issue when the so-called small govt folks don't tell us how they will reduce soc sec and medicare-caid.

As to the Hollywood salesmen, well, I would say that the American people, incl me, would like to see conservatives that will fight..like democrats, for what they believe in. Heck, the dems fight hard even while hiding what little believe. We need to get blunt with the dems unpatriotic emboldening of the enemy as they denigrate a war they voted for.

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 did not like the Bush bashing on the issue when the so-called small govt folks don't tell us how they will reduce soc sec and medicare-caid.

Some of them at least stood up against increasing Medicaid spending! You're right, I can't fault you on this - I don't know that I heard anyone proposing how to reduce Medicaid spending. But lacking that, I'll accept a plan that at least says we wont increase our liability from Medicaid by a greater amount than our entire Social Security liablity.

Also, I have the same problem with this general sentiment as I have with other expressions of the same theme - "only SS/Mcare/caid matters, anything else is a waste of effort". I think what small govt folks would have liked to see at minimum was fiscal discipline with the no-brainer spending like earmarks. Combine that with no-brainers like, don't increase federal education spending by some 150% or more. If you can't demonstrate fiscal discipline with regards to the no-brainers, how can you expect to be taken seriously on the big entitlement programs? I'm sure there were a few bright, small examples to hold up nonetheless but the behaviour overall was remarkably un-businesslike, not at all a sign that we had the right mix of people who could govern efficiently and in a manner consistent with diligent stewardship over tax payer dollars.

oppose one's own president, esp without alternative plan that achieves the goals he ran on.

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

Less Government when your making more of it.

The longer we dwell on our misfortunes the greater is their power to harm us - Voltaire

not our principles. American's grew tired of hearing the same negative story day in and day out and the GOP did nothing effectively to counter it. Good jobs, good economy, no terrorists attacks, and a bright future should have been a no brainer, but our inept leadership laid down and died.

I will not be despondent. If we are to prevail in the long run we need new leadership and some men and women who are not afraid to roar for what is right and just for our country.

Now we have no majority to protect, I say its time to set things straight in our own party and do a little house cleaning!

I INTEND TO PRESS MY (R) CONGRESSMAN AND SENATORS VERY HARD FOR THIS CHANGE.
__________________________________________________________
Thou art the Great Cat, the avenger of the Gods, and the judge of words...-Inscription on the Royal Tombs at Thebes

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

While there is much truth to what you say, another truth is that if it hadn't been for actual corruption on the part of Republicans, we probably would have held Ohio. If we could have held Ohio, we could have put up better fights in other locations like, oh NJ or MT, or MO.

WE don't need libertarian analysis.
Just go away.

We social conservative need them just as much as they need us. Granted, I would like it a whole lot better if they admitted as much instead of disdaining us, but that does not mean we should do the same to them.

Winning with 74% of the vote? I recognize he had no (D) challenger but I would assume staunch (D) voters would vote for the (L) just to vote against Flake... given that 74% seems like a very resounding show of support for him.

Flake was by far the most vocal opponent of earmarks, although I think he failed every single time he tried to get them stripped out - he at least fought the fight.

To answer you question first, if we lose the senate, we must filibuster any amnesty bill bush agrees to with the dems, and we can and should obstruct bad bills. I suspect this was simply a 6 year election with all the grudges built up in the electorate and a desire for gridlock and the spending discipline that entails.

But the GOP needs to do more than get back to roots. We need to do something new. We need to fight hard and with blunt language against the dems.

For the past 6 years, the public saw a dem party fight 24/7 and watched us be nice. Who doesn't want a fighter? We need to be that fighter. We have the truth on our side. We need to say the truth. in blunt terms

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 at this point, the powder must be kept dry for the war on terror. Rangel and Murtha have all but promised to betray our troops and the people of Iraq. Fight there.

The war on terror is more important. But late this fall, House Republicans were more interested in banning online gambling, selling horsemeat to Europe. Wouldn't the late fall have been better spent on additional sanctions against Iran and Syria and forcing the Democrats in the Senate to filibuster them?

