Redstate

1. Will you cut spending for the Iraq war?
   
   
2. Will you accelerate troop withdrawal from Iraq?
   
   
3. Will you pull troops from Afghanistan?
   
   
4. What will you do about Iran?
   
   
5. What will you do about North Korea?
   
   
6. What is your plan re illegal immigration?
   
   
7. Will you raise taxes?
   
   
8. What are your plans to control spending?
   
   
9. Will you go after President Bush on the NSA wiretaps?
   
   
10. Will you impeach/censure President Bush?

Answers would be appreciated!

At least not in the sense this sentence implies:the Republicans threw out the "all politics is local" playbook and turned the election into a referendum on Clinton and the Democrat leadership in Congress, which was likewise plagued with scandal.

1994 was not just about an unpopular Democratic President.  Some Democrats in highly Republican districts were unfazed by the attack on Clinton, and saw their vote share stay the same or even improve.  Others were obliterated.  Indeed Democrats lost fewer than half of the districts they held that had been carried by Bush in 1992.  The key distinction:  Democrats that had relatively conservative voting records in conservative districts survived, while those that had voted for tax hikes or gun control were decimated.  In other words, it wasn't just "Clinton is bad," it was "Clinton is bad, and your rep can't deny supporting him on issues relating to why he's bad."

For Repubs, the distinction is that only 12 representatives occupy districts carried by Kerry, and most of those were only marginally Dem.  Of those, the median ADA is 35, fairly robust for a Republican.  In other words Republicans that are vulnerable have done a pretty good job insulating themselves from any anti-Bush mood that Dems try to whip up (in a fit of shameless self-promotion, I recently wrote in-depth about this here).

The other thing to remember is Bush I had a 29% approval rating in August of '92, and yet Republicans picked up 10 seats in that election.  There is clearly more at work the JA numbers here.

Since we wee time and time again that the pollsters are mostly skewing the numbers against the President and the war, how real are the polls? How unpopular is the President really?

Since the dems have no national platform except to say they hate W, what do they have to nationalize the election with, especially if the imlications of question#1 are valid?

March is a million political years from November. Why should we accept anything the dems say now except as mental gamesmanship to psyche us out?

Dean continues to lead the party further left, even as the nation as a whole resists moving hard left. the fund raising of the dems shows mostly poor performance. How are the dems going to get their message - if they ever get one- out, even with the echochamber of the MSM when they are relatively weak financially?

Already the most interesting concept the dems had, the fighting dems, is falling apart. What do they have next? More murtha and feingold and durbin?

What happens when unignorable good news breaks out from Iraq and the GWOT, as is very likely? Zarqawi is on a short time line to death. Also, Osama is not likely to stay healthy for long. the Iraqis likley will get a new govt. going soon. And the civil war has not yet happened, despite the deepest wishes and prayers of the dems. what happens when it is clear to everyone that yet again the dem leadership was calling for defeat and withdrawal based on political posturing?

The economy refuses to die, even though Krugman and the dems say voodoo death chants on it daily. How to be doom and gloom when things aren't doom and gllom?

I'm not speaking on behalf of any democrats out there, but here's what I'd do to respond to your questions.

1.  I wouldn't cut spending if it would put American lives at risk.  That being said, the war is putting a severe financial strain to our country and something needs to be done.  Maybe cutting other pet defense projects like the JST or F-22 that we don't currently need.  But like I said, we can't cut money from essential things the troops need.
   
2.  Something that I heard Murtha said (dont pounce on this) is that our troops are part of the problem, and that if are troops were pulled out then the foreign fighters would also be kicked out by the Iraqis.  While I don't necessarily agree with this, I'm also don't fully accept that our troops have been part of the solution either.  So for this question, I'd say that I'd love to see both parties sit down and talk without any rhetoric.  This issue is being politisized by BOTH parties and the people it's hurting most is the troops and that is not acceptable.
   
3.  No, catching Osama should have always been the number one priority.
   
4.  I do not believe that Iran will have nukes anytime soon, so for the time being we need to create conditions that allow ourselves to be taken seriously militarily.  Iran knows we cannot keep up Iraq and also take them on so for the time being, I'd say do as much as possible through the UN and negotiating because we are kidding ourselves into thinking Iran needs to be taken out now.  It's turning into the same pit of quicksand Iraq started as.
   
5.  I always thought North Korea was a bigger priority and I really wish they would have been a focus instead of Iraq.  I think that was a major blunder by Bush.  Iraq was not a threat to our national security by any means, although that is easy to say now because hindsight is always 20/20.  Honestly I don't know what to do now because I'm not well versed enough on the issue to say.
   
6.  We need to protect our borders.  Remember the old football euphomism?  Defense wins championships.  I'm all for immigration, but it should be controlled.  I have no problem with the number if immigrants here, but they should come here legally.  As for changes now, I think any change is better than what we currently have any I'd support any plan that could get a majority in senate.
   