They are allies of our enemy in Iraq. The Dems had 31 Oct surprises. Couldn't we have had 1?

I agree with you all the way.

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

Over the AUMF would have worked fine.

We won't get that now. Now, we just have to work to keep the knife out of the troops' back. Everything else is now secondary.

Quite frnakly, I think conservatives need to accept that an immigration bill they won't like will now pass. They had a chance to get input on one - and they instead took their ball and went home. In the process, they alienated the business community and others who wanted a comprehensive solution.

Do you really think that those who implied that those who disagreed with the House GOP on immigration were traitors helped Republicans at the polls?

I certainly do not think that those, like Bush, that favored a comprehensive immigration bill are traitors, and I never inferred that anyone of substance was implying same. I do think that Bush is a naive liberal on the issue born of his Texas frontier mentality that even 911 cant penetrate and that is a real enigma given his aggressive offense overseas on the war.

I favor securing the border first and then would be receptive to earned citizenship. I favor high legal immigration.

The conservatives actually won the immigration battle with the fence bill that Bush signed in a closet. I think we risk losing the majority to the dems for a generation if we do not seize the border security first ground on immigration.

But I could be wrong. I suspect that many dems will be to the right on this issue as well.

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

vehemently on the necessity of a comprehensive reform proposal that would involve an acceleration of an undesired immigration flow hurt the Republicans at the polls. Republicans are not entitled to the votes of patriotic Americans, least of all those who count themselves as conservatives. Loyalty is earned, brother; and some issues are nonnegotiable, such as opposition to altering the cultural (and political, pace the enthusiasts for the Hispanic vote) composition of the nation at the behest of economic interests whose loyalties no longer lie with America qua America.

Conservatives are under neither the necessity, nor the obligation, of accepting the President's scandalous immigration proposal. Their obligation to their nation is to fight that proposal with every weapon in the political arsenal, and to suffer an honourable defeat if that is what fate decrees.

My harp is turned to mourning, and my organ shall speak with the voice of them that weep. Spare me, O Lord, for my days are truly as nothing.

I was a traitor - and the President, as well? And what is your proof? The fact that I don't agree with you on immigration - I supported President Bush's approach over yours? Is that what suffices for treason these days?

voluble complaining over certain of my past diaries, as some objected to both my prose style and my diction. I did not use the 'T' word, and therefore, I did not mean to use it. Those who support the president's proposal tend to conceive of their patriotism in more abstract, propositional terms: America is great in proportion as she instantiates a certain set of ideas. Those who oppose that proposal tend to conceive of their own patriotism in terms more organic: America is nation possessed of a distinct cultural substance, a this-ness that cannot be reduced to ideas and systemic processes, such as the market economy - though it includes them, to be certain - but rather encompasses the entirety of the heritage and mode of being-in-the-world of the peoples who created the institutions of America - a heritage, moreover, that cannot endure when its bearers have lost confidence in its legitimacy and the bearers of other cultures insist all the more vigourously upon an imagined entitlement to perpetuate their own cultures among us.

A nation bereft of that inherited substance would be nothing more than a locus of market transactions, and only profoundly unserious people would ever pledge fealty - their lives, fortunes, and sacred honour, to an outsized, postmodern souk.

My harp is turned to mourning, and my organ shall speak with the voice of them that weep. Spare me, O Lord, for my days are truly as nothing.

I asked a very direct question.

By stating that my non-use of the 'T" word meant that I did not intend to either use it or insinuate it. Are you illiterate or merely obtuse?

My harp is turned to mourning, and my organ shall speak with the voice of them that weep. Spare me, O Lord, for my days are truly as nothing.

You instead gave a highly evasive non sequiter response concerning abstract patriotism, in which you implied (but did not have the guts to flat-out state) that somehow your version fo patriotism was superior to mine.

If you had troubled yourself to read with comprehension my original comment, you would have noticed that I pointedly declined the opportunity to deploy the 'T' word, after which I offered an explanation as to why 'propositional patriotism' is not worth the hearts and minds of Americans. In other words, I called no one the 'T'-thing, and then argued that there exist better and worse ways to be a patriot, that is, to express one's devotion to nation and people. That's called rational argument, and I apologize if subtleties of the art elude you.