7.  The Bush tax cuts seem to be putting an undue burdon on our national debt.  The state of our economy can be hotly debated, but one thing is for sure, and that is our national debt is out of control and that cannot continue.  So if you call repealing a tax cut the same thing as a tax increase, then the answer to your question is yes.  But I don't see much need after that to raise taxes.  How many readers of this site would really be effected anyways?
   
8.  I fully support Pay-Go which I was sad to see opposed by most republicans.  national debt is out of control and we cannot keep spending non-existent money.  Social programs account for such a small percentage of the budget compared to other things that I don't see that spending as the problem.  I see our defense budget as a major obstacle.  We spend more than twice the amount of the rest of the world combined on defense and I think billions could easily be cut out of that while still easily maintaining our status as world asskickers.  Pet projects are also way out of control and I think, or maybe it's just a naive assumption, that splitting control of congress between both parties may bring earmarkes down...I'm not sure about that though.
   
9.  I think investigations into NSA are needed in a truly non-partison way that so far have not been accomplished once during the past 5 years.  I'm talking equal numbers from both parties, subpoena power, and putting people under oath.  If needed for national security, dont make them public (if that's possible).  Democrats aren't standing up and saying end the program because they don't want the program to end.  Of course we want to catch terrorists if they are inside out country.  But I personally think there's gotta be better ways of doing it that aren't so shady.  I also don't understand why Bush can't get his warrants afterwards as he can get it 72 hours retroactively, it just seems like they have something to hide that they know they shouldn't be doing.  I hope that's just my cynical side though.
   
10.  If he committed a serious crime, yes.  More serious than getting a blowjob.  To me, it's about holding people accountable and if it came out that our president committed a serious crime, then I think we would be weaker to the rest of the world for doing nothing than to hold Bush accountable.  We should stand behind out President, but not if our president is a criminal (not saying he is, just if somehow it came out he did).

Again just my opinions

here on Red State, shortly after the Presidential victory how cocky everyone seemed. There was clearly a cause for celebration, but to be completely honest, the spectacle itself, the mudslinging at every single person that oppose any view we presented here, the massive drama of nearly everyone arguing, and most disturbing, the way many of us that have been at red state behaved.

"We have political credit, and we intend to spend it" I saw many times in arguements, many times also the remark would be accompanied by "don't like it, get the hell out" and other unfortunate and inciting remarks and these are the more gentle remarks of many I observed.

There was an overwhelming sense of non-negotiation except what we wanted. Then slowly, but surely, a few Republican's began to attack each other for influence in the new adminstration. Those Republican's that didn't fall in line during and after the election were targeted harshly, the public saw this.

McCain, someone I predicted (while we were all gorging ourselves on victory meat) would be helpful to us. But, was instead immediately attacked and targeted on all sides as well as many others by fellow Republican's, many of them here at Red State. I, as a McCain supporter within this group, and a more liberal member of the party, took a great deal a hell for being so. It left me with a bad taste in my mouth for awhile.

Independent voters also felt isolated and cast out to some degree, that I talked to, which I readily admit is only a few dozen people. A ravenous appetite for Supreme court nominee placements, pitted even more fellow Republican's against each other. The more obvious foreign policy issues, as well as some domestic troubles that seem to be creeping along into the frey seems to me to be a larger and possibly more accurate cause and affect hypothesis for the overall problems the party is incurring.

In layman's terms, we looked too "smug" and are getting caught for it. I still believe, as I did after the elections, that this would be, and now is, the cause of most of the paryt problems and should be addressed. A series of unfortunate events.

question construction in so many of them, for the most part I dismiss the polls-at least in regards to most opinion.  I think a "who are you voting for" poll is more difficult to skew, and can give you an idea on the status of a race, but I remember the last presidential election one of the blogs looking at internals, and how the internals basically created a Kerry surge.

But opinion polls are pure crap, they usually have terrible or leading or overly vague questions to the point that you don't have to play too much with the internals to get what you want.  Although several of the recent presidential polls have a fairly low GOP number.

Probably deserves its own diary, but the polls seem to indicate that the Democrats haven't actually gained any voters since 2004, but the Republicans have lost voters.  Basically, that same 48% that's been voting Democratic for the past decade will come out in November and vote Democratic again, but up to a quarter of the 51% that voted Republican in 2002 and 2004 doesn't plan on voting for anybody right now.  This is far from a Democratic realignment and is actually easily reversible, as you've got a huge chunk of disaffected voters who want to vote, who most recently voted Republican, and for whom Democrats are clearly not an option.  It doesn't take much more than a strong national leader and a new set of big ideas to get those voters back to the polls, pulling the R lever.  Just look at how many Perot voters came home for Bush 2000.  

It's probably too late to salvage 2006.  We're going to lose a couple of Senate seats and a few House seats, but we'll retain control of the chambers.  Hopefully, this will serve as a wake up call to the GOP establishment and to conservative voters who plan to take their ball and go home if they don't get exactly what they want for '08.  2006 will make the thought of President Hillary and a Democratic Congress a near-reality in many minds, and I can't think of any better motivating factor to get the band back together, so to speak, and provide conservatives with an impetus to pick a winning candidate, rally around a strong national leader, and devise a bevy of new, big ideas to lead the GOP and conservatism into the next decade.

'06 will be a downer of an election night.  But it will make '08 seem that much sweeter.

1. Many incumbents retired, due to the fact this was the last election they could do so and keep excess campaign contributions
   
2. There was a new census
   
3. A large number of Democrats in the South were running in districts that had become increasingly Republican

None of those apply this time around.  I expect there will be little change on Election Day.  

And you can ignore the national polls.  They are a very poor predictor, even after discounting the fact they overweight Dems.

For all we hear about current disaffection with the GOP, McCain and Giuliani are both beating presumptive 2008 candidate Hillary by 15 points... in New Jersey.

We enjoyed the benefits of redistricting. Not all of those are holding together legally. This could be something not expected.

I did see a Fox poll today that was rather encouraging:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,188633,00.html

For 2008: Giuliani  51%

          Hillary   39%

          McCain    50%

          Hillary   39%

The poll internals, for once, were pretty consistent with the 2004 electorate:

36% R

37% D

20% Independent

 6% other/refused to answer

In the primaries, Giuliani beats McCain 29% - 22%, everyone else under 10%.

A lot can happen between now and 2008, or even between now and November. Giuliani is still regarded as a 9/11 hero, but he will have to define himself on national issues to win the nomination, or lose it to McCain or someone else. The good news is that either of them (for now) can keep Hillary out of the White House.

President Bush's job-approval ratings have been seriously hurt by the Dubai ports deal, and regardless of the merits of the deal, GOP members of Congress probably helped themselves in 2006 by opposing it. President Bush wisely "changed the subject" by discussing Iraq, and pointing up the achievements in Tal Afar, and a continued discussion of the recently declassified Iraq documents could also (eventually) deflate the no-WMD-in-Iraq-no-Saddam-Al-Qaeda-connection canard. According to Rasmussen, the President's Job Approval hit 49% just before the Dubai port story broke. He has been down before, and came back. If he continues with press conferences and speeches like he has recently, he can bounce back again, and lift GOP Congressional candidates with him.

But he should probably not take any vacation this summer, and fly back to Washington and call the Governors of the threatened states if a hurricane approaches! There were four hurricanes in Florida in 2004, where his brother is Governor, which didn't prevent him from winning that state!

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/State%20Polls/March%202006/Montana%20S
enate%20March.htm

Speaking of polls, Rasmussen today also has Senator Conrad Burns trailing both Democrats, but alternate GOP candidates Rep. Denny Rehberg and former Governor Marc Racicot would beat the Dems by double-digits. Methinks it's a good time for a GOP primary in Montana.

1) was actually in 1992, but 1994 had a lot of 1 term congressmen and hence, weak incumbants.

1. Will a GOP majority in the House and Senate vote to raise the debt ceiling once again?
   
2. Will a GOP majority in the House and Senate vote to increase spending in the 2007 and 2008 Federal Budgets as they have over the past 5 years
   
3. Will the GOP continue to accept Bush's "stay the course" non-strategy in Iraq until 3,000 US troops are killed or thousands of Iraqis are killed in open sectarian warfare
   
4. Does the GOP believe that they can continue to confuse Americans on the difference between "spying on terrorists" and "illegal warrentless wiretapping" until November 2007?
   
5. What will the GOP do when Abramoff is compelled to reveal more of his deep and personal relationships with virtually all of the GOP leadership?
   
6. What will the GOP do when Karl Rove is finally indicted for lying to the Federal Grand Jury
   
7. Can the GOP produce (1) ONE bonafide Constitutional expert lawyer who will say that Bush's warrentless wiretaps DO NOT violate FISA?
   
8. Can the GOP create enough hysteria around illegal immigrants to distract the public from the civil war raging in Iraq?
   
9. How can the GOP re-claim the mantle of reform when they cannot agree on sweeping anti-corruption legislation.
   
10. How can the rubber stamp GOP congress effectively distance themselves from one of the most unpopular Presidents in history after backing nearly all of his agenda in virtual lock step?

1. First I would require extensive oversight of all the money that was being spent in Iraq.  I like most Americans suspect that billions have been squandered through incompetence and much more has been out right stolen.  Then I would reduce spending in Iraq drastically.
   