My harp is turned to mourning, and my organ shall speak with the voice of them that weep. Spare me, O Lord, for my days are truly as nothing.

while Bush is in office. I travel enough to have suffered endless commercials from the "moderate" and conservative Democrats who swept into power in the Midwest and Upper South. To a person, they ran against any form of amnesty or "comprehensive immigration reform." Since the vast majority of Republicans who voted against this legislation remain in the House, there aren't the votes to pass anything of this nature.

So spare me the MSM meme about the "inevitability" of such nonsense unless you can show where there are 218 votes for it. They aren't there, even with a Democratic majority.

A holding action maybe, but not much else. Get use to it. The Democrats will defund the war to force the withdrawl from Iraq. It's what they ran on, and since they got the votes, they get to claim it's what they won on. It doesn't matter whether or not it is true in the metaphysical sense. Maybe we get to fight again after 2008, but the next two years are going to be long, arduous, and harrowing time, especially for our men and women who have fought and are fighting in Iraq. Now that they've won, they won't long continue to pretend they support them, and scenes from Vietnam will reoccur.

to prevent de-funding. But I am going to write a long blog entry on this tonight.

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

And, I predict, Lieberman isn't the only Dem (or former-Dem) who would see the suicide of defunding the war. Two years is NOT such a long time that Red State voters would not remember a Dem who voted that way.

See The World In HinzSight!
Political HinzSight

and while losing the senate hurts, in the end losing some of our squishy senators may help in this regard.

Also, the DNC doesn't have a real working majority, they have about what they had in 02, and their obstructionism-especially on judges hurt them in '08, what the GOP in the senate needs is strong arm party discipline, and they need to pick the leader who can garner that-not some squish without any stone like Frist. They also need for Bush to not play to the dems on the issue of judges. Bush needs to fire strong conservative nomination after strong conservative nomination-the dems may be able to play stonewall in the judiciary committee, but the American people won't stand for it, if it comes to a SCOTUS nomination, and I suspect that with dems in control of the senate, the old liberals on the court may take the chance and resign during the next year or two-not knowing who will hold what come '08. Some of the democratic senators made promises on judges, they will shoot themselves in the foot, if they try to play games.

I do think this is the opportunity for Bush to send up lots and lots of conservative minority nominations.

Agreed. I would have been happier to lose the Senate and keep the House than what has happened. I've never understood why we seem to take out our frustrations on the House when they seem to support us more than the Senate. I'm particularly not happy to see so many people touting McCain's "maverick" streak, when that as much as anything Bush has done hurt us badly in this election. Same thing goes for Guiliani.

we must filibuster any amnesty bill

Wasn't "our" 55-45 Senate ready to do whatever Bush wanted on amnesty? Are there really 41 of the surviving 49 who'd be ready to lock down on something a good number of them supported before?

We've got to face the facts, that we had a beautiful opportunity these last two years to pass a conservative agenda with the White House and both houses of Congress, and our Congressmen and Senators squandered them arguing among themselves about fine points and nuances, while the Democrats dug in their heels (like the donkey that is their symbol), obstructed, criticized loudly in the media, and enough of the clueless electorate was swayed to their side.

If the Democrats want to de-fund the war in Iraq, or try to pass Hillarycare, or raise taxes, it is OUR right to be obstructionists for the good of the country. President Bush should definitely get his veto pen ready, and we certainly have enough Senators to filibuster overly-liberal bills.

If the recounts show that Burns and Allen have definitively lost (which is probable), the Democrats will have 51 Senators, including a former Secretary of the Navy (Webb-VA), the son of a famous pro-life Governor (Casey-PA), and pro-war Joementum who successfully fought off the Daily Kos in deep-blue CT. There are also Ben Nelson (NE) and Mark Pryor (AR) who are persuadable on some issues, as well as Mary Landrieu (LA), who is running scared as her New Orleans base was washed into Texas by Katrina.