2. Yes.  I would reduce the troop strength and reposition them as rapid reaction forces that could be deployed in country at short notice
   
3. No.  I would increase the troop strength in Iraq and make the capture of Osama a priority once again
   
4. Iran is 10 years away from a real nuke program.  I would negotiate and contain.
   
5. Korea has nukes and is very likely selling them to Osama right now.  I would puch for one on one talks and negotiate an end to their program in return for economic assistance.  At the same time I would start a covert program to oust Kim Jong Ill
   
6. America's borders must be secure.  Then I would start a guest worker program.  Companies like Walmart who depend on illegal labor would be taxed and the illegals would also pay a small tax on their wages.  
   
7. NO, I would repeal Bush's tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy, which is not a tax increase
   
8. Repeal Bush's Medicare give away to the HMO's, cut back on Iraq spending
   
9. YES, The wiretaps CLEARLY violate the FISA law and no-one is above the law in this country
   
10. If the evidence proves beyond any reasonable doubt that Bush committed an impeachable offense then YES I would

1. I wouldn't cut spending if it would put American lives at risk.  That being said, the war is putting a severe financial strain to our country and something needs to be done. Maybe cutting other pet defense projects like the JST or F-22 that we don't currently need.  But like I said, we can't cut money from essential things the troops need.

Glad to hear you wouldn't cut spending for the war. Your party on the other hand most likely would and that's something we just can't alow.  

2. Something that I heard Murtha said (dont pounce on this) is that our troops are part of the problem, and that if are troops were pulled out then the foreign fighters would also be kicked out by the Iraqis.  While I don't necessarily agree with this, I'm also don't fully accept that our troops have been part of the solution either.  So for this question, I'd say that I'd love to see both parties sit down and talk without any rhetoric.  This issue is being politisized by BOTH parties and the people it's hurting most is the troops and that is not acceptable.

Dianne Feinstein was talking about troop withdrawal over the weekend and she and her ilk are 100% wrong. Don't fall for the, "our troops being there is part of the problem noise"! The problem is there are insurgents and terrorist who want to kill us and see us fail in Iraq. And we will not allow that to happen!  

3. No, catching Osama should have always been the number one priority.

I wouldn't say Number one priority but very high on the list!

4. I do not believe that Iran will have nukes anytime soon, so for the time being we need to create conditions that allow ourselves to be taken seriously militarily.  Iran knows we cannot keep up Iraq and also take them on so for the time being, I'd say do as much as possible through the UN and negotiating because we are kidding ourselves into thinking Iran needs to be taken out now.  It's turning into the same pit of quicksand Iraq started as.

Iran will have nukes very soon read some of GordonTaylor's work HERE and HERE an air campaign would not be a problem as we are already fighting a shadow war with Iran on the ground in Iraq

5. I always thought North Korea was a bigger priority and I really wish they would have been a focus instead of Iraq.  I think that was a major blunder by Bush.  Iraq was not a threat to our national security by any means, although that is easy to say now because hindsight is always 20/20.  Honestly I don't know what to do now because I'm not well versed enough on the issue to say.

Iraq was most defiantly a threat to our security all one needs to do is read the recent documents released by the Whitehouse to understand what a lot of us had known all along see HERE and  HERE

6. We need to protect our borders.  Remember the old football euphomism?  Defense wins championships.  I'm all for immigration, but it should be controlled.  I have no problem with the number if immigrants here, but they should come here legally.  As for changes now, I think any change is better than what we currently have any I'd support any plan that could get a majority in senate.

Again your party and a lot in mine feel differently. We need comprehensive immigration reform which I don't have time to get into here. but it should not include any type of amnesty and any gust worker program should evolve the participant returning to their country of origin to apply and obtain such privileges

7. The Bush tax cuts seem to be putting an undue burdon on our national debt.  The state of our economy can be hotly debated, but one thing is for sure, and that is our national debt is out of control and that cannot continue.  So if you call repealing a tax cut the same thing as a tax increase, then the answer to your question is yes.  But I don't see much need after that to raise taxes.  How many readers of this site would really be effected anyways?

Everyone of our readers would be effected one way or another. But let's go a step further lets pass H.R. 25 and S. 25 the Fair Tax! Tax reform is paramount and while were at it we can get rid of the welfare state and our broken down social programs!

8. I fully support Pay-Go which I was sad to see opposed by most republicans.  national debt is out of control and we cannot keep spending non-existent money.  Social programs account for such a small percentage of the budget compared to other things that I don't see that spending as the problem.  I see our defense budget as a major obstacle.  We spend more than twice the amount of the rest of the world combined on defense and I think billions could easily be cut out of that while still easily maintaining our status as world asskickers.  Pet projects are also way out of control and I think, or maybe it's just a naive assumption, that splitting control of congress between both parties may bring earmarkes down...I'm not sure about that though.

I agree spending is out of control but dems have always been and always will be tax and spenders. What we need is to reduce the size of government and get rid of costly departments and programs that are an endless black hole swallowing money better used elsewhere.

9. I think investigations into NSA are needed in a truly non-partison way that so far have not been accomplished once during the past 5 years.  I'm talking equal numbers from both parties, subpoena power, and putting people under oath.  If needed for national security, dont make them public (if that's possible).  Democrats aren't standing up and saying end the program because they don't want the program to end.  Of course we want to catch terrorists if they are inside out country.  But I personally think there's gotta be better ways of doing it that aren't so shady.  I also don't understand why Bush can't get his warrants afterwards as he can get it 72 hours retroactively, it just seems like they have something to hide that they know they shouldn't be doing.  I hope that's just my cynical side though.

This issue has been debated to death here. Investigate away, there is absolutely nothing to it. btw every President, since FISA was enacted including Carter signed executive orders to get around this law.

10. If he committed a serious crime, yes.  More serious than getting a bl****b.(no profanity here - thanks).  To me, it's about holding people accountable and if it came out that our president committed a serious crime, then I think we would be weaker to the rest of the world for doing nothing than to hold Bush accountable.  We should stand behind out President, but not if our president is a criminal (not saying he is, just if somehow it came out he did).

First of all, Clinton was impeached for lying under oath, so lets get the history correct! Second not one of the president's detractors has filed charges, put up or shut up' comes to mind... also since key democrats like Nancy Pelosi were informed and updated on this program, will they too be guilty of a crime or not reporting a crime, investigated, and humiliated?

1.  I certainly hope so.  Debt default would be bad.
   
2.  I hope not.  But I somehow doubt that they'll be any different than any previous Congress in the history of the Republic.  Though the Democrats' constant carping about deep "cuts" to anything Republicans even try to slow the rate of growth on doesn't help.
   
3.  Probably.  We'll still be well under the 5,000 dead Kos predicted in 2002 just trying to take Baghdad.  And picking up sticks and leaving sure isn't going to help matters.
   
4.  Boy I hope so, especially given that the "illegal warrantless wiretapping" was used to "spy on terrorists."  Besides, I'm guessing Congress will take care of that "illegal" qualfier in the near future.  By a resounding vote.
   
5.  Probably nothing, other than point out that Abramoff had relations with both Republicans and Democrats, and that being friends with a shady character doesn't automatically give rise to an inference that you're on the take from that person or that Abramoff really ran the country instead of Cheney.
   
6.  Please hand me your crystal ball.  I could use it for good instead of evil.
   
7.  Not as long as you define "bona fide" as someone who thinks Bush's actions were unconstitutional.
   
8.  Some questions are so dumb they don't deserve an answer.  But last time I checked, the President was pressing for an amnesty program, and some Republicans and some Democrats (and some around here) were joining hands to bash it.
   
9.  Probably by approving just about anything the Democrats coalesce around in an attempt to claim the mantle of reform that they never held.
   
10.  Democrats bash the President every day for a decision to go to war that they largely supported the President on.  So I'm sure Republicans can come up with something.

republicans would stop it with the "tax and spend" meme.  really, is "borrow and spend" any better?

Am not a confidant of the GOP leadership, but would answer that:

1. The debt ceiling must be raised as long as deficit spending continues
   
2. No.  And certainly not as fast as Democrats would increase it.
   
3. They will stay the course in Iraq because a disorganized pullout will be much more costly in lives.
   
4. Americans are not confused.  The President's policies re wiretaps on terrorists abroad are quite popular.
   
5. Commiserate with Harry Reid and other Democrats similarly placed.
   
6. They have to have a strategy by now, since it didn't happen at Halloween, All Saint's Day, Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Year's or Valentine's Day.  Perhaps the Easter Bunny will be deliver the goods.
   
7. Sure.  Unless bonafides are evaluated by the ACLU.
   
8. The establishment GOP is fairly laid-back on immigration, unlike the Democratic governors of New Mexico and Arizona, who have declared emergencies around it.
   
9. The mantle will be up for grabs the day the Clintons run again.
   
10. A non-sequitur.  If rubber stamp, the GOP Congress could not distance itself from President Bush.  If not, the question is meaningless.  And the GOP does not always support the President, as Harriet Piers, the Dubai ports people and his Social Security reformers could testify.

"Please hand me your crystal ball.  I could use it for good instead of evil."

Good one.

that more and more people either avoid the polls or give deliebrately misleading answers to them.

After watching the cynical racism of Schumer over the Dubai deal, and the MSM not being able to even frame the issue correectly, I have no confidence at all in the polls that are guided by the lokes of Zogby etc. to give us anything like accurate or interesting numbers.

the extreme wing of the Democrat Party WILL sink their hopes.

If the GOP doesn't use the Democrat pro-surrender, pro-tax, pro-homosexual marriage, pro-abortion policies against them, then they deserve to lose.

the election is a choice between

Choice A:

a party that protects life, protects America, protects values, and has produced the best economy in a long time.