If Nancy Pelosi and her far-left friends think they can use their new House majority to push America to the far left, President Bush should be frequently sitting down with Republicans and red-state Democrats in the Senate, as well as some of the new freshman Democrats in the House (most of whom ran as moderates), and negotiate with them firmly in order to water-down anything the House might pass, with the threat of a veto of anything which threatens either our national security, the booming economy, or the social structure of the country.

IMHO, there are four problems which doomed President Bush's 2004 agenda to failure.

(1) President Bush tried to propose very complex "comprehensive" programs (Social Security reform, immigration reform, energy bill) as massive overhauls to the existing system, on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.

(2) There was very little dialogue between the President and Congressional leaders behind closed doors to hammer out agreement on the agenda, taking into account concerns that members of Congress might have relative to their constituencies.

(3) We had "mavericks" in Congress (John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Mark Warner, etc.) who dissented publicly with the President, (or with the rest of the GOP majority) and Democrats publicly hyped the divisions to their advantage. These disagreements should have been worked out PRIVATELY in order to present a unified compromise to Congress and the American people, rather than offer the spectacle of a majority running in three directions at once.

(4) During most of the last two years, President Bush failed to rebut many of the criticims and downright lies peddled by the MSM, and the media spin took the place of truth in the minds of the American voters. Replacing Scott McClellan by Tony Snow was a huge improvement, but it was too late. All of you bloggers out there do a magnificent job of digging up the truth the MSM tries to hide or cover up, but if the President doesn't shout this from the rooftops, the public will only hear the MSM lies, and believe them.

President Bush needs to forget about any comprehensive sweeping overhauls of the government now--he is now on defense, and needs to twist arms in Congress to get whatever piecemeal improvements are possible, and use his veto pen to prevent any massive lurch to the left, and the GOP has enough votes in Congress to sustain a veto. When then-Governor Bush was running for President in 2000, he boasted of his ability to get things done in Texas even with a Democrat legislature. Now is his chance to put that experience into practice, in the much tougher world of Washington politics. Gridlock may work to the Republican advantage in 2008 if Pelosi & Co. overplay their hand, and Republican obstructionism might look like wisdom.

Our remaining GOP Reps and Senators need to also get on the same page--voting together against any Dem excesses, trying to peel off moderate Dem votes on crucial bills, and avoiding any public dissent a la McCain, Lindsey Graham, or Hagel. They also need to commit to the principles of "the class of 1994"--fiscal and social conservatism WITHOUT kickbacks from lobbyists, keeping their noses clean, and continuously checking out any reports of scandalous behavior, and disciplining those found guilty. If somebody had come forward about Mark Foley in 2005, Dennis Hastert might still have been Speaker in 2007.

President Bush also needs to do a major housecleaning in the Executive branch. There are far too many holdovers from the Clinton era in the FBI, the CIA, and other executive agencies who are backstabbing the President they are sworn to serve, leaking classified information to the New York Times and enemies overseas. Why was Patrick Fitzgerald allowed to launch a two-year witch-hunt against Scooter Libby and Karl Rove, with accusations of corruption rampant in the MSM, while Richard Armitage covered this up and got off scot-free? What did Sandy Berger stuff into his pants and shred, and why did he get away with it?

It's definitely time to unleash the Justice Department to find and prosecute the leakers and get them publicly fired and punished. With both the Presidential and mid-term elections now past, President Bush has nothing to lose by doing this, and everything to gain if he is serious about protecting our country. Maybe Rick Santorum for Attorney General would be a great idea right now!

It's time to do what should have been done two years ago. It won't do as much good now as then, but we can at least limit the losses, and prepare for the comeback in 2008.

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

Jake, my man, you are right on. Most of the House seats we lost were dead weight. Rino incumbents from the Northeast who could have been knocked off by a slight breeze in any year. Yet we spent millions every cycle, to keep them hanging on by a thread. The seats we still hold are the survivors. The dems that one will be freshmen in '08, a year where now the Dem's can share some of the blame when something goes wrong. The enourmous resources we spent helping weak incumbents can now be spent to knock off weak dems in red districts. In this anti-GOP year, we lost GA-8 by less than 1,000 votes, and GA-12 51%-49%. We'll win both of those in '08. We can also probably knock off Melancon in LA. In the Senate, Mary Landrieu(D-LA), Mark Pryor(D-AR), Tim Johnson(D-SD), and Max Baucus(D-MT) are all up in '08. These are all at least somewhat conservative states where we could when. The losses of '06 just cut our weak links, and left us with our core of strength. We will build out from that in '08. The only thing that bothers me is the loss of the House, and the amnesty that is now sure to come.
Just Say No To Amnesty: http://www.fairus.org- Just to let you know, contributions to the Federation for American Immigration Reform are tax-deductible. GO DONATE NOW! They'll need every dime they can get now that amnesty is imminent.

If McCain makes ONE move to benefit personally from this defeat, he deserves to be run out of the party.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

He will be finished in 2008, but maybe the time to show McCain the door is now.

run him out of the party, I'm thinking maybe some planted pork with his figerprints might be the better move.

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

It's not McCain's fault we lost. Blame Tom Delay. All McCain is doing is positioning himself as best he can for 2008 and I'm sure if he wins he'd like to have some coattails and win back Congress as he does. He's sounding the right notes - I think on the GOP side he's the one who most benifits from tonight - how can you blame him for taking advantage of it?

I can blame him this way: party politics is a team sport. RMSP-ish Christine Whitman lost all credibility when her anti-right-wing book "It's My Party, Too" came out in January 2005, hoping to capitalize on Republican despair over the coming inauguration of President Kerry. Oops.

Senator McCain has the benefit of not having that kind of embarassment to deal with, but if you're running to be a party leader, trying to gain from our shared loss is not a way to gain credibility.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

Bringing up Whitman's book is pointless - it doesn't have a thing to do with McCain. We lost - that wasn't McCain's fault. Next time we want to win and McCain is standing up and laying out how he thinks we can. How is this wrong? Of course he is going to position himself for 2008 - that's the way this game is played. You just don't seem to like McCain, but the fact is that he was very much a team player in this election (last one, too).

and was against the fence. He is a significant part of the problem. He is the media darling because he championed the campaign finance reform that lets the MSM control the debate as the election comes to a close.

Correction it's the Gang of 12... Chaffee and Mike DeWine are out. Notice it affected negatively on the Republicans but none of the 7 on the other side of the aisle got punished for this idiocy...

He really deserved that years ago when he foisted the BCRA upon the nation. Now is the moment to do what was then left undone.

My harp is turned to mourning, and my organ shall speak with the voice of them that weep. Spare me, O Lord, for my days are truly as nothing.

with whom, exactly, would we have this debate? Rangel? Pelosi? Reid? Levin? Michael Moore? Kerry? Kennedy?

And were you in a coma between the 2000 campaign and 9/11? You think this started recently?

on this list as he isn't an elected official, but it looks like this is pretty much what we're going to have to do if we're to be successful in 2008. We don't really have much choice now, do we? Santorum gave a magnanimous concession speech last night, and McCain was all over the place talking about the need for a renewed form of dialogue. I think this should set the tone for the next few years. We need to stop with the rhetoric that's one step away from suggesting our opposition is one step away from cockroaches or parasites.

first, in case you didn't read your own post you mention Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter. They aren't elected officials either. Really. Check it out.

Second, I'm a little tired, giving your posting history here, of you suddenly referring to "us". Unless you've got a mouse in your pocket, knock it off.

the same thing you are saying here and all ya'll get is a big laugh.
Republicans did their part for niceness and dialogue, now it's your turn to convince the Dems that they have to play nice.

What is more of a return to conservative values than the restoration of the supreme court to days before it started making laws in the 60s forward that restricted the free speech if that speech referred to god or religious values? A return to the state of affairs from 1789-1963? The court divisively banned nativity scenes, prayer before kickoff, voluntary prayer in school, etc

On these issues, Roberts and Alito give is a 5 vote majority if Kennedy doesn't move left.

Is it divisive to protect the rights of the disabled from being starved and dehydrated to death? To at least allow them a federal review a convicted murderer gets.