Choice B:

a party that doesn't recognize innocent life, a party that opposes many War on Terror missions, a party which would rather send America down the amoral sewer that Europe is now in, and a party that supports high economy-destroying taxes.

The fact is that the Democrat Party won't have time to develop positions, or ideas, because if we're smart, we'll force them to fight each other.

We're force them to denounce Feingold and Murtha and other extremists.

The Democrat Party has nothing they can show for getting things done, because they are a party on the verge of their own extinction.

I see our defense budget as a major obstacle.  We spend more than twice the amount of the rest of the world combined on defense and I think billions could easily be cut out of that while still easily maintaining our status as world asskickers.

Please God, please let the Dems run on a "cut the Defense budget" platform.  Pretty please???

And its delusional to say that not much is spent on "social programs," unless you don't count Social Security.  That conveniently eliminates a program that paid out $500 billion in 2004 and takes up 22% of the budget, making it the largest government program in the world and the size of the defense budget (18%). Medicare and Medicaid would also have to be eliminated from consideration, since they account for pretty sizeable chunks of the budget as well (12% and 8%, respectively, or $300B and $182B in 2005, respectively).  

But yeah, I suppose in comparison to those three the $50 billion we spent on food assistance, $38 billion we spend on housing assitance, and $121 billion we spent on other direct cash benefits is peanuts.

drop it if it were no longer true and the Democrats would stop with the Bushlied and all the rest of the taking points trotted out on a daily basis.

Until then, pointing out factual, historical policies especially in the context in which I said it, will continue to be my prerogative.

Thanks for stopping by, maybe next time you can contribute something of substance instead of hit and run comments as your posting history suggests? Just a suggestion.

of all time Talking-Point-O-Matic.

Because 2 and 3 ("reduce the troop strength" and "increase the troop strength in Iraq" respectively) directly contradict each other.

Pretty sad when you cannot even manage a coherent response to your own questions.

1. When it comes down to it, the steps which are needed to decrease the deficit are too painful for the left to advocate. The debt ceiling won't have to be raised if social spending is cut further.
   
2. They will vote to decrease social spending. But, if we need more money to win the war on terror, it will be given.
   
3. The GOP opposes all pro-surrender strategies. The only way to defeat terrorists is with strength, not surrender.
   
4. No illegal warrantless wiretapping is occuring. There's nothing to confuse people about, because we are monitoring terrorists.
   
5. They'll take the actions needed to close loopholes in the system. Congress right now is at the cleanest that it has been in decades.
   
6. Won't happen. Libby won't even get convicted, because Fitzgerald has nothing on either Rove or Libby.
   
7. They exist, and they have made their opinions clear. You don't need a constitutional lawyer to deal with matters of law anyways.
   
8. There's no need to create hysteria, because there is a problem on the borders, and only the GOP is willing to solve the problem.
   
9. The solution to problems is not more laws, but getting the laws enforced. When it comes down to it, passing more laws in response to a violation of the law is a bit absurd. If there is corruption in the system, it can be stomped with a line-item veto.
   
10. Bush isn't unpopular, he just has a slightly low job approval, and that is due to a relentless Liberal media assault on him. The GOP Congress knows where it's bread is buttered, and they know that their base will turn out in November.

I logged on and started reading these threads and thought I'd fallen down the rabbit hole! But then I remembered, the VA sends out meds on Tuesday...obviously, in some cases, the dosages need adjusting!

He'll deploy more weaker soldiers. For example, he'll deploy more Oompa Loompas to the front lines, therefore reducing troop strength, and increasing troop numbers.

Although, I think dancing midgets are frowned upon by Iraqi terrorists.

Can you imagine the look of terror on the faces of the terrorists when they see this coming for them?

The one good point--start a covert program to oust Kim Jong Il.

But one-on-one talks with North Korea in exchange for economic aid? Bill Clinton did that, and the North Koreans cheated. Let's not make the same mistake twice! Besides, since Dems always want us to be multi-lateral, what's wrong with getting the Russians, Chinese, and Japanese involved, as Bush is doing?

Oh, by the way, repealing previously enacted tax cuts is, by definition, a tax increase. The "conservative" (?) Dem from the Great Lakes favors a tax increase. Read his lips!

he would increase troop levels in Afghanistan to catch Osama bin Laden, which would be a great idea if Osama bin Laden was in Afghanistan.  Most people think he is in the tribal region of Pakistan.  Back to the drawing board.

Early, hypothetical polls had Bush trouncing Gore too, but that didn't bear out.  

And the problem both Giuliani and McCain has is the primary.  Giuliani is just too liberal on social issues, while McCain is too unpredictable.

The only way I can see either winning over enough of the base to win the nomination is if they make a genuine, believable pledge to be an unwavering champion of righting the courts.  They must convince the base that they'd fight for Scalia/Thomas/Roberts/Alito types, and not betray us with more O'Connor/Souter types.  