It is not the GOP that has been divisive. What is divisive is that a large percentage of the country is enamored of the 60s counterculture religion that rejects the judeo-christian vales shared by most Americans and upon which even non-Christian founders built the nation.

The "tone" of the past 5 years. You mean the tone of Ted Kennedy after Bush let him write the NCLB bill and then accused him of concocting a war for politics and called him a liar everyday, as did the rest of the dem party? The dem party has shared talking points with al qaida, saddam's lawyers ands kim jong Il, and you speak of Bush and the GOP tone/

You live in an alternative universe....ity.

If anything, Bush's fault and the GOPs is for not treating those that call them liars like the liars they are. The dems have been unpatriotic since 72 hours after we entered Iraq. They are disgusting.

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

If a liberal SCOTUS justice retires or dies within the next two years, President Bush should name a solid conservative replacement, and vigorously campaign for his/her confirmation. Then, if the new Senate refuses to confirm, just leave the seat empty, with a 4-4 deadlock if Kennedy votes with the liberals. Then, GOP Senate candidates can campaign on filling the seat with a conservative in 2009.

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

Plus, lets get a teary wife of the nominee and do opposition research on dem senators.

Lets show Matthews what hardball really is

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

Republicans need to crank up the intensity, not turn it down. For 40 years Republicans sat in the House minority with Bob Michel leading them as the gentle, happy opposition and perpetual losers. They never raised a fuss. Nothing changed until Newt Gingrich's smash mouth politics, taking out a Democratic house speaker and as Newt put it "tearing the institution down before we rebuild it".

That's the same attitude of all the Democrats that have been named in this thread, Reid, Moore, etc. had, and that gave them control of Congress today. As former Democratic leader Dick Gephardt used to say "Politics is war fought by other means" (i.e. peaceful, but tough politics). Republicans won't take Congress back until they act that way.

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 ultimate determinant in the struggle now going on for the world will not be bombs and rockets but a test of wills and ideas-a trial of spiritual resolve: the values we hold, the beliefs we cherish and the ideals to which we are dedicated.-Reagan

Did TXProf arrive on Earth yesterday from some kind of alien planet?

The bodies have not even began to go cold after 9/11 before the hatred this guy is talking about starting spewing from the mouths of Democrats.

Is this guy going to tell us that "Bush died, People died" crap came from Rush? The reason we lost is because people like TXProf had no clue what was happening to this country while Dems and the media were spewing their lies. Where was TXProf anyway, hanging a left on Uranus?

a kinder, gentler soviet union, or Mass big dig for the nation, with more competent bureaucrats. Have I got it about 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

Debate you guys? Forget that. You guys just took both Houses of Congress on lies and personal attacks. You're on your own, fools.

You can kiss off until you're ready to admit you're wrong, apologize for your of libel and slander against the right, and come crawling into the Republican party.

So take your radical utopian 'best future' ideas, and go soak your head until it clears up.
--
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

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

You are not a fiscal conservative. Actually, this worn out lie of a statement: "I am a social progressive, and a fiscal conservative." is an oxmoron unless you are really a libertarian.

Being a social progressive usually means you want the goverment to pay for things. And usually when a social progressive says the are a fiscal conservative it means they have no problem finding loopholes in tax laws to keep themselves from paying for these thing but also dont mind if everyone else does.

> a kinder, gentler soviet union, or Mass big dig for the
> nation, with more competent bureaucrats. Have I got it
> about right?

> Debate you guys? Forget that. You guys just took both Houses
> of Congress on lies and personal attacks. You're on your
> own, fools.

> Who knew that Karl Marx was a fiscal conservative [n/t]

> You are not a fiscal conservative. Actually, this worn out
> lie of a statement: "I am a social progressive, and a fiscal
> conservative." is an oxymoron unless you are really a
> libertarian.

Ah, where to start?

Having an attitude that all souls are created equal, all religions are created equal, and that english isn't a requirement to be a good citizen (in my mind) makes me a social progressive. Funny thing is, none of those things cost very much. (If I'm not using the code words "correctly", sorry.)

I will confess to being a public health related professional, which colors my ideas about the benefits of government. The bottom line is what you get for your money. Having tap water that is safe to drink, safe disposal of septic waste, and the care and maintenace of those necessities are some of the commodities that make modern lifestyles possible. (You can lose power and stay in a house, but lose the plumbing and the house will quickly become uninhabitable.) These functions are typically in the public domain because A) it isn't possible to make a profit at the rates charged by public utilities, and B) the consequences of termination of service (as in a bid to raise rates) would be catastrophic to society. And no I don't believe that for-profit industries can be trusted to have the public's best interest out of the goodness of their heart.

OK, am I a commie pinko yet?

The example of the Big Dig is one near and dear to my heart. Since my dad was a heavy construction civil engineer, I have some insight into the planning and bidding of wickedly expensive construction projects. The problem is the ever increasing size and complexity of such mega-projects keeps pushing the envelope of what is available for previous knowledge about techniques, materials, and the magical planning for the unknown. Taking lessons from my software project mangment classes: the Big Dig wasn't so much over budget as under estimated. Worse, the attempts to cut costs have seriously threatened the viability of the project. Instead of looking at long term costs, the up front costs became the only metric. Over the long run, the costs of having a functional highway system in downtown Boston will be higher than they might have been.

If you want to argue whether Boston had the right to a functional interstate transit link, that is a different matter. That is where oversight comes in, and where the 109th Congress failed so miserably. You can try to blame the Dems. all you want, but they didn't have control of any of the major functions of the federal Govt. And DeLay's House made certain that it stayed that way.

Hmmm, am I taking your guns away yet?

This country needs every possible assistance in solving it's problems. Having logical critique and alternative ideas is a good place to start. (And, no, "I don't wanna" won't cut it.)

Oh, the fiscal conservative part? I don't like running up interest when I can afford to pay down the principle. I hate being in debt.

MugWP

Lets say we wipe out the items you cite. Our government was huge and heading toward babyboomer hell in 2000. Has anyone, other than Bush on Soc Sec reform, put in writing how they would eliminate, cut, reform or send to the states, soc sec or medicare? If they have I haven't seen it. Until they do, and tell us how we get from point A (Big Govt) and point B (small govt), I am unimpressed. They have to tell us what happens in the transition. I am persuadable, but I suspect that Bush's way is the better way on health care, etc, ie to reform the programs with conservative values like accountability and individual control and shrink the programs over time. Now, i would love for us to eliminate the fed ed dept and have all private schools with vouchers and transition to market based med care, but show me how that is done and not lose congress forever.

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

What 'conservative principled' reform have we seen, though? All I see is growth. How is a massive expansion of the Medicare liability conservative principled at all? How is a NEW federal expansion into local control of schools conservative principled at all? How is just doing the lefty thing on campaign finance and voting rights conservative principled?

President Bush and Speaker Hastert may not be neocons, since I don't hear that either actually started a lefty, but they govern like neocons. They want to do what 'works,' without ever considering the possibility that there's not ANY option that works. So when the left says A, the right says 'leave it alone', they do A because 'when somebody hurts, government's gotta move.'
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

I agree with you IN GENERAL on the rest, but I have yet to see a specific proposal to eliminate the education dept or to reform medicare, etc and eventually get to a small fed govt. In the meantime, given the $$ to the states, why not have them be accountable, and in the meantime, doesn't a Px bill reduce major medical overtime? Although since everyone eventually has a last illness...

I don't know the answer. I just know that when the leader leads, as Bush did, with his reform and when no one offers an alternative specific plan, it hurt the party for the rhetorical fiscal conservatives to divide the party without proposing a bill. Why don't they propose a bill? Because they know that America is too liberal to swallow it? maybe so, and if so, we must adjust to do the best we can with what we have. Bush, i think, sees it that way and is trying to show us a way to get there eventually, at least to a certain extent.

Now look, I'm the one that says we win by being unapologetic ally conservative ala Reagan, so I WANT to See an alternative. Its just that given no alternative, there is a lot more we can and did do and dint tout enough, like the war, the economy and judges.