Yet, I can't see either making such a pledge.  

Governors Richardson and Napolitano did declare the whole emergency thing on the border -- so let's applaud them for it -- but it was hardly indicative of a different position than the pro-illegal alien, pro-amnesty position of the Democratic party.  Both support all sorts of public service for illegals, and Napolitano opposed the measure passed by Arizonans in 2004 that seeks to cut off all such services.  Well, all such services that the imperial Sup Court has not yet mandated.  

The entire list of questions is taken straight from the dem Talking-Point-O-Matic™.  I seriously hope they plan to campaign on these issues in '06 and '08, but the dems couldn't possibly be so stupid to enact an election battle plan that insures Republican victory and perpetual dominance in both houses of congress and the White House.  We could only be so lucky the dems make the same mistake three times in a row.

But to address your questions:

1.  Yes, if that's what it takes to insure our troops have everything they need to complete the mission while making the 2001 tax cuts permanent.
   
2.  No, due to base-line budgeting the federal budget increases automatically every year.
   
3.  Conservatives will continue to support President Bush's Strategy for Victory in Iraq until the mission is completed.
   
4.  There is nothing confusing about the NSA's Terrorist Surveillance Program.  The name of the program pretty much says it all.
   
5.  Since registering as a lobbyist, Abramoff and his clients directed far more special interest money to democrats than republicans.  I welcome that debate, but I suspect Harry Reid does not.
   
6.  Fitzgerald has nothing on Rove and is in danger of losing the case against Scooter Liddy because of pre-trial motions and discovery rules.
   
7.  The FISA Court has ruled the executive (President Bush) has the inherent constitutional authority under Article II to conduct warrantless surveillance of terrorists.  Additionally, the Terrorist Surveillance Program, as currently constructed, does not violate FISA (In RE: Sealed Case).
   
8.  The public is fully aware there are terrorists and Iranian agents trying to foment a civil war in Iraq, but have been unsuccessful so far.  MSM and liberal democrats may believe otherwise.
   
9.  Lobby reform legislation is not neccessary.  Simply enforce the current law and ethics rules.
   
10.  Republicans seeking elected office and who support President Bush will most likely win in '06.  Those who try to distance themselves from the president will most likely lose in '06.  Conventional wisdom was turned upside-down following September 11, 2001.
    

has a lot to do with why we spend more.  We have troops stationed all over Europe, to the point that Europe can scrimp on its defense budget, because our guys are there protecting them.

I think the US should seriously cut back on some of its troops stationed in Europe.

Afghanistan, but then he would probably set off a powder keg that he didn't intend.

vote in favor of Bork, and other SCOTUS judges.

McCain's problem isn't really the court, it is his tendancy to play the maverick media darling and his nose thumbing at the base.

Guliani I think has a tough row to hoe, if he wants to appeal to the base, but if security issues are still on the table, he might be able to pull it off-but I don't know that either survives the primary.

everyone can point to his first-amendement-defying Campaign Finance "Reform" bill.  It's reform just like Castro's government was a reform.

If McCain won't defend the constitution as a legislator, why should I think he would take that part of the oath of office of the presidency seriously?

If for no other reason (and there are others), McCain is not an option because of CFR.

is one of the dumbest things McCain ever signed his name to.  I think he could negate some of it, if he would say it was a mistake and that he would seek to repeal it, but I don't think it is in McCain to admit he screwed up.

I don't think McCain or Guliani can survive a primary season-they might get a few victories-McCain is still well liked in NH, but not enough to get them close to a nomination.

I think there are wastefull pet projects that can be cut that take up a TON of money, and I don't think those programs are any more important than earmarks or social programs.  There's a ton of fat that can be cut from all over the budget, not just social programs.

No I wasn't really thinking of social security as a social program as that's not going to be a social program that's ever going to be cut by republicans, but that is another issue that needs to be addressed .  Rather sooner than later.

...is called "dinner" by someone else. That's why government spending will never be cut, no matter who is in the White House or controls Congress. And the President had it just right this morning in his press conference: it's not the discretionary programs that represent the out-of-control spending. It's the entitlements.

1.  I'm not convinced that democrats could ever actually reduce war spending, although I'm sure one would introduce a bill which would get negligable support (like censure)
   
   
2.  I'm not totally convinced that the presence of our troops isn't in some way hurting us.  I feel as though the actions of a small group of troops (I hope small) were very detrimental to the rest of the troops as a whole and the overall mission in Iraq, which is a real shame.  I think innocent people would die if we did a full pull out, but according to Ayad Allawi (sp?)  around 50 people are dying a day anyways, so something still isn't right with us being there.  Again, I entertain the idea but I don't really buy into it.
   
   
3.  I think if we are serious about a GWOT, catching  Osama needs to be our number 1 priority. He was the one in charge of 9/11, and I think we'd be more credible with the rest of the world if we captured him or at least showed a stronger effort.
   
   
4.  Sorry, but I just really think that Iran is not yet to a point where we need to worry about military strikes.  I just dont buy it, the language being used now about Iran sounds eerily similar to that of Iraq 3 years ago, which causes me to become more cynical that it's more political than an actual danger.  But they are a bunch of wackjobs over there, I'll give anyone that.
   
   
5.  Again, I don't buy into this quiet yet either.  I just dont think there's enough evidence.
   
   
6.  I'd be fine with that.
   
   
7.  There's a LOT of social programs that are GREATLY beneficial and it would be a sad day to have some of them gone.  I work in higher education and there's a lot of federal programs involve getting students in very bad socio-economic backgrounds into college and they help so many people.
   
   
8.  yes dems are traditionally bigger spenders, but the current republicans leaders in congress have taken spending to a new dangerous level that needs to end.  That being said, I personally would not mind higher taxes if I knew that money went to education or healthcare (but I'm not a socialist so calm your trigger fingers):)  I don't believe the republican party is being represented accurately by the spending of our current congress.
   
   
9.  yes this has been debated to death, but I don't believe that all the facts are known about it and again, depending on the lens you see it through some people will defend it to death.  I'm not convinced that certain aspects of it are legal and I'd rather see everything done in a legal way (which is pretty easily done in my opinion) than have legislation passed to legalize something that is so hotly debated.
   
   
10.  Lastly (phew), Yes I know the history of the Clinton "thing."  I have two problems I have are that the republicans dont investigate anything, they don't do oversight.  And if you control everything, why should you?  The one somewhat chance of investigation (questioning of the AG), he wasn't even put under oath, that's kind of a joke.    And someone correct me if i'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure democrats can't bring charges against the president if they dont control either house of congress.  Secondly, a lot of republicans(not every republican) when referencing the NSA scandal also make sure to note that it was illegally leaked out to the press.  So it seems to me that we cannot criticize whoever leaked the information but then criticize dems for NOT leaking it.  To me, it sounds more like a "oh by the way we are doing this and you cant do anything about it" briefing than a "we have a problem and we'd like your input as to how to solve it briefing"

You're nuts to even contemplate the McCain might do that!  The man sued to force the FEC to extend the scope of his law to the internet, and sites like this one.

He doesn't think BCFR was a mistake; he thinks it's the proudest achievement of his life.  I wouldn't vote for McCain even to keep Hillary out of the WH.

to your point 2.

It's hard to make a case that the Census had an impact on 1994. The decennial was conducted in 1990 and redistricting from that Census was in effect in 1992.

here here.  If the choice were McCain or Hillary, I'd either stay home or vote Constitution Party, libertarian, or write myself in.

The debt limit was reduced in 1946, and not raised again until 1954. From 1954 onward, the debt limit has been re-invoked or increased 74 times!

Annual expenditures have increased EVERY year, under MANY Congresses.  Since WWII, the only tears in which DECREASES occured were 1946-48, 1954&55, and 1965!  Not since 1965 has a year passed that Congress could bring itself to CUT the budget.  I rather think the GOP will continue to buy more votes until the money runs out or the Democrats takes charge and spend even more to buy votes.

Until the Democrats come up with a better plan (notice, they don't currently have ANY plan), the GOP has little choice but to stay the course.  Far more Iraqi troops and police are currently being killed than US forces during the Iraqi gang warfare (I couldn't justify calling it "sectarian warfare").

Cite a source for "illegal," and I'll bother to comment.  Lawrence Tribe says it might be, although "wiretapping" ill-describes what NSA is doing.  I'm still waiting for a Democrat to come up with a way to write a warrant for a conversation picked up weeks ago with a few thousand others that suddenly bubbles to the top of some key-word search.  Then there's always that warrant defense:  "No, no, no ... that warrant was for Osama .... I'm Usama ..... throw out those RPGs and mortars you seized as evidence."

The same thing Rostenkowski (D-IL) did when caught with his stamps down .... and whatever Reid (D-NV) says about the $85,000 he got in on.

Fitzgerald is a good prosecutor ... if Rove was involved, he'd be up on charges already ... that pipe-dream isn't going to happen.

Starting with Justice Taft (Olmstead v US), there's plenty of law in favor of Bush ... the Court has yet to decide a case based on FISA that would NOT support the President.

The civil war raging in Iraq is THEIR problem ... although perhaps the illegal immigrants from Syria and Iran are contributing to it.

The same way the Democrats (who have forgotten their scandals of 1994) swept up the anti-corruption detritus.  Plenty of argument and a typical Congressional "ssshhhh ... we're not really corrupt"  bill will get passed.

Many GOPers already spread some daylight, using the Dubai issue .... they're wrong, but it'll buy them that "independence."