It just seems to me that everyone that cries about big government never shows us how we get to a small govt and what that looks like, and that includes Reagan, Gingrich and Bartlett.

I'm not from Missouri, but...

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

What does a small government look like? I'm not sure how you can describe that, because how do you describe programs that don't exist?
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

This is why I lean to Gingrich and Romney. I think Gingrich especially can put meat on the bones of soc sec and medical cost reform, but I must say that I don't think we can ever have a small fed govt post great depression, pearl harbour. Its a matter of degree and how we can reform with market forces. And I think we ought to frame the argument as reform to reduce costs and give more personal autonomy in soc Sec and medical accts.

On education, as i have said, i do favor a totally private run competitive system, but Gingrich makes the case that given our global competition that we ought to pay jr high and high school kids to take math and science. Its like a post sputnik argument?

I guess I'm a semi-neo-con. Well, I am a neo-con on the war. I think FDR and Reagan were too!! But on the federal govt, while I do heed the dangers of big givt in restricting freedom and moving inexorably towards socialism, I think the road to getting the addicted nation off of it is quite elusive, esp if done with a meat axe.

I would say that I do agree with you that we shouldn't be adding new programs, and I hope the next president doesn't run on such. But Bush did, and he's ours.

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 agree totally. It is about the difference between theory and reality, what is possible and what is not. Some changes need to be gradual, which is what Bush and the small government Republicans were trying to do. For example, first create private savings accounts of various types, and then as a second step when the need for that entitlement withers, kill it.

That's necessary because anyone who proposes serious, line by line cuts gets torn apart by the voters. In fact a Democratic source is quoted this morning as saying they are going to use the budget in that fashion to take the Republicans apart.

It's worth remembering that even President Reagan was only able to cut the low hanging fruit out of the budget, and people quit HIS administration because the government grew. Even a politician that great couldn't reverse the New Deal in 8 years.

I wonder what Reagan could have done with a GOP congress, but still, this country has been addicted to govt too long for us to go cold turkey. I have been preaching this in multiple paragraphs for years. You say it better in two paragraphs.

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

needed Wu to show you the Wei :)

Just as every cop is a criminal, and all the sinners saints - Sympathy for the Democrats

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

If you want to make having a specific plan for reducing government, in a Gingrich style laundry list, a prerequisite for being a Republican leader and candidate the next two years, I'm with you 100%.
--
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

I seriously believe that one reason why President Bush and his GOP majorities these past two years failed is because Bush tried to lump everything into massive, "comprehensive", take-it-or-leave-it programs, such as Social Security reform, immigration reform, energy reform, while not discussing his proposals privately with Congressional leaders before announcing them publicly.

In many cases, there was broad bipartisan support for many provisions of these programs, but either Dem opposition to one sticking-point (ANWR, for example), or Republicans started diverging from one another on details, and Democrats pounced on the divisions to kill the whole bill.

A better approach would have been for President Bush to meet with Congressional leaders (including some Democrats) to find out what provisions could get majority approval (and 60 votes in the Senate) and drop controversial provisions, at least temporarily. This would give voters the impression of getting "something" done instead of bickering over details and getting nothing done. This is probably the approach that Reagan would have adopted.

With a Dem majority in both houses of Congress (very thin in the Senate, with a few moderates who might break with liberals), President Bush must now work with moderate Dems and Republicans in order to water-down any super-liberal programs that might come out of the House that Pelosi built. Republicans have more than enough votes to sustain Presidential vetoes if they remain united, and Bush is prepared to veto legislation. He must actively work with members of House-Senate conference committees, as well as support Senate filibusters. He must also offer legislative proposals that can get support from moderate Dems, especially some of the newly-elected freshmen whose districts are not as deep-blue as Nancy Pelosi's.

President Bush needs to win one for the Gipper, by taking some pages out of the Gipper's playbook.

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

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

Whats difference is there between the Teddy Kennedy and Bernie Sanders (besides the 3 bottles of scotch, I mean)? It looks like we'll have more than 40 socialists in the Senate by the time all the recounts are done.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson