The American Spectator

Rocco| 6.12.09 @ 7:17AM

Mr. Antle, as desirable as this course of action is, I think hell would freeze over first before any one of the Republican senatorial leadership would mistakenly find a set of cojones and do so. The current crop of so-called Republican leaders makes eunuchs look more manly than Arnold in his bodybuilding prime. I just wouldn't count on it, lamentably. Simply put, these guys have never been in a streetfight when they were young, so are clueless in facing down bullies.

Melvin| 6.12.09 @ 7:35AM

We can wish in one hand and crap in the other and see which one fills up first in wishing that the Republican leadership would develop some sort of political strategy to counter the Democrats.
Truth of it is this current crop of Republicans leaders have as much fight in them as a neutered dog.
They do a allot of yapping, and whining but there isn't any fight in the bark.
Just take a look at these guys at a press conference, they stand there like puffed up peacocks, fingers awagging, and there mouths are moving but no sounds of leadership are coming out.
The French have more fight in them than these guys.

Ryan| 6.12.09 @ 8:15AM

I'm for an up-or-down vote, but the Republicans need to make sure the process is extensive and as nitpicking as possible. The more Sotomayor's views come publicly to light, the more opportunity the Republicans have down the road in 2010 and beyond to point out the leftist bent of the administration.

Michael L. Hauschild| 6.12.09 @ 8:15AM

What the constituency needs in 2010 is a to give the congress a huge dose of RINO magnesium citrate.

Anthony| 6.12.09 @ 8:28AM

There will be no serious push back by these feeble old men because they not only lack guts, they lack the motivation. Truth be known, McConnell & Co. are more upset about senate protocol slights by Leahy than the actual nominee's record. These guys get awefully prickly when Club Senate rules get violated. That tells you these people are focused on their power trips rather than doing their jobs. And what is their job? Well, for them, it's to remain in Washington as long as possible.
No, don't expect much here, these guys are beltway careerists first, last and always. Their interests are not ours, they represent their extended careers, not the best interst of the country. This is why the government is systemicly failing the American people.

C. Vail| 6.12.09 @ 9:08AM

If any of them did have guts they would do like Teddy Kennedy did to Robert Bork; e.g: "In Sonia Sotomayor's America, no white male would land a job or receive a promotion if a lesser qualified minority was in line for the same...in Sonia Sotomayor's America women would be given deference, Latinas even more, and presumably women of Puerto Rican descent the most...in Sonia Sotomayor's America we can dispense with the legislative branch of government because policy will be made by unelected judges...in Sonia Sotomayor's America..." Well, you get the idea.

c. vail

Bob| 6.12.09 @ 9:22AM

Antle, you missed the larger point. Politicians need votes to get elected. The Republican party remains a reactionary element in politics by wanting to move back to Reagan and the family units of the 50's. But demographics and interest groups have changed. Minorities are a growing percentage of the population and younger voters are now getting into politics in huge numbers. Younger voters do not have socially conservative views and support gay marriage. They don't see racism the way it is presented here because they've grown up with a mixed society. You are living in the past.

In this vein, the Republican party exists as older, white, male Southerners. Most politicians understand these realities and also understand that increasingly, minority votes are the difference between winning and losing.

No Republican running for statewide office in the Southwest or coastal states can vote successfully against Sotomayor and get reelected. You are living in an isolated, ideological world. Politicians must live in the real world.

Siegfried X| 6.12.09 @ 9:38AM

Republican senators won't put up a fight because they are closet democrats. The only difference between Democrat and Republican politicians is that the Republican ones pretend they aren't Democrats.

macdaddy| 6.12.09 @ 10:03AM

I'm sorry but the Republicans' complaining about the hearings starting over a month away sounds like a bunch of sandbox whining. What else do they have to do? They have absolutely no power, no way to advance bills, no way to get their way. So why waste time on legislative pursuits? Instead, get to work coming up with a plan to sink Sotomayor's nomination. If they think it's that important (which I personally doubt they do) then they should put some effort into it and 5 weeks should be more than enough.

Bob| 6.12.09 @ 10:09AM

macdaddy -- the Senate has confirmed Sotomayor twice before so they have already done the research. Outside groups have been looking at her decisions for months now. There is little that is not known about her. Delaying her confirmation is just a way to extend the time to get donations from social conservatives, i.e., it is a way to get money. That's the reality of this game.

Truth to Power| 6.12.09 @ 10:12AM

Bob makes a wonderful case for cowardice. Shut up and act like brave Bob so we can win meaningless elections. Cowards aren't very inspiring.

les grossman| 6.12.09 @ 10:26AM

They should...but they won't. The Senate Whigs are noodles. Until they are retired and replaced, the GOP will continue to get its collective butt kicked.

Pete| 6.12.09 @ 10:26AM

She is an affirmative action coddled racist and should be opposed vigorously, if for no other reason than to help continue to expose the affirmative action coddled racist in our highest office. The mainstream media will have to cover the hearings, and even though the coverage will be ludicrously slanted, those who are seeking the truth will be able to find some in the well reasoned questions and comments by senators opposed to her nomination. I don't know if they have the sack to do it but I fervently hope they do.

Bob| 6.12.09 @ 10:34AM

Actually "truth", being a social libertarian, I could care less about Sotomayor's views on social issues. In fact, that would be a positive in my view. However, in order to address the fiscal issues and overspending by the Obama administration, fiscal conservatives need to be elected. If voting for Sotomayor gets fiscal conservatives elected, I'm all for it.

Old Texican| 6.12.09 @ 10:48AM

We can certainly discover republicans we need to retire

DCody| 6.12.09 @ 11:08AM

C.Vail is right, Bob is (repeatedly) wrong. Bob, have you ever worked on a federal judicial nomination? Do you have any idea what's involved, even with full staff effort? You don't--I do, because I lived it for 18 months. I assure you 5 weeks isn't nearly enough time, especially since the Dems are holding back various key items, and will continue to do so, until the day before hearings begin. Then they will lie about the completeness of the record, brand any opposition as racist, and literally shout down (before, during and after the hearings) anyone who dares "smear" the wise latina. It is critically important, though, for the Republicans to fight this, even if the result (confirmation) is inevitable. A fighting retreat can make some important points (already made by other commenters here) and rally money (also important) and foot soldiers for future battles. I also really like the idea of a reverse-Kennedy floor speech. Fighting only on the "high" judicial principle ground will get the Republicans nowhere. Even "Hispanics" (as if they are a monolithic voting bloc--Mexicans, by the way, despise Puerto Ricans) in the U.S. Southwest understand the concepts of MERIT and SELF-DEFENSE, both of which Senora Sotomayor has openly disdained.

L. Ross| 6.12.09 @ 11:34AM

It seems to me that the Democrats spent the entirety of GWB's admininstration fighting almost everything he proposed tooth and nail. Did they suffer for it, or were they rewarded for sticking up for their principles? They energized their base, brought in boatloads of cash, and killed conservatives in the last election. The fact that the Republicans governed as "Democrate-lite" leaders was the root of their downfall. People who believe in something always trump people who believe in nothing, and unfortunately, Republicans revealed themselves to be people who believe in nothing.

Paul from SA| 6.12.09 @ 11:38AM

Republican Senators live in fear of the MSM, NAACP, NOW, ACLU, La Raza.

Pete| 6.12.09 @ 12:13PM

more chicago style corruption afoot...

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Whats-behind-Obamas-sudden-firing-of-the-AmeriCorps-inspector-general-47877797.html

Richard Baker| 6.12.09 @ 12:25PM

The cowardice of our elected Representatives to defend the idea of America means, sadly, that the day is coming when the cry "Take arms!" will be heard again in this country. Be certain that that regrettable step will be necessary just as it was in the 1770s and for the same reasons.

Dave| 6.12.09 @ 12:52PM

Let's get right to the point: The only position this Clown College of elected Republicans will probably take is the one that requires ... bending over at the ankles.

I think medical journals it's described as CYA Syndrome.

Disclaimer: CYA Syndrome not diagnosed in all cases; your reps' diagnosis may vary.

Burma shave.

Siegfried X| 6.12.09 @ 1:01PM

"They energized their base, brought in boatloads of cash, and killed conservatives in the last election"

Exactly. The Republican political "experts" constantly tell us that all of the tactics Democrats use are bad, yet those tactics worked.

Another example is the nomination process. John McCain was coronated in a rigged contest, and we were told it had to be that way because a long primary season divides the party and causes it to lose. Yet Hillary & Obama fought all the way to the convention, and their party just got stronger and won. The real reason that McCain's nomination was rigged was so Democratic votes in a few big Democrat states could nominate the most liberal candidate. The primary season is short so that the party leadership can control it.

We are told that we can't debate each other within the party, or criticize our leaders. Yet the Democrats do it all the time, and they win because of it. Anytime a Democratic politician starts to move to the center, their liberal base is all over him, threatening to "primary" him out of office. But we are told that we just need to salute our RINO politicians.

The real purpose of all of these tactical decisions by the Republican party is to the liberal leadership can run the show, keeping conservatives under their thumbs.

Siegfried X| 6.12.09 @ 1:09PM

A recent poll showed that 38% of Republicans are unhappy with their party, while only a few percent of the Democrats are unhappy with theirs.

The reason is exactly what was said above: the Democrats believe in something and they fight for it. Republican politicians believe in nothing besides reelection, and half of them end up supporting most of Obama's legislation.

Bob| 6.12.09 @ 1:23PM

Siegfried -- Dems like their party because they are winners. People always like winners. It has nothing to do with their ideology. They lost so much in the past the only thing they cared about was winning. The left is extremely unhappy about many of the things Obama is doing, but they'd rather move to the middle on things like Iraq/Afghanistan and even Gitmo than to be out of the White House. For local races, they supported conservative candidates in conservative districts. They even supported pro-lifers. They did non win by ideology.
They won through smarts. The problem is that the Republican party has no smarts. They all graduated at the bottom of their classes or didn't go to college at all.

Therefore, your point makes little sense.

Siegfried X| 6.12.09 @ 1:30PM

Not all Democrats are pacifists. Their party has always been split on military issues. So Obama has to disappoint some of them on military issues, just like Bill Clinton did.

But Obama is an orthodox liberal on other issues, and he is pushing them all forwards and passing them. Obama's first 100 days passed a ton of liberal legislation, while President Bush didn't even try to have a 100 days, even when he had a Republican congress to work with.

The last time we had a conservative 100 days was 14 years ago with Newt Gingrich and the Contract With America.

Oldefarte| 6.12.09 @ 1:34PM

James Antel's comments go to the heart of the DIFFERENCE between liberals and conservatives-----the former are focused and concentrated in a ENDS JUSTIFIES THE MEANS way towards their agenda, while the latter [at least in DC] are focused on their BEND OVER, DROP YOUR JOCK, AND KISS YOUR A** GOODBY frame of mind. Conservatives should throw their copies of Robert's Rules of Order and the Queenbury rules in the garbage can!!!!

Siegfried X| 6.12.09 @ 1:36PM

"For local races, they supported conservative candidates in conservative districts. They even supported pro-lifers"

No Democrats are voting that way. When Obama needs votes for any liberal issue like trillions of dollars for "stimulus", the Democrats are there. No Democrats will vote against Sotomayor because she supports Roe v. Wade, because they really aren't pro-life.

Siegfried X| 6.12.09 @ 1:39PM

" the DIFFERENCE between liberals and conservatives"

Yes. The Republican Senators against the Democrats is like cub scouts fighting the Hell's Angels.

Pete| 6.12.09 @ 1:53PM

or small businessmen resisting the mob.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Whats-behind-Obamas-sudden-firing-of-the-AmeriCorps-inspector-general-47877797.html

Tim| 6.12.09 @ 1:55PM

"No Republican running for statewide office in the Southwest or coastal states can vote successfully against Sotomayor and get reelected. "

(spit take)

Ha! Bob, nine out of ten Americans don't even know what the Supreme Court is. They think it's where the food stands at the Mall are located.

But I must concede that nine out of ten Republican Senators completely swallow that bullshit you peddle. So congrats and enjoy your moment of triumph.

Old Texican| 6.12.09 @ 2:05PM

You know folks...
The deeper we go into this descending spiral, the more surely the backlash and reversal will be profound.
...well either that or we all get killed trying.

Bob| 6.12.09 @ 2:55PM

Siegfried -- a large number of Republicans like Colin Powell, Brooks, Parker, and me are also pro-choice and pro-gay marriage. In fact, Cheney and Steve Schmidt are pro-gay marriage. Democrats will support Sotomayor because of the large Hispanic population, not her position on issues. They have learned their lesson and winning is more important than ideology. George Bush learned that lesson which is why he governed and ran to the middle as a "compassionate conservative".

You need to study history a bit more. And don't give me that nonsense about McCain. McCain lost because he isn't that bright, ran a terrible campaign, and chose a joke as a VP.

Laraine| 6.12.09 @ 3:38PM

Republicans need to learn how to defend their conservative position. It's been so long since it's been seen. Dick and Lynn Cheney....that's the way to do it.

Know your facts, be proud of what you stand for. Don't answer crap questions. Stop them, and firmly state, "The premise of your question is wrong".

Louis Jenkins| 6.12.09 @ 4:06PM

When Liberal is nominated by a Liberal to the Supreme Court a certain halo immediately surrounds him. It's as if that nominee is suddenly Deified, and should not be touched by public or political opinion. Not so with a Conservative nominee. That nominee is subject to scrutiny from all quarters. Thomas Jefferson wrote; "they (Supreme Court Judges) consider themselves secure for life; they sculk from responsibility to public opinion, the only remaining hold on them....A judiciary independent of a king or executive alone, is a good thing; but independence of the will of the nation is a solecism (a breach of propriety), at least a republican government." This comment was written about confirmed supremes, but now applies to a Liberal nomination. Expect the Conservative leaders to preen, sputter, and strut. They haven't one ounce of junk yard dog in 'em.

Osamas Pajamas| 6.12.09 @ 4:25PM

Republicans are scared of their shadows and need to be armed -----
http://www.peikoff.com/lr/home.htm

Laraine| 6.12.09 @ 4:26PM

Lou, Your comment , "They haven't one ounce of junk yard dog in 'em", is spot-on!

We all know Sarah has that! I guess it's the reason I love her, over my perception, of Bobby Jindal (whom I love too).

Sarah is a scrapper, she's that junk yard dog, she's an alpha male, that looks like an angel...she and the other young conservatives Republicans, like Eric Cantor...these are the leaders, we've been waiting for.

Siegfried X| 6.12.09 @ 5:26PM

Is Sarah Palin doing anything to stop Sotomayor from getting confirmed?

W. James Antle III| 6.12.09 @ 5:30PM

Contra Bob, unless Republicans do something boneheaded in their opposition to Sotomayor, opposing her confirmation will have as much impact on the minority vote as the Democrats' opposition to Miguel Estrada, Janice Rogers Brown, and Clarence Thomas did. If there are no meaningful checks on judicial power, it won't really matter whether Republicans or Democrats get elected. Finally, yes I do live in the past -- the past when this country was governed by a Constitution.

Jim M| 6.12.09 @ 6:25PM

It's Time (for these guys) to Get Serious? Get serious!

It's time to throw them out- the lifers- Democrat and Republican. That's what it's time for!

Old Texican| 6.12.09 @ 6:41PM

Antle the Third

Old Texican, ( VI generations), here.
Honestly, do all the minorities now make a majority?
Do we earners now just settle down in our harness and pull the load for all of them?
Is that the new morality?

If it is, then screw 'em. Let's establish the "BALKY MULE" party and sit down in our traces. Let's every one of us take the automatic income tax extensions and send a message. (My family did.)
I think we go to the wall raising hell about Justices who ignore the constitution.
We have to find at least one Senator who is willing to be "stupid" enough to set up a 24/7 news conference on the steps of the Capitol Building...and raise some constitutionalist hell.
Thoughts?

Laraine| 6.12.09 @ 7:39PM

Old Texan,

I'm with you, to the "mattresses" on the Supreme Court Justices and nationalizing health care. As rabid a response, as Shiela Jackson Lee and Charlie Rangel, Chuck Shumer, Chris Dodd, etc. etc. No issue gets a free pass; obstruct on everything, no more bi-partisanship. It's like peeling an onion, eventually BO's popularity will diminish. I'm done being a chump.

I'm an old lady, but I'm here ready to take to the streets with my shotgun, for the sake of our kids and to save America! Mark or Rush, just say the word. I deam of anti-obama demonstrations, like we had with the dirtbag hippies in the 60's.

River Oaks, Ft. Worth, Texas

Old Texican VI| 6.12.09 @ 8:13PM

Laraine
You and my grandmom would have been best friends.
at age 89 she shifted from her beloved 12 guage to a 4-10 to shoot quail. "Kenny, it just pains my shoulder to shoot ole Tom any more".

At the downtown tea-party here in Houston, the cops relaxed and had a good time. I asked one of them..."isn't this the best washed and best smelling demonstration you have ever seen?"

He cracked up laughing!

Yeah, it might be time for the mattresses, but we need 50 million mattresses. As Son of Sam says..."Stand Strong til Freedom Dawns".
We WILL find our leader...and it just may be Jesus Christ, and a hundred million angels.
God bless

Mary| 6.12.09 @ 9:31PM

Opposing this nomination to the Supreme Court is a must. I'm hoping for Senator Sessions to really come into his own here. And I don't think the Republicans are apt to do anything boneheaded. I'm sure they'd rather not have to do this, and not necessarily because they're cowards, but because issues involving race are delicate and difficult and painful. But Sotomayor should be forced to defend her judicial philosophy, her stupid Tribal statements, her beliefs on voting rights for Felons, etc. To take a page from Emanuel: this isn't a hand Republicans should fold.

Forget The Conservative Mind for a moment. As solid as that needs to be, without The Conservative Heart, no conservatism worthy of the name can remain or come to pass. The Bible so often refers to what is in a man's heart. And a romantic and passionate people know what is meant by the Biblical verses on the thoughts of the heart.

I think this is the "Beginning of the Wilderness".

My conservatism is not based on economics or taxation. It isn't that economic health isn't important, it is. But that's not what moves me. What moves me is a life lived, and the agony and ecstasy that entails. It is as is noted in Russell Kirk's Conservative Mind: The Rights of Man sort of Liberalism is a denial of the possibility and existence of tragedy and heroism, as both move and build an eternal bond with those who came before us and those who will follow.

In the Wilderness piece I linked, you'll notice that one of the Republican "reformers" wants to introduce wage subsidies that would help "less educated single men with low-paying jobs make ends meet, thereby making them more desirable marriage partners." What do you think this will spawn but more dependency and lack of self-regard? And I have to ask, must a self-supporting, single woman augment the wages of a perfectly healthy man? Why don't you just exchange and provide a pair of prunes for these men, and be done with it?

You fight for what you believe in, and "there ain’t no easy way out." Principles matter even though adherence to them is costly. If things are really different today than they've ever been in terms of
an inhospitable spirit to Permanent or First Things, the fight is even more important because it's for a progeny that can and will rebuild.

I don't think protests will do much to help the Conservative cause. First of all, it's not really who we are, is it? And secondly, no one has fond memories of the dirty hippies.

Reagan said: "Their signs said make love, not war, but they didn't look like they could do either." :)

But the Reagan quote I like the best is this one from his speech supporting Goldwater that was originally called A Time For Choosing:

""I, in my own mind, have always thought of America as a place in the divine scheme of things that was set aside as a promised land. It was set here and the price of admission was very simple: the means of selection was very simple as to how this land should be populated. Any place in the world and any person from those places; any person with the courage, with the desire to tear up their roots, to strive for freedom, to attempt and dare to live in a strange and foreign place, to travel halfway across the world was welcome here."

I don't believe anyone is really trying to head back to the 50s, but even if they were most kids had a dad at home then.

I hope Mike Judge's The Goode Family succeeds because he's doing an important thing in that series. He's trying to restore the dignity of a Father. He's doing that by taking aim and ridiculing the supposed supremacy of modern day woman that's been part and parcel of every insipid sitcom over the last 3 decades.

It can't be just about winning for us. Russell Kirk's book was originally titled The Conservative Rout. But he was conservative to the bone, and he gave eloquent voice to principles that will never die. It wasn't really a conservative mind that wrote that book, it was a conservative heart.

Laraine| 6.12.09 @ 9:35PM

Old Texan,
Yup, your grandmother and I would be best friends.
My favorite tv shows are all on the Military Channel. I envy, Mack on Future Weapons, whose the luckiest sob...he gets to test all those great weapons. I never miss any of the Top Ten Series: Sniper Rifles, Weapons, Tanks, Jet Fighters (my personal favorite the F15E).

I love watching all the old war movies, Kelly's Hereos, The Dirty Dozen, Where Eagles Dare, Midway, The Longest Day, Bataan, The Fighting CeeBees, Run Silent Run Deep on TCM. I watch them every year on Memorial weekend. I miss the Nazi's, (Rommel in their great uniforms) and the Russians as our opponents...I hate these militant ragheads.

My other entertainment is Family Guy, The Food Channel and History Channel.

I don't sleep well at night anymore. The like-minded comments, from other people here and other blogs, helps a lot.

Angel| 6.13.09 @ 12:11AM

Laraine, you're great! I'm a SoCal girl myself, but I swear we're soul sisters. I love the stories about the Navy Seals on the Military Channel--I am in awe of our courageous American men!

Old Texican, you'd better believe that Jesus Christ is our Leader, and He's the only One I'll follow.

American Supernova| 6.13.09 @ 12:23AM

Jesus Christ, what in the fuck. Did some wacky terrorist hit this page with an IQ depletion bomb? You guys are living in lala land.

And it doesn't matter who who opposes Sotomayor, she is a lock. I can't wait to watch you weirdos gnash your teeth and cry, but get used to the idea.

Once again, wtf. This place is Mary Tyler Moore on acid. You people are beyond help.

Marcell| 6.13.09 @ 12:45AM

You people are making me laugh, because you seem so serious. Many of you act as if Democrats have blocked off all the roads to our cities & are checking everyones I.D..

While most are enjoying their summer, the right-wing is building bunkers as if they are prepairing for King George's Redcoats, " Don't shoot until you see the whites of their eyes!!" One poster yells. Another is preping his horse so he could ride through his town to claim that the British are coming.

Please look out your window & you might see your neighbors hitching their boat to their SUV & their kids looking cheerful because they are on their way to the lake.

Then comes the next conservative post. " Obama is distroying our country."

This is sort of like reading a book or watching the begining of a movie that the main conservative charactor ends up going back to the Dark Ages to fight off vikings & dragons.

& some of you call me a troll.

Here is a visual of how you sound:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZF2aC-U32c

Marcell | 6.13.09 @ 12:57AM

Let me add that not all the post were weird; I actually enjoyed reading most of the response.

Beanie| 6.13.09 @ 3:19AM

Let me add that I think you suck sh!t, Marcell.

Dollar about to die| 6.13.09 @ 7:45AM

Russia Dumps US Dollar as basic reserve currency
Posted by sakerfa on May 20, 2009

The US dollar is not Russia’s basic reserve currency anymore. The euro-based share of reserve assets of Russia’s Central Bank increased to the level of 47.5 percent as of January 1, 2009 and exceeded the investments in dollar assets, which made up 41.5 percent, The Vedomosti newspaper wrote.

The dollar has thus lost the status of the basic reserve currency for the Russian Central Bank, the annual report, which the bank provided to the State Duma, said.

In accordance with the report, about 47.5 percent of the currency assets of the Russian Central Bank were based on the euro, whereas the dollar-based assets made up 41.5 percent as of the beginning of the current year. The situation was totally different at the beginning of the previous year: 47 percent of investments were made in US dollars, while the euro investments were evaluated at 42 percent.

The dollar share had increased to 49 percent and remained so as of October 1. The euro share made up 40 percent. The rest of investments were based on the British pound, the Japanese yen and the Swiss frank.

The report also said that the reserve currency assets of the Russian Central Bank were cut by $56.6 billion. The losses mostly occurred at the end of the year, when the Central Bank was forced to conduct massive interventions to curb the run of traders who rushed to buy up foreign currencies. The currency assets of the Central Bank had grown to $537.6 billion by October 2008. Therefore, the index dropped by almost $133 billion within the recent three months.

The majority of Russian companies, banks and most of the Russian population started to purchase enormous amounts of foreign currencies at the end of 2008. The dollar gained 16 percent and the euro 13.5 percent over the fourth quarter. The demand on the US dollar was extremely high, and the Central Bank was forced to spend a big part of its dollar assets, experts say.

The change of the structure of the currency portfolio of the Bank of Russia has not affected the official peg of the dual currency basket, which includes $0.55 and 0.45 EUR.

The investments of the Bank of Russia in state securities of foreign issuers have been considerably increased, the report said. About a third of Russia’s international reserves are based on US Treasury bonds.

Russia became one of the largest creditors of the US administration last year, the US Department of the Treasury said. Russia increased its investments in the debt securities of the US Treasury from $32.7 billion as of December 2007 to $116.4 billion as of December 2008.

Real News| 6.13.09 @ 8:09AM

Home News Top Stories IS THIS THE DEATH OF AMERICA? By Dermot Purgavie, Veteran US Correspondent 8/10/2005

America's sense of itself - its pride in its power - has been profoundly damaged.

THIS week Karen Hughes, long-time political adviser to George Bush, began her new mission as the State Department's official defender of America's image with a tour of the Middle East.

She might have been more help to her beleaguered president had she stayed at home and used her PR skills on her neighbours. At the end of a cruel and turbulent summer, nobody is more dismayed and demoralised about America than Americans.

They have watched with growing disbelief and horror as a convergence of events - dominated by the unending war in Iraq and two hurricanes - have exposed ugly and disturbing things in the undergrowth that shame and embarrass Americans and undermine their belief in the nation and its values.

UNPOPULAR: Mr Bush is failing in polls

With TV providing a ceaseless backdrop of the country's failings - a crippled and tone-deaf president, a negligent government, corruption, military atrocities, soaring debt, racial conflict, poverty, bloated bodies in floodwater, people dying on camera for want of food, water and medicine - it seemed things were falling apart in the land where happiness is promoted in the constitution.

Disillusioning news was everywhere. In the flight from Hurricane Rita, evacuees fought knife fights over cans of petrol. In storm-hit Louisiana there were long queues at gun stores as people armed themselves against looters.

AMERICA, which has the world's costliest health care, had, it turned out, higher infant mortality rates than the broke and despised Cuba.

Tom De Lay, Republican enforcer in the House of Representatives, was indicted for conspiracy and money laundering. The leader of the Republicans in the Senate was under investigation for his stock dealings. And Osama bin Laden was still on the loose.

Americans are the planet's biggest flag wavers. They are reared on the conceit that theirs is the world's best and most enviable country, born only the day before yesterday but a model society with freedom, opportunity and prosperity not found, they think, in older cultures.

They rejoice that "We are No.1", and in many ways they are.

But events have revealed a creeping mildew of pain and privation, graft and injustice and much incompetence lurking beneath the glow of star-spangled superiority.

Many here feel the country is breaking down and losing its moral and political authority.

"US in funk" say the headlines. "I am ashamed to be an American," say the letters to the editor. We are seeing, say the commentators, a crumbling - and humbling - of America.

The catalogue of afflictions is long and grisly. Hurricane Katrina revealed confusion and incompetence throughout government, from town hall to White House.

President Bush, accused of an alarming failure of leadership over the disaster, has now been to the Gulf coast seven times for carefully orchestrated photo opps.

But his approval has dropped below 40 per cent. Public doubt about his capacity to deal with pressing problems is growing.

Advertisement - article continues below »

Americans feel ashamed by the violent, predatory behaviour Katrina triggered - nothing similar happened in the tsunami-hit Third World countries - and by the deep racial and class divisions it revealed.

The press has since been giving the country a crash course on poverty and race, informing the flag wavers that an uncaring America may be No.1 on the world inequities index.

IT has 37 million living under the poverty line, largely unnoticed by the richest in a country with more than three million millionaires.

The typical white family has $80,000 in assets; the average black family about $6,000. It's a wealth gap out of the Middle Ages. Some 46 million can't afford health insurance, 18,000 of whom will die early because of it.

The US, we learn, is 43rd in the world infant mortality rankings. A baby born in Beijing has nearly three times the chance of reaching its first birthday than a baby born in Washington. Those who survive face rotten schools. On reading and maths tests for 15-year-olds, America is 24th out of 29 nations.

On the other side of the tracks, 18 corporate executives have so far been jailed for cooking the books and looting billions. The prosecution of Mr Bush's pals at Enron - the showcase trial of the greed-is-good culture - will be soon.

But the backroom deal lives on and, in an orgy of cronyism, billions of dollars are being carved up in no-bid contracts awarded to politically-connected firms for work in the hurricane-hit states and in Iraq.

The war, seen as unwinnable, is becoming a bleak burden, with nearly 2,000 American dead. Two-thirds think the invasion was a mistake.

The war costs $6billion a month, driving up a nose-bleed high $331billion budget deficit. In five years the conflict will have cost each American family $11,300, it is said.

Mr Bush says blithely he'll cut existing programmes to pay for the war and fund an estimated $200billion for hurricane damage. He won't, he says, rescind his tax cuts. Republican Senator Chuck Hagel says Mr Bush is "disconnected from reality".

Americans have been angered by a reports that US troops have routinely tortured Iraqi prisoners. Some 230 low-rankers have been convicted - but not one general or Pentagon overseer. Disgruntled young officers are leaving in increasing numbers.

Meanwhile, further damaging Americans' self image, there's Afghanistan. The White House says its operations there were a success, yet last year Afghanistan supplied 90 per cent of the world's heroin.

America's sense of itself - its pride in its power and authority, its faith in its institutions and its belief in its leaders - has been profoundly damaged. And now the talking heads in Washington predict dramatic political change and the death of the Republicans' hope of becoming the permanent government.

IS AMERICA FINISHED?

Bob| 6.13.09 @ 8:27AM

Antle, you must be a very old guy because you remember living by the original Constitution. I guess we shouldn't have amendments because the originators got it right, especially when it came to the rights of women and blacks and slavery. Or do you just take an arbitrary time and say that is when we didn't follow the Constitution.

Oh, you're going to tell me that amendments are fine because they follow the Constitutional process. Well, I guess you would be fine if we just amended the Constitution with all of the things you believe are unconstitutional.

Here's the problem -- we are a market economy. For example, I've heard many ultra-right conservatives (Larry Elder, yesterday), say that we should abolish the FDA and FTC because they are unconstitutional. I don't think many would support you on that because States could not possibly do a good job at those functions. Why haven't you taken that case to the Supreme Court? If that is unconstitutional, then the Court will verify the fact. That is the methodology we have, isn't it?

So if you really believe what you say, you should have an active role in petitioning the court with your grievances, not just writing about them. If you don't, then you really don't believe what you are saying, do you?

Getting away from the so-called "Constitutional issues", I happen to agree that the federal government is too large. There is no reason they should be involved in education as there exists local administration of that function. I believe we should make the economic argument -- which is relevant today -- not the Constitutional one which is questionable. That's where you, living in the past, become irrelevant and me, living in the present becomes actionable.

Regarding your list of people the Dems dissed in Supreme Court nominations -- it didn't do the Dems harm because they already have those interest groups in their camp. They support affirmative action, ACORN, La Raza and other activities those interest groups want. Therefore, your comparison is just not logical once you dig below the surface. Flawed reasoning like this is the reason Republicans aren't advancing.

Even Rush is looking more like Ann Coulter these days when he talks about people who exercise and are in good shape being the reason why medical costs are so high. And none of you will bring him to task on things like this because you believe more in sides than in being right. The same is true of supply side economics as there is no data that real economists use that can prove it works -- not even the Heritage Foundation. (For that matter, there is little evidence that spending does much more although there are different issues.)

When the Republican party starts dealing with today, rather than yesterday, and starts looking in the mirror and searching for the truth, we will begin to rise again.

TJK| 6.13.09 @ 8:32AM

Unfortunately, this current crop of Republicans is about as conservative as LBJ. Because they are desperately holding ono the number of seats they have, they will be willingly bulldozed by every chapter of the liberal agenda playbook. What have the Republicans been able to accomplish thus far? Nothing. And without the ability to filibuster, there's no chance of stopping them. There are some winnable seats in the Senate next year, my state of IL being one. All we can really hope is some damage may be undone if the tide starts turning back our way, but even if it does, will anyone have the guts to turn back some of these disastrous policies? I grieve for our future generations.

Old Texican VI| 6.13.09 @ 10:50AM

When
...Is The Spectator going to start screening posts from Gaza?
(Heh)

Personally, I love Rush's show. His satire sails right over the heads of his detractors, his jokes are funny, and his genuine humility quietly comes across as he makes fun of himself.
Our city here in Texas was one of his first syndicated stations, and I have enjoyed him for 20 years.
More than anything, I guess I enjoy his squint-eyed look at the news of the day. You know, the one single thing totalitarians cannot stand is to be made fun of persons.
Rush holds a mirror up to their faces and thereby embarrasses them to tears of rage. (tee hee)

While the Statist utopians love to sneer at our faiths, they cannot stand for us to laugh at their aray of silly false gods. They cannot understand why we just laugh off their sneers as mere childish prattle.
Meanwhile, the "Bobs" of the earth nit-pick along, smearing their reasonable sounding gibberish on everybody that does not fall in line. What's new?
TJK
I can appreciate your disgust with the Republicans in DC. We all need to get involved in our local communities to find conservative candidates with clean backgrounds and guts to give voters a clear choice.
I think we can utilize the tea-party movement as a base to build a national consensus to redress our grievances with government and to encourage wobbly kneed congress critters to do the right things...so they can re-elected...to do the right things.
Best regards

Richard Baker| 6.13.09 @ 11:09AM

Interesting that some think that tyranny is a joke. The reason the Founding Fathers are still very relevant is that the nature of human behavior hasn't changed. Using the basis for the Founding isn't looking backward, it's understanding that the most profound political and social thinkers in history were right. 1776 or 2009, the principles still apply. Remember, Ho Chi Minh's speech in 1945 was based upon the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. That we didn't get it doesn't mean that he didn't reference them or that he didn't see value in it's ideals. They are universal or, as Mr. Jefferson said, self-evident.

Bob| 6.13.09 @ 11:30AM

Baker, you are right. The nature of human behavior hasn't changed. Let's bring back slavery and take the vote away from women. After all, women should be barefoot and pregnant, right? These things are, indeed, self-evident. I especially want to bring back the provision that gives blacks only 3/5ths of a vote. That will reduce the impact of minorities on Republican success.

The truth is that the founding fathers were not perfect, and neither are we. We recognize our deficiencies over time and fix them. The process continues as our society progresses. When we go too far, we vote in the other party. Our founding fathers also did not like political parties. Wouldn't you like to go back to that?

The only way to address the overreaching of our current government -- both Democrat AND Republican -- is to make arguments relevant to today and be far more pragmatic. Reagan's solutions will not work today -- the economic situation is different and so is our society. Demographics is destiny -- get used to it.

Let's not eschew either intelligence or education and have our children understand the founding of our country, mathematical and scientific principles, economics and the changes in social/demographic trends. You need to ask why the current thought leaders in the conservative movement - Rush, Hannity, Palin, etc. -- represent the undereducated in our society. Conservatives in the era of Buckley were highly educated and searched for the truth. That's one of the reasons I became a Republican. I don't recognize the idiocy in the party today.

Siegfried X| 6.13.09 @ 1:04PM

'Unfortunately, this current crop of Republicans is about as conservative as LBJ"

That's because they know they can get away with it. They know conservatives will vote for whatever RINO the party leaders choose, just because they're called "Republican".

Liberals are fighters; conservatives just grumble then cave in.

Siegfried X| 6.13.09 @ 1:08PM

Liberal Republican Colin Powell brags that if he's not satisfied with the Republican candidate, he'll vote for another party (Democrat). How many conservatives have the same strength, to vote for a third party conservative or not vote if a liberal Republican is running? It doesn't happen. Instead we "hold our noses" and "vote for the lesser of two evils". Same thing has been happening ever since President Reagan retired, and the Republican candidates get more liberal in each election.

Ted R.| 6.13.09 @ 2:01PM

Looking at this comments page, it is clear that the Republican Party is dying. Present-day conservatism was born in the backlash politics that followed the social-liberalism of the 60's; it was from that time that the Republican Party was taken over, more and more, by the paranoid style of the far right. From the time of the 60's, a new populism - characterized by religious anti-intellectualism and racialist animosity - has taken over the Republican Party. The Party was able to make electoral hay with such a strategy for two generations, but now the political environment has changed, and you guys can't adapt. The liberal ruling philosophy is an explicitly pragmatic one: we take our ideals, and implement them as far as is possible in the real world. Modern-day populist conservativism, in contrast, defines itself as a rigid ideology; you guys take pride in the fact that you don't change, ever. That is a sure route to obsolescence.

It is the conservatives who got Republicans elected in recent decades, and it is populist conservatism that has caused the party to crash on the rocks. And now, the conservatives are blaming the party, for the damage that the conservatives themselves have wrought.

Now the conservatives are grumbling loudly about forming their own party. This you certainly would be able to do; you have the numbers and organzation to create a full-fledged party that could field candidates and win at least some elections. But what you apparently don't appreciate, is that, as the Republican party's base, if you go, the Republican party itself will die. You'll have a smaller, purer church, that will get about 20% of the votes in elections. Many proud Republicans like Powell, and Bob, here, will end up moving into - and pulling to the right - the Democrat party. And the Democrats' left wing will probably itself break off to form a truly democratic-socialist Progressive party.

Who knew that the Age of Reagan would culminate in the End of the Republicans? But it's happening, right before our eyes.

Mary| 6.13.09 @ 2:07PM

I don’t think Conservatives should get in (or continue) the business of pandering. We’re the grown-ups who have to realize that a continued infantilization of the electorate is in complete opposition to our principles.

President Bush, whom I voted for twice, was a Republican yes, but not a conservative. Compassionate Conservatism was his way of labeling all conservatism that came before him uncaring. It’s easy to be compassionate with someone else’s resources. What could be easier? I’m not sorry I voted for him, he was the better choice. That said, since I voted for him I share the responsibility for what ensued during his presidency. Obama’s supporters bear that same burden.

No pandering. No asking what is your Hispanic need? What is your Black need? What is your Asian need? To pander to tax consumers should be anathema to conservatives. No. Leave that cheap deconstruction to the Democrats, and let their ideology produce what it will, economically, morally, etc.

If this is a Liberal period, let’s not try to beat that back by becoming who they are. That’s asking what can’t and shouldn’t be. If Republicans are about acquiring power with the ideas of the “reformers,” that’s not worthy of respect. You have to be strong enough to resist the pull to deny your principles. Though Kirk thought his beloved conservatism dead, he was still very motivated to write his book.

Andrew Breitbart is absolutely right when he says that he doesn’t know who to hold more in contempt, the totalitarian Hollywood liberals or the conservatives who walked away from the challenge that liberals posed when they began to acquire power in what had been largely a conservative industry.

Culture doesn’t lead, it follows. And it could be that we’re seeing a progressive convulsion that we’re mistaking as a sign of vigor. It’s hard to know and only time will tell. But I don’t think we should be afraid of or try to protect voters from themselves.

From Russell Kirk’s Foreward (emphasis is mine):

***This book, then, is an historical analysis of a mode of regarding the civil social order; it is no manual for partisan action. To define the terms “conservative” and “conservatism” by reference to the opinions and actions of certain important writers and public men; to apprehend the conservatives' principles of moral and social order -such are the limited ends of The Conservative Mind.

This book was written from conviction, though not from ideological motive. “Aphorisms burst like bombs form Kirk’s pen,” one early and unconservative reviewer declared. Perhaps so; the author was youthfully sanguine, even sanguinary, although he stood defiantly upon the stricken field of the conservatives’ rout, where “the flame that lit the battle’s wreck/ Shone round him o’er the dead.” These metaphorical bombs of his were intended to ward off literal bombs -to withstand the anarchy of the antagonist world.***

In conjunction, From Paul Johnson’s Enemies of Society:

***Free institutions will only survive where there is the rule of law. This is an absolute on which there can be no compromise: the subjection of everyone and everything to the final arbitration of the law is more fundamental to human freedom and happiness than democracy itself. Most of the post-war democratic institutions have foundered because the rule of law was broken and governments placed themselves about the courts. Once the law is humbled, all else that is valuable to a civilized society will vanish, usually with terrifying speed. But the rule of law is essential, not merely to preserve liberty, but to increase wealth. A law which is supreme, impartial and accessible to all is the only guarantee that property, corporate or personal, will be safe; and therefore a necessary incentive to saving and investment.

Always, and in all situations, stress the importance of the individual. Where individual and corporate rights conflict, the political balance should usually be weighted in favor of the individual; for civilizations are created, and maintained, not by corporations, however benign, but my multitudes and multitudes of individuals, operating independently.***

Again from Russell Kirk:

***No universal fall into the antagonist world is decreed ineluctably by a deified History. Burke, in 1795, denied with vehemence that great states inescapably are subject to cycles of growth and decay:

“At the very moment when some of them seemed plunged in unfathomable abysses of disgrace and disaster, they have suddenly emerged. They have begun a new course, and opened a new reckoning; and even in the depths of their calamity, and on the very ruins of their country, have laid the foundations of a towering and durable greatness. All this has happened without any apparent previous change in the general circumstances which had brought on their distress. The death of a man at a critical juncture, his disgust, his disgrace, have brought innumerable calamities on a whole nation. A common soldier, a child, a girl at the door of an inn have changed the face of fortune, and almost of Nature.”

In those last two sentences, Burke refers to the reverses of Pericles, of Coriolanus, of the elder Pitt, of the Constable Bourbon. His common soldier is Arnold of Winkelried, who flung himself upon the Austrian spears at Sempach; his child is Hannibal, taking at the age of twelve his oath to make undying war upon Rome; his girl at the door of an inn is Joan of Arc. Chance, providence, or more individual strong wills, Burke declares, abruptly may alter the whole apparent direction of a nation or civilization.

Men and women with a disposition to preserve and an ability to reform need to bear often in mind this argument of Burke: it may hearten them on dark days. To remind such men and women of their inheritance of thought and feeling, The Conservative Mind was written.”***

And now back to Sotomayor; you don't want to have anything to do with supporting her or what she stands for.

In case link doesn't work: http://tinyurl.com/n8d8m8

Big J| 6.13.09 @ 2:23PM

Senseless to try and talk sense to Bob. In his world (I truly believe there are unicorns there, and radical Muslims holding hands with Infidels singing KumBaYa), Colin Powell is a Republican.

Texican: We're neighbors, bro. Will you be there on the Fourth? Hope to meet you.

Big J| 6.13.09 @ 2:29PM

Excellent post, Mary.

Siegfried X| 6.13.09 @ 3:19PM

"President Bush, whom I voted for twice, was a Republican yes, but not a conservative."

Yes. It has been 14 years since we had a conservative government, Newt Gingrich's Contract with America congress. Bush's presidency was neither conservative nor liberal, but mostly empty, like the absence of a presidency. Bush rarely acted or communicated. The Republican majority congress acted more like aldermen than a Congress, doing little besides shovel pork and jobs back to their precincts. They never seemed to passionately believe in anything besides being reelected.

The voters did not choose liberalism, but chose something over nothing. No one has the slightest idea what McCain or any RINO would do if elected, but everyone knows what the Democrats stand for. So after years of drift, and with a feeling that the ship was headed for the rocks, the voters had no choice but to pick the one remaining candidate who stood for something, who would try to steer the ship instead of just letting it drift.

It's truly sad that young voters have no idea what a strong conservative administration can do, because they don't remember the Reagan years. The voters tried, electing a Republican majority, but sadly they were cheated by the RINOs.

George True| 6.13.09 @ 3:42PM

To Ted R: If you think the Republican party is dying, then you are not looking at the latest Gallup and Rasmussen polls showing that a majority of voters now trust Republicans more than Democrats regarding the economy and several olther issues. Obama's personal approval rating is still relatively high (around 60%), but the approval of the voters on his issues, specifically the stimulus, taxes, and health care, is cratering.

The three main problems the Republican party face right now are 1) they are essentially leaderless, and 2) they are taking advice on what to do from people like you. (I believe you self-identified as a liberal in your post, did you not?) 3) They are extremely inept at articulating their principles.

You are essentially saying that in order to survive and thrive, the Republican party should become more leftist. This is complete and utter nonsense. There are certain timeless principles that define Republicanism. If one is going to abandon those principles, then why even call oneself a Republican? Those principles are essentially (and in no particular order) smaller not bigger government, lower rather than higher taxes, less not more involvment of government in every aspect of our lives, no more state-sponsored racism (affirmative action), don't spend money we don't have, and stop stealing money from honest, hardworking citizens who earned it and giving it to other preferred groups of people who did not earn it. If Republicans are going to abandon these principles in the name of "getting with the times" then what is the reason for being a Republican anymore at all?? Everyone might as well all just be Democrats. The more the Republicans try to be the Democrat-lite party, the more they will fail.

What the Republicans need to do is to return to the fundamental principles that define true Republicanism. Among other things, they need to take a principled stand on Sotomayer and fight her confirmation tooth and nail, if for no other reason than it is the right thing to do. The Repubs say they want to "keep their powder dry". But I would ask, keep their powder dry FOR WHAT?? At what point will it be the right time to start fighting a principled no-holds-barred fight for what they believe in and for what is right?

Sotomayer is all wrong for the Supreme Court two reasons. First, she is a racist. For this reason alone, she is fundamentally unfit. Second, she is a rather dim bulb intellectually. Her judicial acumen does not even come up to the level of mediocrity.

The Republicans need to stop worrying how the leftist lapdog MSM will portray them , or what certain minority groups will say. The MSM will NOT give the Repubs a fair shake no matter what, so why worry about it? They need to just start doing what is right simply BECAUSE it is right, and let the chips fall where they may. This in and of itself would begin to engender renewed respect for them across all racial and socioeconomic boundaries. Until the RINO's either grow a backbone or are gotten rid of, the Republican party will continue to fail.

Along with that, the Repubs need to learn how to get around the MSM and get their message directly to the people. They also need to get a lot better at articulating their own princip[les and message, because they suck at it. To the extent that they don't do these things, you may be right Ted. They may be headed for extinction, or a least a long, long time wandering in the wilderness.

CC Ryder| 6.13.09 @ 4:30PM

Ted's on crack. He doesn't have a clue what's going on. Ditto dumbo Bob the 'real republican'.

Bob| 6.13.09 @ 5:07PM

Little J,

In my world Republicans win -- in yours, they lose. By the way, what are you smoking? It must be really good stuff.

Bush was the last Republican to win -- and he won twice. He did that by running to the middle and making the tent larger. When are you isolated neocon social conservatives going to understand that?

Ted R. | 6.13.09 @ 5:08PM

George True: Republicans have given lip-service to conservative, "small government" principles, in order to win elections. But talk is cheap (actually it's Big Business, when it comes from Rush and Beck and Co.). The actual politicians, the guys with their necks on the line, don't bother following up on their conservative campaign rhetoric, because they're convinced it will not be popular and will cost them elections.

I could only wish that Republicans in power would cut spending and slash programs to pay for their tax cuts. THEN we'd actually see how much the public likes conservative policies. Really, if only the Republicans opposed Medicare part D - any of those old folks who can't afford the medicines, well, that's their own tough luck for not earning enough money... if only the Republicans had opposed Medicare part D, then very likely John Kerry could have used the health care issue (especially given how close the election was) to win the White House. Probably now, you guys are wishing that he had...

Anyway, George, I don't think you got my point. It's not that the Republicans should become more like Democrats. It's that the conservative faction of the party that has captured control of the party and that sets its agenda, will not allow it to move to the left. The inevitable result of this is that the Republican party has become the special-interest party of older, Christian, whites who live mainly in the South and Central regions of the country. And a party with this sort of demographic cannot be a major party. "The Republicans" are dying, as did the Federalists and the Whigs before. It's time for you conservatives to think up a name for your new party (hint: don't pick 'The White Guys Party').

Richard Baker| 6.13.09 @ 5:25PM

Bob:
If you don't know why 3/5 is in the Constitution. please don't embarrass yourself.

Little J| 6.13.09 @ 5:38PM

Thank you, Bob. I really needed to be put in my place.

Colombian Gold, Tie-Stick, I can't remember at the moment, dude. But you're right - it's really good sh*t.

Keep spouting your nonsense, Bob. I, along with the rest of the conservatives reading your drivel don't take our marching orders from you. Principled behavior and beliefs win hands down, period. Your so-called "big tent" doesn't work. It never has and never will.

We "neocons" will win in the end, because your Orwellian world of "right is wrong", "up is down" and "black is white" doesn't exist.

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

Bob| 6.13.09 @ 6:20PM

Richard -- so you think it was right to count slaves as 3/5th even if it was for apportionment purposes? How can you justify that under ANY circumstances? Do you have any morality?

Little J -- time and votes will prove you wrong because demography always rules.

Ted, don't take any joy in the minimalization of the Republican party. The power corruption of Democrats is already beginning. Economists understand that the debt will only get worse and there will have to be significant cuts in entitlement programs. The hard left will fight any cuts and as our debt gets downgraded, cuts will be forced. Republicans will say, "I told you so" and get elected.

Unless Obama shows some discipline, and soon, this will happen. In addition, just as their is no normalized data that prove tax cuts are stimulative (it is a myth), likewise, there is evidence that spending (Keynesian economics) doesn't do that much either. The economy is directly tied to the success of private enterprise over the longer term -- not governmental intervention on either the tax cut or spending side. The answer, my friend, is analysis and reason, not ideology and belief. Don't drink too much of that left leaning KoolAid.

Marcell| 6.13.09 @ 6:27PM

Free institutions will only survive where there is the rule of law. This is an absolute on which there can be no compromise: the subjection of everyone and everything to the final arbitration of the law is more fundamental to human freedom and happiness than democracy itself. Most of the post-war democratic institutions have foundered because the rule of law was broken and governments placed themselves about the courts. Once the law is humbled, all else that is valuable to a civilized society will vanish, usually with terrifying speed. But the rule of law is essential, not merely to preserve liberty, but to increase wealth. A law which is supreme, impartial and accessible to all is the only guarantee that property, corporate or personal, will be safe; and therefore a necessary incentive to saving and investment.

By Mary

*************
It is as if your point is so true & so false at the same time. What I did is edit out the completely false part of that wonderful statement. A statement that I believe is not the driving principle within today's conservative movement.

Free institutions will only survive where there is the rule of law. This is an absolute on which there can be no compromise: the subjection of everyone and everything to the final arbitration of the law is more fundamental to human freedom and happiness than democracy itself. The rule of law is essential, not merely to preserve liberty, but to increase wealth. A law which is supreme, impartial and accessible to all is the only guarantee that property, corporate or free practice of any religion will be safe.

This part of that statement is totally false:

“Most of the post-war democratic institutions have foundered because the rule of law was broken and governments placed themselves about the courts. "

If conservatives were true advocates of individual liberties, they would be big advocates for the ACLU, who happens to stand up for individuals, but I guess the ethnic groups they represent are too bent on tearing down many of the group philosophies that were weaved into the legal institutions for individuals in this great Constitutional Republic.

One reason why I posted federalist papers number 10 in an earlier post, because even though it is true that conservatives stand up for individual rights, they are still but a faction or group lobbying to administer government the way they see fit.

James Madison define faction as “a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.” Madison also seen the dangers of the different factions.

Mary, when you say that conservatives shouldn't... You say, " Pander," I say ... "Unite" with other groups towards a common cause it start sounding as if you are becoming more like those you claim you are fighting against.

Here, let Federalist papers #10 make my point more clearer:

The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good.

So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts.

But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government.

No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity. With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time; yet what are many of the most important acts of legislation, but so many judicial determinations, not indeed concerning the rights of single persons, but concerning the rights of large bodies of citizens?

And what are the different classes of legislators but advocates and parties to the causes which they determine? Is a law proposed concerning private debts? It is a question to which the creditors are parties on one side and the debtors on the other. Justice ought to hold the balance between them.

Yet the parties are, and must be, themselves the judges; and the most numerous party, or, in other words, the most powerful faction must be expected to prevail. Shall domestic manufactures be encouraged, and in what degree, by restrictions on foreign manufactures? Are questions which would be differently decided by the landed and the manufacturing classes, and probably by neither with a sole regard to justice and the public good. The apportionment of taxes on the various descriptions of property is an act which seems to require the most exact impartiality; yet there is, perhaps, no legislative act in which greater opportunity and temptation are given to a predominant party to trample on the rules of justice. Every shilling with which they overburden the inferior number, is a shilling saved to their own pockets.

~~~

One of the main reasons why I am a registered Independent is because I don't believe in one party rule, based on Madison understanding of how factions operate.

Yet, I tend to agree more with Siegfried X & Bob because what they were saying are parts of the fundamental changes that has to take place for the Republican Party to defeat the Democrats, but it seems that many of the elders of the base are hell bent on being an old white men ruled political party.

Many of you tend to despise hiring or working with those who can help strengthen your party, because of your group thought / think prejudices towards certain individuals, thus makes it easy for qualified people like myself to continue feeding the teleprompter the info needed to continue defeating you.

I know that their are a few posters here who understands what it takes to move the Republican party in the right direction, but what those within the conservative media have done is cleverly created a fear mechanism that they press overtime their control is challenged.

One of their best tactics is to promote the false thought that those they should fear are looking to be given something for nothing; they are only willing to hire more puppets singing the absurd tune that has buried the conservative movement. Yeah, you have had your favorite leader here & their but for the most part the liberal philosophy has constantly prevailed mainly because our judges have been more true to the individuals than you ever claim to be.

I would like to conclude by giving my definition of the silent majority: A group of people who shift from one party to another based on what they perceive makes logical sense within the law.

Marcell| 6.13.09 @ 6:31PM

The Federalist No. 10

The Utility of the Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection (continued)

Daily Advertiser
Thursday, November 22, 1787
[James Madison]

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm

Daisy| 6.13.09 @ 7:33PM

Bob, 'your republicans' win? Oh, really? Was that a win for you on November 5, 2008?

You're such a moron.

'Your republican' --RINO McCain got his buns beat last year. Why should we elect democrat lite when we can elect the real thing?

Big J| 6.13.09 @ 7:52PM

Bob,

I have been wondering something. You love to throw the term "neocon" around. What do you mean by that? You have called me and several others "neocons" on a regular basis, and you appear to use it as a put-down. What gives?

I looked the word up because for the life of me, I really didn't see how it applied. From Merriam Webster's online dictionary:

Neo conservative: (noun)
1) a formal liberal espousing political conservatism.
2) a conservative who advocates the assertive promotion of democracy and United States national interest in international affairs including through military means

Definition #2 probably applies to me, as I believe freedom is a God given right that every individual is born with. I believe that wherever freedom has been instituted, the people have benefited. I believe that tyranny should be abolished (exactly the opposite direction than that of the current administration). Unfortunately, sometimes to protect our freedoms (as well as the freedoms of others, as the United States often does), military force is required.

This research got me thinking: how do YOU know that I am a "neoconservative"?

Is it because I believe that an unborn child, the most innocent form of life that exists has the right to live?

Is it because I believe that you CAN acquire peace through a strong military?

Is it because I believe that the government should be limited in their powers?

Is it because I believe that success should not be punished with excess confiscation of wealth?

Is it because I believe that global warming (or climate change, or whatever their calling it this week) is a myth?

Is it because I am a Christian?

Is it because I believe that God created both men and women to partner and reproduce, thereby ensuring that homosexuality is an abomination, and refuse to acknowledge same-sex unions in order to justify this behavior?

If you answered "yes" to any of the above, then I gladly wear my new label "neocon" as a badge of honor.

If you expect me to lay ANY of these principles aside in order to "win" elections, you are insane. That's not the way I was raised. If that makes me an "old, angry, bigoted white guy that's representative of the old Republican Party", then so be it.

Where I come from, we call it a set of values.

Angel| 6.13.09 @ 8:07PM

Marcell, see if you can wrap your tiny brain around these timeless nuggets by the brilliant Thomas Jefferson:

"Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state."

"Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories."

"Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for ambition."

I know who I am and what I stand for, and I am not motivated by fear. I don't have to 'shift' back and forth from one party to another to know where I stand.

Bob| 6.13.09 @ 8:21PM

Daisy,

McCain wasn't MY Republican candidate as he couldn't manage his own campaign and he chose an incompetent VP in Palin. I couldn't vote for a guy who graduated 5th from the bottom of his class and it showed. Romney was my guy since he understood economics, was well educated, and was successful in both business and politics. Like Powell, I couldn't vote for McCain. When the Republicans put up someone who doesn't have the pea brain of Palin, I'll vote for them.

Little J -- I don't use the term "neocon" much, but it was fairly obvious you believe in crusades and social conservatism (and don't use reason), the hallmarks of a true neocon.

You don't have a set of values -- you have a set of beliefs. Values require the use of reason because it denotes that you actually thought about the issues rather than reading them from a holy book.

Bob| 6.13.09 @ 8:28PM

Angel, you are not motivated by fear? Do you have children? Do you protect them? Why? Are you FEARFUL they may be hurt? Do you FEAR they may see something on TV that is not good for them? I see you've never fought in a war. I have, and I will tell you that FEAR is a good thing -- it keeps you on your toes. People don't shift from one party to another because of fear, they vote for the better individual no matter which party they are from. You, on the other hand, will vote for the lesser man/woman if they represent your party. We operate out of reason and knowledge and you, my dear, operate like a lemming.

Mary| 6.13.09 @ 8:33PM

Marcell, no disrespect meant, but I'm afraid you and I are really speaking different languages. And it really amounts to, as far as I can see, having a different set of values.

No doubt that's due to upbringing, experiences, aesthetics and probably, truth be told, genetics. Now there's a science nobody's seems too eager to "raise to its rightful place."

When you balkanize based on race and ethnicity it's not really possible to establish shared values outside of making a buck. And when the capacity for that shrinks, race and ethnic group tend to rise against one another in order to protect their own interests. There's nothing new about that; it's a feature, not a bug.

I'd rather eat a crust of bread and drink cheap table wine with people who are willing to suffer tragedy with dignity and aplomb, and who envy not superiority and heroism, than eat steak ($100/lb) and take fine wine with people who deny the values I hold. And so that I'm not misunderstood, I mean individual superiority, not racial or ethnic. We're not all the same. And it's cruel to tell a young person he can be anything he wants to be. That's not true for anyone. That's not an original thought either; a college professor told me that when he was encouraging me to continue with my studies.

The electorate has always been and will continue to be malleable, demographic changes notwithstanding. Today's young who voted in 2008 will go to new work and think about raising a family, and it's likely some of their views will change. I began moving away from liberalism when I was about 35, almost 20 years ago. As is plain, to any careful reader, my conservatism is well thought out. Given to me, mainly by my parents, I rejected it because liberalism provided sexual license, the ability to dispose of my offspring if he or she proved inconvenient, an access to contraband and some exquisite experiences along the way. But I came to understand that it was completely conformist. Being an immigrant I was welcomed in the liberal fold, when that immigrant proved irrevocably attached to her peasantry and Catholicism, friendships became strained. Our values were not the same.

I'm just one person, just one vote, I don't mean much in the larger scheme of things. I know that. But I don't want anything to do with the brand of Republicanism that Powell, Frum, Brooks, et al are trying to establish as necessary, if not true. "A conservatism that can win again," and all of that. No. Repetitive or not, it can't be just about winning. It can be for them, but not for me.

When they stop insulting verities, I'll think about not insulting their sensibilities.

What the Republicans have to worry about is an apathy taking root.

We need honorable men (Shakespeare will never die because he wrote of Permanent Things), and they are rare. We need Statesmen who really will put the health of the Country above the paltry interests of this group or that group.

I have a friend who likes to keep me honest and says to me, from time to time: "Maryls, sans quotes, whatta ya got, darlin‘?" My name is Mary Louise, well actually Maria Luisa. That's where he gets Maryls from. Anyway, as an homage to him, I'll leave you with this quote from the great Robert Heinlein:

Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.

Mary| 6.13.09 @ 8:36PM

Hey, Big J. Thanks for the encouragement, I appreciate it.

Big J| 6.13.09 @ 9:31PM

Bob,

You have used the term "neocon" on me three times in previous posts, and I have seen you use it on others, so don't give me that crap.

You, sir are a complete idiot. When I say that, I don't mean the uneducated kind, just the clueless kind. There is a difference, as I am sure you are well aware. I place you in the same category as the rest of the liberal trolls. Drop your liberal bombs, add a little "educated" elite lingo, then start smearing people that don't agree with your version of Utopia, whatever that is.

Apparently, you have gotten some sort of adolescent kick out of calling me "Little J". Nice. At least I know the maturity level I am dealing with.

It is obvious that your sole purpose here is to stir the pot. You seem to get a kick out of riling people up. Whatever floats your boat, man. Back in the day, you would be called a muckraker.

If it justifies your existence to belittle other people when they make valid points, I feel sorry for you. Telling someone they don't have values? Absolutely asinine. You know nothing about me, and apparently not much about the real world.

Not that you'll get it, but a human being's right to life is just that - a right. Emphasis on RIGHT.

You have a distorted view of reality, so I don't expect a reasonable response.

Come to think of it, I can't say that I care.

No one iota.

rdman| 6.13.09 @ 9:49PM

Would someone please tell "The Owl" (Mitch McConnell) that the Democrats could give a rip about violating basic standards of fairness and senator's most solemn duties.

GOOD GRIEF!!!!

Ted R.| 6.13.09 @ 10:20PM

Bob here is basically the one guy calling out in the wilderness. He is the one guy here motivated by genuine conservative principle, not racialist grievance, hypocritical moralizing, or old-fashioned class warfare. He insists that government should do only what it's competent to do, and pay for what it can afford to pay - without the thick layer of hate that the rest of you slather on. Unfortunately for present-day conservatism, any thinking person who's not on a religious crusade is out of your club. It's sad, because it's voices like his, making a reasonable appeal to the practical limits of the province of government, that present the best prospects for a conservative comeback (excepting of course Democrat failure). The rest of you are playing to the President's script, and right into his hands...

Marcell| 6.13.09 @ 11:22PM

Mary

If there is a difference between you & I is that you are willing to conform to ignorant group think because your prejudice parents as you explained taught you to think that way.

I have learned from my own upbringing that we as people can be raised to believe a certain way & those thoughts could be so entrenched into our subconscious that they can never be removed & those thoughts can also be totally wrong.

The reason why I say Rush should stop stealing my lingo is because I learned from him & others like him the false idea that liberalism is a religion, but of all my years of studying conservatism, I consistently met those who are more like you, Mary, so I came to the conclusion that conservatism is a cult ,& you are proving it with you we are different I am superior than you mumbo jumbo; you have been nothing but brainwashed.

Once I started debating conservatives within their arenas of ideas, I have noticed that Rush's talking points have changed, he is now calling liberalism a cult & what use to be the drive bye media is now goverment run media; State run media is my opinion about faux news & conservative media.

Mary, as much as you want to believe that your group is different than the rest of the factions & be right, you are wrong & I can't help but use you to prove your propaganda wrong. I have also learned how to defeat those who are members of the conservative cult by not changing their thinking but force the real thinkers to distance themselves from your frame of thinking, even if they are afraid to say Marcell you are right.

No matter how much your blind faith tells you that you are willing to be a permanet miority to keep your control over the Republican Party, others want to win, & they will consiously adapt just like the Democrats in order to see many of their ideals flourishing, & I am not even trying to turn the Republican Party into a different version of the Democratic party.

Here is something to help force many to wake up & smell the coffee:

Was Ronald Reagan A Socialist?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkhgyJp7P9U

The smell of that coffee is coming from fedealist papers # 10 when it explains how phony conservative leaders control their brain washed radical base:

It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the public good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm. Nor, in many cases, can such an adjustment be made at all without taking into view indirect and remote considerations, which will rarely prevail over the immediate interest which one party may find in disregarding the rights of another or the good of the whole.

The inference to which we are brought is, that the causes of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its effects.

If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote. It may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution. When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed. Let me add that it is the great desideratum by which this form of government can be rescued from the opprobrium under which it has so long labored, and be recommended to the esteem and adoption of mankind.

By what means is this object attainable? Evidently by one of two only. Either the existence of the same passion or interest in a majority at the same time must be prevented, or the majority, having such coexistent passion or interest, must be rendered, by their number and local situation, unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression. If the impulse and the opportunity be suffered to coincide, we well know that neither moral nor religious motives can be relied on as an adequate control. They are not found to be such on the injustice and violence of individuals, and lose their efficacy in proportion to the number combined together, that is, in proportion as their efficacy becomes needful.

From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.

A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.

~~~

The Republican Party is so white washed that Republican strategist believed that they could undermine Obama's presidential campaign by trying to make him look like a Muslem, so they marketed all the fears that white-wingers have about Muslems, yet you are trying to explain to me that a conservative don't see race.

Sarah Palin Draws In The Looney Crowd At Her Rallies
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tuD7Sdax00s

What makes todays generation differnt than the 50s generation is most Americans are quite confortable with minorities, unlike most white-wing conservatives.

But, the key to Obama's victory was the conservative blind faith support to The Bu$h Crime Family, " They, make your claims about how you support the rule of law a joke."

Here is mary's quote:

"Free institutions will only survive where there is the rule of law. This is an absolute on which there can be no compromise."

No Compromise...Yeup, " A joke!! "

Please don't attempt to treat me like an idiot, then you wont feel insulted with my Smash Mouth sense of humor... I am the constitution =)

"RMAO"

Richard Baker| 6.13.09 @ 11:31PM

Bob:
Obviously you don't know why 3/5 was put in the Constitution. And you think yourself educated? I'd be embarrassed not to know. Remember, it's better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

John II| 6.13.09 @ 11:32PM

Ted R.: Not really. I think Bob's got a lot of good sense, but he doesn't seem to have any moorings beyond his trust in his own good sense.

You can't be a very deep thinker and still be pro-abortion and pro-gay "marriage." Bob is probably right to suppose that most people who are against abortion and against homosexual "marriage," to continue with the current hot-button issues, are grounding their views more in social instinct than in political reflection.

What Bob doesn't see, however, is that his own views are grounded in a kind of instinct fashioned by the Zeitgeist. He boasts about his "history," but I can state with certainty that he has never studied philosophy or theology in any depth.

It's strange how it works, but this is the only wisdom I've managed to scrounge in the past 65 years: what people already know "instinctually" is the real object of the deepest reflection. Bob blathers about "education" because he is himself only half-educated: he doesn't know or perhaps doesn't care about the colossal scam involved in professional "education." He doesn't know, for example, why I wouldn't send my cocker spaniel to a place like Harvard or Yale, but would gladly send my children and grandchildren to such outposts of true reflection as Baylor or Steubenville or Christendom or Thomas Aquinas College, to name a few. Not much "national reputation" (pathetic expression!) there, but gobs of good sense and wisdom.

Bob is right, I think, to suggest that the Republicans are out to lunch. But he really doesn't understand WHY they're out to lunch. He thinks it has something to do with a shortage of fiscal pragmatism when it has everything to do with moral and intellectual cluelessness.

Marcell| 6.14.09 @ 12:03AM

Define: Deception

When you balkanize based on race and ethnicity it's not really possible to establish shared values outside of making a buck. And when the capacity for that shrinks, race and ethnic group tend to rise against one another in order to protect their own interests. There's nothing new about that; it's a feature, not a bug.

Misconceptions of Obama fuel Republican campaign - 13 Oct 08
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRqcfqiXCX0

I'd rather eat a crust of bread and drink cheap table wine with people who are willing to suffer tragedy with dignity and aplomb, and who envy not superiority and heroism, than eat steak ($100/lb) and take fine wine with people who deny the values I hold. And so that I'm not misunderstood, I mean individual superiority, not racial or ethnic. We're not all the same. And it's cruel to tell a young person he can be anything he wants to be. That's not true for anyone. That's not an original thought either; a college professor told me that when he was encouraging me to continue with my studies.

Marcell| 6.14.09 @ 12:04AM

That quote was by Mary the conservative.

Marcell| 6.14.09 @ 1:17AM

What I love about the left's movement is that it is forcing the white-wing conservatives to adapt or dwell in the minority, in order to win, so you can't help but diversify your Party.

On the other hand, If the conservatives wouldn't have balkanize their base, they would have really got blew out in the last election; the hardcore conservatives are witnessing a movement that is taking more than white-wing propaganda to defeat it.

P.S. The radical conservatives are like our pawns, so here is something for you to fear. This is for my entertainment purposes.

Billy Preston - Nothing From Nothing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuaG-TCpbtw&NR=1

That youtube is soooo funny to me!!

Angel| 6.14.09 @ 2:58AM

Bob, a commenter on another thread described you as, "A slave to pop culture who weathercocks into the latest, breezy social trends...which always entail leaving behind the Fiscal Conservatism to pay for the Social Liberalism." In short, he said that the concept of a Fiscal Conservative/Social Liberal is an oxymoron.

Exactly, couldn't describe you better myself.

You demand rights without the attendant responsibilities. Sounds like your buddy, Mopey Marcel, feels the same way. I've told you before, Bob, we Social Conservatives stand by our beliefs; we're not motivated by fear or acquisition of power. And we're damned stubborn, too. Hear that, Mopey?

Also, Bob, I see several new posters have become aware of your special personality--that you've got all the charm of a rattle-snake.

Angel| 6.14.09 @ 3:02AM

No, Bob, unlike you I believe in GOD and I trust Him; that's why I'm not afraid of my own shadow like you are.

Scaredy cat. Chicken.

Angel| 6.14.09 @ 3:05AM

Marcell, we don't fear you clowns. You're so incompetent you've become jokes.

Are you Jeremiah, you tricky troll?

Bob| 6.14.09 @ 7:53AM

I find it interesting that Angel and her kind can only respond with belief and derision. To them, there is no reason in life, only rote belief. Discussing the issues based on secular arguments is certainly not possible.

Fear is a tool in the human arsenal. If you don't have fear, you are either non-human or an idiot. Any psychological study of fear will show it to be a useful attribute. Angel and friends don't understand that we don't cross the street at a red light because we FEAR that we will be hit by a car.

This is another example of the intellectual lightness of the Republican base. I don't have any problems with individuals who have strong, religious beliefs. I've known a number of Rabbi's and Priest's and have had deep intellectual discussions with them about both religion and politics. It seems you cannot have this kind of discussion with the evangelicals you find here because they are bigots -- they do not respect others with differing beliefs. They believe they are better.

That is a losing political strategy. You win by embracing others, not deriding them.

Big J| 6.14.09 @ 8:08AM

Excellent posts, Angel.

If I may revisit history just a short time ago. McCain did not lose because he was too conservative: quite the opposite. History has shown that conservatism (as many of us describe it on this site, yes, including SOCIAL conservatism) wins hands down, every time. Why, even Obama's snide comment about spreading the wealth around didn't trump his "tax cuts" for 95% of Americans. He said the latter a lot more often and much louder. He couldn't bring himself to display his true feelings on the beginning of life, knowing that it was a trap, hence the "above my pay grade" comment.

My point is, the "big tent" so-called progressives want us to build just doesn't work. Not that any progressive is going to believe that. The Republicans are always the ones to bend, give a little, just this once. It's ridiculous.

Someone once said "If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything". So true. We call these things we stand for VALUES, no matter what label a progressive might want to give it.

Marcell, like many other of these hybrid conservatives love to label us as racists. I don't get it. I see no proof of that in any posts here.
"White-wing"? Not nearly as clever as I think was intended. This branding is getting very old. Of course, I think you carry the same brand if you're a conservative "minority" such as Clarence Thomas or Micheal Steele, or maybe you just become an "Uncle Tom". I think it's sad. There's your proof of racism.

Bob, Marcell, Ted R., Drew and other "true conservatives", as you call yourself. I may not possess the "higher education" that you do, but I know the difference between right and wrong. Calling me a bigoted homophobe in not-so-many words doesn't change that.

All the double-speak in the world won't change that. Period.

Siegfried X| 6.14.09 @ 8:50AM

Yes, conservatism is a winner. Every time the voters are given a choice in a referendum, they choose traditional marriage and reject forced approval of homosexuality, even in liberal states like California. Voters trust the Republicans to defend our country. They know Republicans are the party of Lincoln, the party of equality which will make us one nation indivisible instead of dividing us into warring groups as do the liberals, who mention race and gender in every sentence.

The liberals know they can't beat us on the issues. They are afraid to discuss them. It's a simple fact that no liberal will honestly debate an issue. They don't dare. Instead they call names or change the subject.

Knowing they can't win on the issues, the liberals try to talk us out of fighting, which is what a lot of trolling in online forums is about. It's also what the liberal Republicans do, constantly telling us that we must let them have their way in order to win elections.

That is the most dangerous liberal tactic of all, because it is nearly invisible: convincing conservatives to surrender in the constant battle for control of the Republican Party. If liberals can make the Republican Party liberal, then conservatives have lost regardless of which party wins the elections. This is done by rigging the Republican Party elections, so that we don't have a conservative to choose in primaries, by recruiting liberal Republicans for open seats, and by rigging the presidential nomination so that it is decided by liberal states and Democratic voters. (Winner-take-all rules in Democratic states). Much of the Republican media are RINO, as are the party leadership, and they stifle debate, saying that any criticism of their liberalism would be a circular firing squad which helps the Democrats. Those politicians and radio talk show hosts who are conservative never do anything more than talk; they never encourage a voter's revolt against the liberal Republican establishment. For that reason those powerful conservatives end up being part of the problem.

Bob| 6.14.09 @ 9:38AM

Siegfried - you seem to first define "conservatism" in terms of religious values. I don't see fiscal conservatism at all in your previous response nor do I see a sense of reality when it comes to race. Tying the Republican party to one sect of religion not only eschews the values of America, but limits reach in a diverse country.

You don't seem to value fiscal conservatism and thus call fiscal conservatives like me "liberals". That shows bias that damages the party. Even Bill O'Reilly says that government should be a secular enterprise. The guiding principles of conservatism to me does not include religion at all. It is an orientation towards limited government, individual responsibilities and freedoms, and a strong defense. I want government out of my life as much as possible. I don't want government interference in my fiscal life, and I don't want government interference in my religious and private life. You and other ultra-righties hurt that goal as you want to force your religious beliefs on me through governmental action. If a person's morality says that abortions are an acceptable option, so be it. If a person's morality says it's OK to kill tens of thousands of people in a war like Iraq, the so be it. If homosexuals can live happier lives by marrying each other -- fine.

As you and others prove here, you cannot reason with social conservatives because their value paradigm does not include rational discourse. You also define "values" as being religious. I have a distinct set of values every bit as defined and non-mushy as yours. There is no wavering here. However, I can be convinced by reason as I believe that knowledge is something that can be gained through the introduction of data and thought. You obviously don't, which is why you don't believe in going to the best schools.

If you have some time, look at the discourse of Buckley and see how he argued conservatism primarily based on secular arguments and a respect for people with other views.

Siegfried X| 6.14.09 @ 9:39AM

Here is an example of the corruption. Senator Cornyn controls the NRSC, which is the official fund-raising committee of the Republican Senators. In a speech to conservatives (CPAC), Cornyn says he is recruiting liberal Republican candidates because he thinks that only RINOs can win. He lectures the conservatives not to disagree with his wisdom, because doing so would be "a circular firing squad".

This means that anyone who makes the mistake of contributing to the NRSC is helping liberal Republicans keep control of the Republican Party.

About the 80% figure: Cornyn made that up. In any case it is meaningless because most of the votes in Congress aren't close or controversial. Any RINO can vote with the party 80% of the time, yet still vote with the Democrats on ALL the critical votes.

"Now, not all of these candidates are going to hold conservative positions on every issue. It's critical that our candidates "fit" their states if they are going to win...

... But if given the choice between a more moderate Republican - who will vote with me 80 percent of the time - or a liberal Democrat, who will vote with me zero percent of the time - sign me up for supporting the Republican.

I understand when people are occasionally frustrated with the way some of my colleagues vote. I am too. But a circular firing squad within our party is no solution."

Siegried X| 6.14.09 @ 9:54AM

It is impossible to be neutral on social issues. The law is always controlling someone. Legalizing homosexual marriage forces employers to pay benefits to those same sex partners. That takes their freedom away. It is not neutral.

Do schools teach that homosexuality is a perversion or do they teach "Heather Has Two Mommies"? Can they teach that homosexuality is a choice, that people can decide what kind of sex they have, or must they say it is genetic?

Do employers lose their right not to hire homosexualst? Will heterosexual employees lose their jobs and promotions because the law forces homosexual quotas?

Can people lose their jobs or be put in jail for harassment or "hate speech" if they say something a homosexual disagrees with (or do they keep their right to freedom of speech)?

Do people have their right to freedom of association or do they have to admit homosexuals into their clubs?

The Democrats and social liberals are control freaks who want to micro-manage every word we say and every breath we take.

Bob| 6.14.09 @ 9:58AM

Siegfried -- here is the Merriam-Webster definition of "bigot""

"a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices"

In your response above you indicate that you are not open to opinions which differ from yours in any extent. You are the textbook definition of a "bigot". I'm sorry that floats your boat.

Did you know that Ayn Rand once said to Bill Buckley that he was too intelligent to believe in God? And most of you refer to her work as a basis for conservative belief. Hmmm....

Siegfried X| 6.14.09 @ 10:00AM

*** Spelling corrected ***

It is impossible to be neutral on social issues. The law is always controlling someone. Legalizing homosexual marriage forces employers to pay benefits to their same sex partners. That takes their freedom away. It is not neutral.

Do schools teach that homosexuality is a perversion or do they teach "Heather Has Two Mommies"? Can they teach that homosexuality is a choice, that people can decide what kind of sex they have, or must they say people are genetically forced to have sex a certain way?

Do employers lose their right not to hire homosexuals? Will heterosexual employees lose their jobs and promotions because the law forces homosexual quotas?

Can people lose their jobs or be put in jail for harassment or "hate speech" if they say something a homosexual disagrees with (or do they keep their right to freedom of speech)?

Do people have their right to freedom of association or do they have to admit homosexuals into their clubs?

The Democrats and social liberals are control freaks who want to micro-manage every word we say and every breath we take.

Bob| 6.14.09 @ 10:06AM

Siegfried, your arguments are without merit. For example, laws require that companies must be fair in hiring women and minorities. They must also pay a minimum wage. Under your logic, we should allow companies to discriminate and pay slave wages. Again, your logic is flawed.

Do you really believe we should discriminate against homosexuals? Are you admitting to bigotry?

Who has been put in jail for disagreeing with a homosexual? You are even allowed to picket at abortion clinics as long as you don't interfere with others rights.

Do you have a right to be a bigot? Certainly as it takes all kinds. Join a private club if you want to limit membership. Oh, sorry, you already have joined a very private, and limited, club.

Mary| 6.14.09 @ 11:14AM

The posters on this thread who come at us as unthinking people and bigots and racists do that because that’s all they have. They can’t successfully argue for their values for the reason that John II pointed out, their values are contingent upon the times. And I think, to go back to my first post, for us its about Permanent Things.

Truth be told, I’m an agnostic in that if there exists a God of creation He cannot be as He’s been portrayed. I don’t think the Bible is the infallible word of God. And I mean no disrespect to the Scriptures. When I referred to my Catholicism what I was referring to was my formation and my introspection, after having abandoned it, regarding its merits and what it can and can’t do for society.

I would never say I wouldn’t vote for a pro-choice candidate. Someone like Obama, never, because of his stance on babies born alive.

I’ve lived in the gay section of a City and I’ve known gays who very much struck me as “made that way.” That doesn’t mean that I think homosexuality is at parity with heterosexuality. Heterosexuals threw marriage away and homosexuals caught it in a state which suited them. I don’t believe homosexuals would be clamoring for the right to marry if the concept of marriage hadn’t been so degraded. But I don’t find VP Cheney’s stance on gay marriage offensive. Letting States decide is okay with me.

When I moved into my first apartment my neighbors were an elderly gay couple. I was 27 and they were in their 60s. We really became friends; but we did that because we did share the same values. They loved one another, and at their age and my sense of who they were, it’s unlikely they differed much from that elderly couple you see walking hand and hand, and for whom sex is not much a part of their life anymore. They left the keys to their home with me. I left my apartment keys with them.

What makes it really hard to remain close friends with those who don’t share your values is that much of the time you have to tread gingerly on important issues on which you disagree. And over time the bond just wears away. You wish no ill on them, they wish no ill on you.

The great thing about Kirk is his piety and his embrace, via Burke’s teaching, of the Hindu and Buddhist lover of Permanent Things. As Kirk presents Burke, he never fancied himself a judge doing God‘s work.

I’ve never understood what motivates people who have written us off as unthinking rubes to continue to try to convince, and they do so using derision despite their high dudgeon when they’re on the receiving end of it. I don’t know if they think they’re better than those of us who aren’t climbing aboard the Powell-Frum-Brooks Express and all that represents. It might just be a case of having nothing much better to do. Non-partisan readers, if there are any, probably don’t get much from these conversations.

No one is trying to force Powell-Frum-Brooks from prevailing. No one is trying to take away their right to speak, write, lobby and persuade the Republican party that their way is the right or only way. Many of us just don’t agree with them. We don’t share Powell’s view of acceding to an electorate as proud tax consumers. We don't share Frum's resignation to having to kowtow to the religious zealotry of the Green movement, and to remain acutely aware that we are to be seen but not heard. We don't share Brooks descent into a mediocrity that forces him to declare the impossibility of a Divine Spark or demand we give up on limited government. Brooks is married to Obama, "the man, the mountain," and there he must remain, as his writing so clearly shows. We don’t agree that Rush should be rejected. He’s always been part of the family, and when he was useful to those in power they championed him. A lot of us who listen to Rush don’t agree with him on everything, we see his faults, but we see throwing him overboard to sate a whipped-up public opinion as venal and we don't want any part of it.

Here’s where the democrats have an advantage: they don’t hate their base. Their base is every bit as attached to its values however much further to the left these people are than can be safely admitted. Their muse is Molly Ivins; their blog, the Kos. These people are committed to destroying the legitimacy of conservatism, rubbing salt in the wound, as Kos noted following the election. The bitterness of their win is something to be studied.

Maybe it’s that those who despise the base know they can’t replace the numbers and as such they can’t win. But if the Powell-Frum-Brooks Dogmata is so marketable why can’t they change that equation. Granted, it won’t happen right away, but they could at least begin in earnest. The Republican chairman would help them, no doubt. Maybe it's a money thing in that the Powell-Frum-Brooks wing can't energize because its Zeitgeist mooring has long been the purview of the Democratic party.

I'm not sure if it was Murray Rothbard or not who viewed the US as a State hovering between militarism and welfare(ism). I think that's probably accurate.

And barring the razing of an American city or two, militarism is on the wane and the other ism on the ascendant.

In Gibbon's first volume of The Decline and Fall he notes that the the Roman Empire comprehended the temperate zone. He was speaking geographically. But I think there's a metaphorical temperate zone that the US has been occupying for the last 100 years or so. Patrolling and allowing for safe passage of resources a Nation needs to survive can't really be dispensed with. Knowing that if you're not occupying the temperate zone, someone else will be, isn't as insignificant as it might seem.

Siegfried X| 6.14.09 @ 11:51AM

"Maybe it’s that those who despise the base know they can’t replace the numbers and as such they can’t win. But if the Powell-Frum-Brooks Dogmata is so marketable why can’t they change that equation"

They tried it. That's what John McCain was and why it was so important for him to be defeated.

Right after McCain had the nomination wrapped up lots of people advised him to reconcile with conservatives. McCain refused, and his people put out the word that we would be "replaced" by moderate Democrats. McCain refused to attend conservative events and spent his time with RINOs and Joe Lieberman.

It was only very late in the game that McCain gave up and came back to the base. McCain saw that he couldn't win without the base. Also, when word leaked out that McCain might choose Democrat Joe Lieberman as his VP, conservatives finally stood up to him and said they'd tear the convention apart if he did. That was widely reported in the press, and it happened shortly before Palin was chosen.

The left wing of the Republican party badly wants to get rid of the base. That's what the big tent is, move Democrats in and then throw conservatives out.

Big J| 6.14.09 @ 12:17PM

Siegfried X: "Valid argument, good point, excellent observation."

Bob: "Racist, Bigot, Close-minded Neocon."

Mary: "Valid argument, good point, excellent observation."

I refuse to be silenced by ridiculous claims of racism, bigotry and whatever else these pseudo-intellectual progressives throw at me. I am happy to see other posters on this site feel the same. I think there are a lot more of us around than any of us know. Truth always prevails. Much like the concept that the earth is flat, the sun revolves around the earth and gravity doesn't exist, it's just the way it is. Liberalism is itself an oxymoron. It is a contradiction to any logical thought process, and the majority of the American people know it. As was said in an earlier post, whenever the people are consulted on conservative principles, conservatism wins. Even in a blue state like California. Contrary to what Newsweak reports on it's cover, this country remains a conservative, value-oriented Christian country.

Does that mean that you cannot join my so-called "club" if you are not a Christian? Absolutely not. But please don't cram your non-Christian beliefs down my throat every time we get together. What if you're gay? Give me a break. My sister-in-law is gay, lives with her friend and my awesome 9 year-old nephew. Her friend has created such a positive influence in his life, I couldn't imagine what it would be like if she were not around. Do I agree with their lifestyle? Absolutely not. In fact, I dislike the confusion created by the "two mommy" example that he has to somehow reconcile. My point? I don't despise my sister or her friend, based on their sexual preference. I see the potential damage that can and probably will be done, and get over it. After all, it's my sister-in-law's life, her son, not mine. We are all the same in my God's eyes. We will be judged based on our deeds when the time comes, not sooner or later.

So, because we believe in a set of VALUES, we are exclusive, small-tent extremist minorities. Whatever. Bob is talking to someone else, not me. The shoe doesn't fit.

Sorry, it just doesn't.

Siegfried X| 6.14.09 @ 12:19PM

"Maybe it's a money thing in that the Powell-Frum-Brooks wing can't energize "

Their goal is a con game which keeps the base contributing and voting even while RINOs push the party to the left. A true sting is when the mark doesn't even realize that he's been taken.

The politicians talk a little conservative around election, and let us have our talk show hosts, but those politicians never actually _DO_ anything conservative.

It seems to be working, as far as keeping conservatives in line. "Maverick" John McCain, Ted Kennedy's favorite Republican gets nominated with Democratic votes, yet no one in the party leadership opposed him.

It's very easy to see that the role of the Republican media is to keep the base in line. There were a trillion stories about McCain the POW early on, then they stopped the day he clinched the nomination. Everything is focused on demonizing the Democrats, whipping the base into such a frenzy that they'll vote for RINOs. Yet the Republican media never discuss how often some Republicans vote WITH those hated Democrats, and no time is spent discussing liberal vs. conservative within the party. We are told that if the base ever questions the RINO leadership, it would be a "circular firing squad" which gives the Democrats instant victory (like Cornyn quoted above).

Mary| 6.14.09 @ 1:06PM

The left wing of the Republican party badly wants to get rid of the base. That's what the big tent is, move Democrats in and then throw conservatives out.

You're probably right. They could succeed if Obama turns out to be a disaster. But it's still a matter of money, and being able to energize foot soldiers. And what would be the cri du coeur of the Republican left-wing? "Vote for us we'll make sure there's two bureaucrats in the examining room with you and your doctor instead of one! Yes, we don't want a bureaucrat in la chambre, but we never said we didn't want one, preferably two (we keep our promises!) in the examining room."

By dint of who they are, I don't see them as being able to raise a left wing army volunteering to go door-to-door or man phone lines. They're the lukewarm drink you invariably spit out of your mouth; that's one of their problems.

I think a big disadvantage for conservative Republicans is that they don't have a real strong horse. And I don't think Republicans can pull off an Obama/Hollywood type candidate. Palin has a lot going for her, but I think she did herself more harm than good by staying out there so much following the election. That's not to imply I think of her as an Obama/Hollywood type candidate. But she’s very charismatic and she's a great fund raiser who draws big crowds.

I was hoping that the Letterman ordeal would have prompted her to call a press conference and really address this as a mother hen. She needed to get really angry. Not using vitriol, just laying the lumber to him. He probably did mean Bristol instead of Willow, but she could have made that immaterial. And then after letting fly with all of that, return to Alaska, govern, learn and then comeback really ready to fight. She’ll fight, she’s not afraid. And she can -pardon the expression, as she’s a woman- really take a punch. I really respect that. But she can't fight with sound bites. Her and Obama share a tendency to speak in platitudes. Republicans need someone who can reach well beyond that.

Newt's a smart guy and can reach beyond, but he's not electable, in my view. And he has a huge weasel factor. Here's the thing, Republicans more than democrats, because of what their platform states, need to walk the walk in a way democrats don't. When abortion is your sacrament and for which you’ll make jihad, how hard is it to walk that walk? From time to time, I listen to Tammy Bruce, -one-time NOWer, 2nd A, pro-choice, fill-in for Laura Inghram- and she said it best, if after all the advances of feminism you have to take yourself to clinic, there’s nothing affirming about that.

Based on admittedly incomplete information, I'm a fan of Mark Sanford. Supposedly, his lack of charisma is a disadvantage, but I'm thinking that by the time 2012 rolls around his sober, adult and libertarian leaning philosophy might sound good to a lot of people.

Mary| 6.14.09 @ 1:25PM

Big J, you're absolutely right. You can't be browbeaten by com-box bloviators. Tin Mussolinis from their balconies; and that would include me.

You've got to admit that the winners of this election are a joyless, fruitless bunch.

Siegfried X| 6.14.09 @ 1:55PM

I was hoping that the Letterman ordeal would have prompted her to call a press conference and really address this as a mother hen.

I think it would have hurt her politically. Bristol is an adult and has put herself in the game by being spokesperson for abstinance and giving tabloid interviews. Sarah Palin has also has publicized her children from the beginning.

It was a very rude remark, which I disagree totally with, but we live in a world of "shock jocks". Both Rush Limbaugh and John McCain made insulting jokes about Democratic president's daughters. The insults against Presidents Bush and Obama are so extreme that it seems there are no limits any more.

I have problems with politicians trying to censor comedians and the general population. Every politician's answer when asked about Rush Limbaugh should be that they don't critique non-politicians.

So I think Palin had a right to take one shot to defend her family, but she should have expanded it into talking about how society has gone downhill but still supports freedom of speech. She should realize that getting in a long war with a comedian is counter-productive. It would drag her to his level.

RightKlik| 6.14.09 @ 3:09PM

"Nor will it do to argue, as Charles Krauthammer did recently, that elections have consequences."

Oh but elections do have consequences. It's not just the election of Presidents that has consequences. Election of Senators has consequences too. Conservative Senators should let those consequences be felt.

Angel| 6.14.09 @ 3:22PM

Bob, FEAR IS A TOOL OF THE GODLESS; it's a base emotion that springs from weakness.

If you understood and believed in the power of faith you wouldn't have to live your life out of fear. That's my Sunday sermon for the week.

And Bob, I insult you because you have berated me and my fellow Conservatives here so many times I have lost count. Stop whining, it doesn't recommend you, (but of course, nothing does).

Old Texican| 6.14.09 @ 4:23PM

Big J
I will be wearing my stars and stripes white golf shirt, and carrying a big Texas flag. I will be trying to sit down on my stool...or somewhere...(crummy back ,heh)

Folks, I have read the posts above except when they got really repetitive or stupid.
Mary...you go, Girl!
Marcell...well that is a French term meaning "looser".
In fact, anyone using that moniker wants to be identified..."French"...which of course brings up gillotines (sic).....and loosing every fight of consequence in history. (heh)

Worst case, he was named that at birth...and we cannot blame him for anything since.

Bob:
One simply cannot pull "values" out of one's arse at need or when convenient to win an argument. "Values" don't work that way. Values are the things one will stand or die for; certainly not for chatting on a computer, and changing with the winds.

Mary, I appreciated your struggle to express what you called agnostic, and your problem with the "Bible" being the "Word of God". Lady-friend, you were right on...
Contrary to what many would have you believe...The Bible is NOT the Word of God.

Jesus Christ is forever the Word of God..."In the beginning was the Word.....and the Word shines on in the darkness, and the darkness cannot comprehend it." (St. John 1:1 go re-read the whole paragraph and grin).
You know, Mary, all my school work was centered around family counseling/psychotherapy. During that work I discovered that no therapist in 2,000 years can find fault with the "words in red" attributed to Jesus. Pretty remarkable. (He liiiiiikes you.)

Siegfried X| 6.14.09 @ 4:31PM

Yes, pandering to various ethnic groups doesn't pay for Republicans. The actual election results don't show it.

Many young people don't realize that in 1984 President Reagan, running as a real conservative, won the biggest landslide in history. Reagan won large percentages of traditional Democratic constituencies, more than any Republican presidential candidate received since.

For example, John McCain, even though he was the champion of amnesty only received 32% of the Hispanic vote, while Reagan received 40%.

President Reagan got 39% of the Jewish vote in 1980 and 31% in 1984, but Bush in 2004 only got 24% while McCain got 22%.

So it is totally incorrect to say that the demographics have turned against the Republican Party. A Republican candidate who runs as a real conservative, like Reagan, can win in a landslide, pulling higher percentages of Democratic-majority groups than a RINO candidate could.

Angel| 6.14.09 @ 4:33PM

Siegfried, Mary, Big J: You are such smart, decent and articulate Conservatives; you make me feel like there's still hope!

Don't ever let the cynics and naysayers shut you up, okay? Conservatives like you are the heart and hope of our party and our country.

I can't help but feel pride that you are my fellow countrymen when I read your posts.

Thank you.

Bob| 6.14.09 @ 4:38PM

Angel, who said I live my life out of fear. Fear is just one of the many HUMAN tools we have to regulate our lives. We also have beliefs, values, love, and many other HUMAN tools. Denying that fear is a positive human instrument is the height of non-thinking people.

Big J -- you shouldn't be so sensitive and angry. Perhaps your "faith" makes you that way. But given that I believe that individuals should be left alone to live their lives as they wish, if social conservatism floats your boat, I respect your right to believe in it. I'm not trying to change you, and I don't want you to change me by telling me who I can marry or whether my moral decisions on abortion are good or bad. That's exactly my point. Social conservatives are trying to limit the Republican party to be the party of God. That's not only destructive, but just plain dumb if you understand demographics and the political nature of elections. Furthermore, it degrades the arguments of fiscal conservatism as a fundamental aspect of the Republican party. I welcome you as an ally in the party -- but you do not welcome me. That is the essence of bigotry.

Old Texican -- my "values" are every bit as solid as yours -- they are just different. I highly value an individual's right to believe as they wish and also to be responsible for their actions. You don't, and thus I would submit that you have beliefs, but not values. The numbers don't lie -- Republicans must appeal to minorities and young voters in the future. Society changes over time -- it always has. Slavery used to be fine, and now it isn't. Women were subservient to men, and now they aren't.

Bob| 6.14.09 @ 4:48PM

Siegfried -- your analysis of Reagan's win shows a complete misunderstanding of political theory. Reagan won the first time with only 50.7% of the vote -- less than Obama. He won because of pocketbook issues, not conservatism. Inflation was high, taxes were high, and we were in a recession and he only won with a little more than 50% of the vote. He won in '84 because the economy got better. Clinton beat Bush in '92 by always remembering that "It's the economy, stupid". Get it through your think skull -- that was not a win for conservatism -- it was a win for a better economy. Furthermore, Reagan believed that if a person was with you 80% of the time, he was your ally. You don't, and thus you shouldn't be putting Reagan on a pedestal. For your information, if the demographics in 1980 were the same as today, and Reagan received the same minority and age group voting percentages, he would have lost the election. There wouldn't have been a Reagan reelection in 1984. The only way Bush could win in 2000 was to run as a "compassionate conservative" -- not a hard right conservative. That election was extremely close.

Only political junkies who are idiots believe that ideology is more important than the economy in electing a President.

Oldefarte| 6.14.09 @ 4:49PM

Bob's comments [You need to ask why the current thought leaders in the conservative movement - Rush, Hannity, Palin, etc. -- represent the undereducated in our society. Conservatives in the era of Buckley were highly educated and searched for the truth. That's one of the reasons I became a Republican. I don't recognize the idiocy in the party today] define his intellectual prejudices. His numerous references to Buckley as some kind of god ignores the fact that 'Ol Bill was never ELECTED TO OFFICE, and was nothing more than a intelligent pen-pusher, writer,etc. Buckley never ran or won an elected office. Bob's critisism of Palin, Rush, Hannity,etc for [in Bob's opinion] appealing to the non-intellectual elements of society, is probably the reason Bob came out of his closet to vote for Obama [being the intellectual that he was]. Yea, AND THE COW JUMPED OVER THE MOON! Those so-termed non-intellectuals Bob refers to are hones, hard-working, patriotic, taxpaying Americans that have built this country into what is is today. Just because they don't all have Harvard/Princeton [taxpayer paid for] educations is no reason for the Bobs of this world to look down his asinine nose at them. Those un-Harvard educated taxpayers PAID FOR his Messiah's education! Palin's Alaska university education can't compare to Obama's H-A-R-V-A-R-D degree, right Bob? Whose constituents have accompolished more in life, Bob, McCain's or Obama's? Bob, I guess an Missouri farmer can't compare with some dirtbag thief working for Acorn and giving cigarettes, liquor, and money away to Obama's constituents to vote for the Messiah, huh Bob? What a moron, Bob is!!!!!!!!!!

Big J| 6.14.09 @ 5:27PM

Not angry, Bob, just right.

I know it's hard to believe and accept, but that's the truth.

I am no bible-thumper, I don't go to church every Sunday, and I don't preach to non-believers trying to change them.

It might shock you that this electrician drinks and smokes too much. I curse, even though I shouldn't. I also appreciate the sight of a beautiful woman, even if she is not my girlfriend/wife/office manager (all one person, in case you didn't get it), but my girlfriend/wife/office manager is number one in my world. Couldn't live without her, don't even want to think about it.

In spite of and because of all of the above, I can look myself in the mirror on several occasions each day and feel good about who is looking back at me. You see, we are all human, and it is human nature not to be perfect. Thank God. I don't think I could handle what would be required of me, were that the case.

What club are you trying to get into? You keep making references to someone's lack of acceptance of you in "the party" or the "club".

"I welcome you as an ally in the party -- but you do not welcome me. That is the essence of bigotry." Did someone dis you because of your pro-abortion or pro-gay marriage beliefs? While I feel that you are wrong on these issues, I do not banish you from the Republican party.

I'll have a beer with you, Bob. Unfortunately, I fear our conversation and time spent together would be cut short due to YOUR lack of tolerance for others.

Bob, get over whatever biases and bigotry YOU possess, and maybe you can carry on an intelligent conversation with others. We are not near as different as you think. The "Big J -- you shouldn't be so sensitive and angry. Perhaps your "faith" makes you that way." statements that you continually make on this site might not sound so brilliant to you.

I feel bad for you, not believing in any sort of higher power. I believed that way for a long time, and it was a very dark time. I hope that changes for you.

Marcell| 6.14.09 @ 5:49PM

Siegfried X| 6.14.09 @ 8:50AM

Yes, conservatism is a winner. Every time the voters are given a choice in a referendum, they choose traditional marriage and reject forced approval of homosexuality, even in liberal states like California. Voters trust the Republicans to defend our country. They know Republicans are the party of Lincoln, the party of equality which will make us one nation indivisible instead of dividing us into warring groups as do the liberals, who mention race and gender in every sentence.

The liberals know they can't beat us on the issues. They are afraid to discuss them. It's a simple fact that no liberal will honestly debate an issue. They don't dare. Instead they call names or change the subject.

Knowing they can't win on the issues, the liberals try to talk us out of fighting, which is what a lot of trolling in online forums is about. It's also what the liberal Republicans do, constantly telling us that we must let them have their way in order to win elections.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Wow!! That was like Rush Limbaugh spin, practically verbatim.

I think conservative can be a winner, but they have to get past race & all their phobias. I am totally against the gay agenda, so you will not find me debating gay marriage; it is something I will vote against every time.

The Conservatives can't beat me on the issues. They are afraid to discuss them. It's a simple fact that no conservative will honestly... honestly, debate an issue. They don't dare. Instead they call me names or change the subject, while trying their best to ignore my points.

“Aint that right Mary?”

I would like to address a few subjects discussed within this thread.

I am reading how much conservatives have friends that are different, but I guess if those “different” friends tried to become movers & shakers within their party, then the buck would be forced to have to be stopped.

Here is Webster definition of Bigot & Xenophobia

Bigot: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance... " Think Conservative Only."

Xenophobia: fear and hatred of strangers or foreigners or of anything that is strange or foreign.

The subject didn't change; I just called a spade a spade, & proved my point, no matter how much you people try to ignore those issues.

It seems strange that I am totally against Gay anything, yet I am not trying to build a movement on how much we should be bigoted against them.

I can remember the day my conservative pastor tried to sit & talk with me about the issue. I said to him that I was against the gay agenda & didn't want to discuss the issue, because it seemed as if he was getting ready to go into one of those long bigoted rants. It is sort of like a political strategy that they use to marginalize people who don't care one way or the other on the issue.

Here is the next subject: By Siegfried X

"Voters trust the Republicans to defend our country. They know Republicans are the party of Lincoln, the party of equality which will make us one nation indivisible instead of dividing us into warring groups as do the liberals, who mention race and gender in every sentence."

Siegfried X, there is a difference between Republican & conservative. The conservatives haven't proven they can win wars. As a matter of fact, they are losing most of the local verbal battles with Democrats, & their confederate flag loving cronies are big time losers too.

I understand that the conservative base wants to rally behind inspiring conservatives who are real conservatives & not phony ones like Bu$h & Cheney. I also understand that their base divided themselves by voting for the different types of conservatives during the Republican primaries. They also couldn't get past their phobias to vote for a Mormon like Mitt Romney or the RINO Rudy Giuliani, who were Rush Limbaughs & the Republican machines first two choices.

In a sense the Republicans primary was an election where the conservatives balkanized themselves & the liberals candidate McCain, ended up winning by default. You guys & gals produced McCain because of the fact that you are the apitamy of what you despise about liberals.

You like to obsess on all issues concerning gay people & you try to act as if you don't realize the bigots & Xenophobes at Palin's rallies or within your fold... ROTFMAO. The first thing I realized about your kind of conservatism is that you replaced the N word with the L word ( L= Liberal ).

I am sure most of you know that today's Democratic Party is a bunch of factions & groups united behind one major cause & that is individual liberties.

The Democratic Party is a Party filled with diverse point-of-views & you conservatives try your best to turn those views into a bunch of sex freaks & red diaper doper babies by ignoring the real debate & talking about issues like abortion & gay marriage.

As long as they continue to market mainstream ideals & put forward entertaining candidates like Barack Obama & Bill Clinton they will win; they also have to be conservative concerning fiscal issues, & I am not talking right-wing conservative fiscal.

Judging by their last primaries, the Republican Party is a bunch of balkanized conservative factions within their base & their leadership are moderate thinkers who have to indulge in white- wing conservative speak to get elected or gain any popularity, Rush included.

Remember, I am not the one who started this discussion by saying that we are different genetically & all, & I am not about to ignore someone telling me I am some sort of inferior person who shouldn't believe I or my kids can't achieve anything we want in life, while being a free person in America.
.

Angel| 6.14.09 @ 5:51PM

Bob, YOU said that YOU (Your post of 6/13 @ 8:28 PM) were motivated by fear; you devoted an entire post to the role fear plays in your life.

Wow, short term memory loss--you know it can be a symptom of brain damage--better have a doctor check it out. Do it quick while you can still get a good Doctor--before Moron in Chief tries to ram Socialized Medicine through Congress.

Remember, Bob, Obama and Hillary are both AGAINST gay marriage. I know how you think they're so smart and all with their fancy Ivy League educations. Are they mindless Bible beaters, too?

Bob, I'm not a huckster like you--I don't have to appeal to anybody. I have to do what I think is right and try to live my life that way.

The morals and values I aspire to are timeless and are rooted in my belief in God. All I can do is pray that my life inspires others; not by trickery but by truth.

It's all about love, Bob--all of the time. Beliefs matter, not gender or color.

I could never be a weather vane like you, Bob; your way is too ephemeral for me. See, now? I didn't insult you once--must be a record for me.

C'mon, Bob--laugh; life is too short to be such a gloomy Gus.

Mary| 6.14.09 @ 6:08PM

Angel (ladies first), thank you for your kinds words. Reflecting on the situation in Iran makes me really grateful that you and I can communicate so easily though you're on one coast and I'm on another.

Old Texican, having to admit that I was agnostic was a long and painful process. The tears I shed, you can't know. I appreciate your open hand; it's very Christ-like.

Jung said that in all of his years, he never saw anyone make a recovery without reaching out to God. And he said that all mental illness stemmed from refusing to accept suffering. I wonder what he would say now with the advances in bio-chemical science? It's been my experience that accepting suffering begins with admitting your part of any bad situation.

You know I tried to read Atlas Shrugged, but had it put it down after a few chapters because it was like reading the work of a very perceptive, but unevolved, 20 year-old. And the principles that I began to notice being laid out were taught to me by my parents, more or less. Anyway, thank you.

Siegfried, maybe you're right about Palin addressing the Letterman thing being a bad idea. I don't want to shut Letterman up, or anyone else.
And you're absolutely right to point to Rush and McCain's similar viciousness. Rush's quip on Chelsea was one of the things I was thinking of when I mentioned his faults.

Voting for McCain was a bitter pill for me. Sometimes in a mood of anger I say I'm sorry that I did, but I'm really not. He would have been better than Obama on most things. He would have been better on the economy for sure because he knew and readily admitted he didn't know anything. That kind of humility doesn't usually bode ill. He would have appointed the head of Fed-Ex to his cabinet and people of similar caliber. His temperament worried me insofar as foreign policy is concerned.

Also, whatever the left wing Republicans are doing, it's not working. Whether Governor Palin lost Republicans the independent vote, McCain's campaign was going nowhere fast and that's why he put her on the ticket, he viewed her as high reward/high risk.

They have to replace a good portion of the base in order for them to prevail. They can maneuver anyway they want, but they still need the base to show up and vote. That's a given for either party. Reagan didn't win and neither did Obama by marginalizing the base hoping to capture that loss through independents.

Anyway, Angel's right in that we need not be intimidated about speaking up. The electorate will vote and it will have to bear the consequences of that vote. Though I'm worried about the Country and the balkanization that demands pandering, there's nothing I can do about it. Once the non-tax paying rolls move to the 51% mark, things are going to change. And the democrats are absolutely about infantilizing the electorate. The democrats play mommy and the Republicans have to pull out Dad when everyone begins to realize 'thar she blows.

I'll continue to pay my taxes, continue to abide by the law, continue to enjoy my family and friends both in and out of the ether. And there can never be a fiscal conservatism where a social liberalism prevails because liberalism is expensive, and it produces pathologies because it doesn't expect much from people. I've always thought of it as misanthropic, appearances and propaganda notwithstanding.

Siegfried X| 6.14.09 @ 6:26PM

Thursday the US Senate passed Obama's tobacco legislation 79 - 17.

The vote among Republican Senators was:
23 - for Obama (57%)
16 - against Obama (40%)
1 - didn't vote

That is a very typical Republican voting pattern, and the Sotomayor nomination may very well be like it. One Republican has already endorsed her, and said she will get "substantial" numbers.

Yet those Republican senators keep sending us letters saying how bad Obama is, and asking for money so they can "stop" him.

Siegfried X| 6.14.09 @ 6:52PM

they still need the base to show up and vote

Will the base ever stay home? Or will they always show up and vote for the "lesser of two evils"?

Angel| 6.14.09 @ 6:54PM

Siegfried, I disagree with you regarding Sarah Palin speaking out about Letterman's abusive remarks. Letterman's jokes were written ahead of time and would have been fact-checked, unlike the nasty things Imus said.

Of course Letterman knew it was Willow at the Yankee's game--he didn't care because he knew he wouldn't be punished.

Remember when David Schuster of MSNBC said that Hillary was pimping out Chelsea during the Primary? Hillary was furious and Schuster was suspended for a while: What would have happened if he'd made the same joke about Obama's daughters? ACORN would have burned his house down.

We have to object to the double-standard in politics, or no Conservatives will want to run for office, (Which I believe is the Liberals' real objective).

If I were Sarah, my political career would have come second to Willow and Bristol, (Mother first, politician second!). I would have made it clear to the liberals--leave my kids alone!!

I would have ripped the pervert, David Bitterman a new one.

Marcell| 6.14.09 @ 6:57PM

Conservatives have to Deal with some New Realities

Siegfried X

This is driving my support for your point-of-view.

Siegfried X| 6.14.09 @ 6:26PM

Thursday the US Senate passed Obama's tobacco legislation 79 - 17.

The vote among Republican Senators was:
23 - for Obama (57%)
16 - against Obama (40%)
1 - didn't vote

That is a very typical Republican voting pattern, and the Sotomayor nomination may very well be like it. One Republican has already endorsed her, and said she will get "substantial" numbers.

Yet those Republican senators keep sending us letters saying how bad Obama is, and asking for money so they can "stop" him.

Mary| 6.14.09 @ 7:01PM

When I referenced genetics I was thinking about the differences between men and women. And the pretense that those differences don't exist. The study of genetics is fascinating to me and for the record, I reside in that big hump in the middle: "not showing off, not falling behind." :)

And when I wrote that telling someone they can be anything they want is cruel, I was reflecting, as I noted, on a conversation I had with a professor of mine who was telling what my stengths and weaknesses were. When he was finished he told me take to heart, because he said what he said thinking it was cruel to let someone believe they possessed a gift they did not have . I never held it against him because he was pointing to my strengths as much as to my weaknesses, and he was right. I was only with him a semester, way back when, but I was a student he liked and a student he prodded.

Marcell| 6.14.09 @ 7:27PM

And when I wrote that telling someone they can be anything they want is cruel, I was reflecting, as I noted, on a conversation I had with a professor of mine who was telling what my stengths and weaknesses were. When he was finished he told me take to heart, because he said what he said thinking it was cruel to let someone believe they possessed a gift they did not have . I never held it against him because he was pointing to my strengths as much as to my weaknesses, and he was right. I was only with him a semester, way back when, but I was a student he liked and a student he prodded.

***********

Ronald Reagan & Barack Obama's story proves that it is not cruel to believe & try to be all you can be, no matter what our status as individuals & families are today.

If I am poor today & focus on educating my kids, like many first generation Americans do... even if I, personally, don't become successful, my next generation will in America.

Both, Reagan & Obama's parents weren't all that, & they accomplished great goals in a free America.

Mary| 6.14.09 @ 7:30PM

Will the base ever stay home? Or will they always show up and vote for the "lesser of two evils"?

McCain wouldn't have won if someone else had been the VP choice. He would have lost by more.

Giuliani wouldn't have won. Maybe Romney, but that would have depended on how much of the base decided to stay home. From what I read 4,000,000 people sat the last election out. I'm thinking they're probably more Republican than Democrat leaning.

The Republicans do have to worry about apathy taking root on both sides of the spectrum. That is, as Steyn pointed out yesterday, the malleable part of the electorate throwing up its hands in a fit of hopelessness and enervation.

It comes back to the argument of what does the electorate want the Country to be? Does it want it to grab some more socialism? Treating the electorate as a static thing, demographic changes notwithstanding, is not very smart. Much depends on the health and robustness of the middle class. If that's being hammered at -and I think it is- so that it's just enough to tap for taxes and more or less schlep along its enervated way, the fix is in. If, however, the middle class remains healthy enough to resent being hammered, conservatives can prevail again.

Marcell| 6.14.09 @ 7:47PM

Love Federalist Papers Number 10:

By James Madison

As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves. The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties.

The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts.
~~~

Good night Conservative America =)

Marcell| 6.14.09 @ 7:56PM

P.S

I am just trying to get paid, doing what I do best, because " I am a capitalist too."

Mary| 6.14.09 @ 7:57PM

If I were Sarah, my political career would have come second to Willow and Bristol, (Mother first, politician second!). I would have made it clear to the liberals--leave my kids alone!!

Even though I'm not a Mom, that was exactly my thought. And I'd forgotten about Schuster and Hillary.

I thought that she could have forcefully addressed the depravity that's been unleashed against her.

Over at Contentions, John Podhoretz (sp?) referred to Sullivan as a "virtual speculum." That's so true. Just depraved; he was like the Rosie O'Donnell of the Atlantic.

Mary| 6.14.09 @ 8:02PM

Like Rosie in that Rosie was a "truther."

Siegfried X| 6.14.09 @ 8:17PM

I didn't agree with Hillary's approach either, but Schuster was a reporter, not a comedian. Rush Limbaugh still hasn't apologized for his remarks. There is no double standard.

Palin probably destroyed whatever hope she had of ever being elected president with her threats of violence. (Something Hillary never did.) That was one reason a lot of people wouldn't vote for McCain, thin-skinned and violent.

Angel| 6.14.09 @ 8:42PM

I don't know, Siegfried--I remember many stories of Hillary's physical and obscene verbal assaults on those around her when she was in the White House. Memory loss on your part?

And there is definitely a double-standard--who would dare say that Michelle Obama looks like a slutty stewardess? It's ridiculous to deny it.

When did Palin threaten Letterman? You and I must be living in different universes. I didn't see that.

But you're wrong anyway--if Sarah hadn't defended her daughters she would have lost the respect of many voters (maybe most of them women), and that definitely would have negatively impacted her Presidential chances.

Palin isn't thin-skinned, but Obama sure is.

Angel| 6.14.09 @ 8:46PM

Good night and good riddance, troll Marcell. Hope you're out of your astro-turf troll job soon and have to get a real one.

Mary| 6.14.09 @ 8:55PM

Palin probably destroyed whatever hope she had of ever being elected president with her threats of violence.

What threats are you talking about? I know there were reports about some bad seeds in the crowds that followed her, but I never read or heard of her threatening any violence.

JS| 6.14.09 @ 9:28PM

"In the upcoming Sotomayor confirmation hearings, Republicans should play as rough as Democrats."

Ha. Haha. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

No one seems to get this. This country is over. Done. Stick a fork in it.

The time to "play rough" was BEFORE the racist, Amerikkka hating/ Israel hating, idiot was elected. NOW you want to "play tough"?

God help us...

jeaneeinabottle| 6.14.09 @ 9:38PM

I WOULD THINK IF THESE GUYS CAN PUT OUR TROOPS IN THE MIDDLE OF A CAMEL PATCH WITH A BUNCH OF BARBARIANS SO THEY CAN FIGHT THEIR ARMS AND LEGS OFF, THESE GUYS CAN GROW A GD SPINE AND FIGHT! IT IS OUR JOB TO TAKE CARE OF BUSINESS HERE. SO GROW SOME GD BALLS AND PUT HER AWAY ALREADY, SHE'S A PIECE OF SCUM AND EVERYONE KNOWS IT. I WANT TO SEE SOME OF THESE GUYS IN THE MEDIA PISSED OFF SAYING SOMETHING ELSE BESIDES TALKING POINTS. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. WE DON'T WANT THIS SO CALLED RATIONED HEALTH CRAP EITHER. WE WANT THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF OUR LIVES AND WE DON'T WANT THIS TO EVER HAPPEN AGAIN! ENOUGH OF THE RINO CRAP TOO WE ARE CONSERVATIVES NOW START ACTING LIKE IT OR YOU'LL GET YOUR ASSES BOOTED OUT OF OFFICE. WHAT EVER THEY WANT TO DO WE ARE AGAINST IT UNLESS THESE IDIOTS WANT TO GIVE US ALL OUR MONEY BACK FROM THESE GD COMPANIES! NOW GO DO IT

Angel| 6.14.09 @ 9:45PM

I know one thing: If Rush had unleashed Letterman's ugly verbal abuse on Michelle Obama and her daughters or Hillary and Chelsea, he would have been kicked off the air.

And I wouldn't have applauded Rush (Like those New York morons applauded Letterman), I would have objected strenuously.

I don't think any Conservatives would have celebrated Letterman's disgusting behavior because we value decency. At least I do.

Marcell| 6.15.09 @ 2:20AM

I have chosen to focus on helping the Republicans to win the healthcare debate to show my stuff. Try following my lead on this issue & you will eventually get traction. You have nothing to lose.

Who is winning the Healthcare Debate?

By Black Cell

Barack Obama is handily winning the early rounds of that debate, because he is controlling the most important aspect of the debate, & that is its cost.

While the president is hoping that he could convince voters to agree with his massive overhaul of the U.S. health care system by offering cuts to Medicare & Medicaid, the Republican focus seem to be all over the map as they tout a list of reasons to be against the different plans championed by Democrats.

What seems to be the focal point within the Republicans perspective is that they fear the government taking over the healthcare industry. The issues concerning the sky rocketing cost of healthcare doesn't seem to be a major issue to them.

But the rising cost of health care & the rising numbers of uninsured is fueling the debate surrounding that issue, & not the question should we allow the federal government the power to eventually take over that industry.

Its rising cost has forced many Americans to struggle to pay their medical bills. Employees are more & more complaining that they cannot afford high premiums for health insurance. Employers are cutting back or eliminating health benefits. Even state and federal governments are struggling to afford the rising cost of public programs like Medicaid and Medicare.

So, why should we buy into the typical rhetoric by politicians that claim they can save us more money by putting the burden of the sky rocketing cost on the tax payers back?

Even though I agree with the fact that the federal government will eventually take sole control over healthcare cost because businesses will eventually opt out of healthcare & force their employees to receive the Federal governments healthcare for financial reasons, I believe the real issue is that what President Obama is trying to offer, lower cost healthcare, can't be accomplished by the feds eventually taking over that industry.

I believe that the large number of U.S citizens who are uninsured & the even larger number of elderly who are receiving private care, along with the potentially large numbers of employers shifting their employees to the government programs will eventually overwhelm the federal government & force taxes to have to be raised or eventually the quality of healthcare will drop.

While Democrats are using their pull with the media to market how businesses (specifically small businesses) are struggling to pay for rising medical cost, Republicans could be using the same information to point out that if many of those businesses had the option to dump their healthcare cost onto the federal government there is a likely hood that they would.

How does the federal government taken over those businesses healthcare costs lower the over all cost in general?

President Obama says by creating more competition, but the reality is that the only thing would be happening is that businesses would be only shifting their burden onto the taxpayers.

Maybe the Republicans should be attempting to force Democrats to explain why the existing government ran healthcare programs Medicare & Medicaid are struggling, & conclude that Democrats should be solving those problems before taking on such projects as what ever version of universal healthcare they are marketing.

I am hoping that the Republicans start to focus more on the rising cost of healthcare & how the burden will be solely put on the backs of the tax payers if President Obama's plan is enacted.

I believe our President is fighting a noble cause, but it is one that the private industry can't solve, so why put that burden on the rest of us?

Here are two videos showing how weak the republicans look in this debate. That could be changed if they fight Obama on the issue he is trying to champion.

****
Appearing on CBS' Face The Nation Sunday, McConnell told host Bob Schieffer that Mr. Obama's plan for a government health insurance plan would essentially crowd out other insurers from the private market, eliminating competition.

http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_video/main500251.shtml?id=5087428n

****

"This Week" interview with former Gov. Mitt Romney, R-Mass

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=7835713

***

Marcell| 6.15.09 @ 5:10AM

Healthcare Reform Debate – Not about Caring for Me
by EquityRoy

Sun Jun 14, 2009 at 10:29:34 AM PDT

When the healthcare debate is about numbers and not patients, the signs are not good for meaningful reform. Has the die already been cast for fraudulent, industry-directed healthcare reform? In the end, was the cause of healthcare reform lost for generations when the Clintons screwed it up last decade? Is the current debate honest? Has public interest and patient care been permanently removed from the healthcare reform discussion? Has the window of opportunity reopened for real reform or not? It sounds to me as if I have been dropped entirely from the "debate" and I am discouraged.

See, I have a personal stake in US healthcare policy. I am a 53-year-old, unemployed man with diabetes and an emerging heart valve issue. I need a lot of medications (including two types of insulin) and supplies (blood sugar test strips are $120 a box) to manage my condition. My access to health insurance through COBRA expires in September and can be extended only because I live in Massachusetts. Unfortunately, my elderly parents need me to come live near them in another state as they move into more manageable circumstances. If I choose to go care for them, as I should, I will have no health insurance as of October 1. My pre-existing conditions will make it impossible to get insurance at any cost unless I find a job that provides healthcare benefits, a possibility that has seemed next to impossible in recent months. So, I have followed the healthcare debate carefully from a personal perspective since the beginning of the presidential campaign until this week but I can’t stand to listen any more.

Who is at the table and arguing for me? The AMA, a co-conspirator in sustaining the medical insurance rackets that have stolen tens of thousands of dollars out of my pocket in recent years, represents 20% of doctors and 0% of patients. Single-payer healthcare, the system practiced by nearly the entire civilized world, was off the table before the debate began. The insurance industry is successfully framing the debate on the numbers in ways that even a "loss" for them will be nothing more than rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic for me.

Democrats, swept into office with a mandate for change, including fundamental change in the healthcare system, now waver even on a "public option" for those of us who will be left behind completely without it. Republicans criticize "government run" healthcare while many of them have spent decades benefitting from just that system. They have also suddenly "found religion" on deficit fighting and will sacrifice any number of citizens to hold the line against deficits and inflation. Which begs the question: at what cost, my life? The Obama haters will use any argument, whether it hurts the country or not, for any small ding in the Obama approval poll numbers or for "Praise God" an Obama failure. What is the Obama administration doing? What is the line they are holding against the healthcare thieves and racketeers? Why is the discussion moving away from patients and onto numbers?

If the current system is wrong and killing people in favor of good business practices and profits (grown-up people like me not zygotes), why wouldn’t fixing the healthcare system in order to favor patients, citizens, me, over and above profits be right? Why not make patients’ healthcare the absolute priority? I’ve already paid enough into the system to provide myself first-class healthcare for two lifetimes, even with my "exiting conditions." The so-called "robust debate" seems more about how to gouge me more and more and take care of me less and less.

There will come a point in America when healthcare reform which makes care for her citizens the absolute priority will actually pass in Washington or those same citizens will take to the streets as a last resort to demand fundamental change. I helped elect President Obama. I’ve written letters to Congress, editors and all the interested parties expressing my opinion. For now, I’ve listened enough. I will start paying attention again when either the marches or the new healthcare plan get going. All else is noise designed to distract, divide and defer. My "pre-existing conditions" help me stay very clearly focused on the bottom line. I hope I survive to see one of the two: real national healthcare reform or real national civil disobedience.

Marcell| 6.15.09 @ 5:39AM

Senators spar over healthcare plan
Published: June 14, 2009 at 3:50 PM

Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd said Sunday he is opposed to taxing benefits paid to U.S. workers under a healthcare reform bill in Congress.

Appearing on "Fox News Sunday," Dodd, D-Conn., said Americans already carry a large tax burden.

"The idea of talking about taxing benefits at a time where people are already overwhelmed is, I think, a very bad idea," Dodd said.

He said potential savings from the White House plan and money already earmarked for the deal is enough to bankroll the legislation.

Meanwhile, Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, a member of the Senate Tax Committee, said taxing benefits is a possibility.

"There is a lot of waste in government-run programs generally, and a lot of waste and fraud and misuse of money in Medicare and Medicaid that can be saved," Grassley said. "But right now, I could not put a figure on that amount of money."

© 2009 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Missy| 6.15.09 @ 5:40AM

I thought you said goodnight @ 7:47 PM. Just can't stay away can you?

Marcell| 6.15.09 @ 6:01AM

All the conservatives have to do is focus on the issue of how the burden of high cost healthcare will be forced onto the backs of tax payers this week, & the healthcare debate will fall like King Kong on the Empire State Building .

*******************

Some Democrats Consider Healthcare Co-Op Over Obama’s ‘Public Option’
Monday, June 15, 2009
By Christopher Neefus

Senator Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.)
(CNSNews.com) - In a press briefing held by top Senate Democrats, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said it is possible that when a draft bill for health care reform emerges from the Senate this week, the public health insurance option it contains could come, like his Brooklyn apartment, in the form of a co-op.

However, a free market analyst said the co-op idea is likely being floated to attract moderate Democrats who do not back the government-run ‘public option’ plan being pushed by the White House.

The co-op idea was originally presented by Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), and would allow co-operatives to obtain a charter from the federal government to service their membership. “We do have co-ops in lots of things, [it] is run for the customers,” Schumer said on Thursday, “and we like that because we think the public would run things for the customers too, [and] it wouldn’t be government.”

The co-op health care plan would take the place of a “public option,” an idea backed by the Obama administration, and would see a government-run insurance plan triggered in any case where fewer than two private insurance options were available.

Both possibilities are still being discussed among Democrats in various committees. But Schumer said an insurance plan structured like a co-op stands a better chance at finding bipartisan support because it would reduce government involvement.

The New York senator, a senior member of the Finance Committee, admitted that launching a nationwide co-op would require “a large infusion of federal dollars in the beginning to set it up so that it could compete with the big boys,” but that Republicans might prefer it because they are “afraid the public option will grow into single payer.”

The more radical single-payer option would see the federal government reimbursing insurance providers for all costs incurred in providing healthcare.

A press secretary for the minority on the Senate Committee for Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, could only say the co-op plan was an idea Republicans were interested in hearing more about, but that they could not say whether they would be able to support it, as Schumer suggested.

But Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) told The Wall Street Journal that if it could be “an entirely private sector operation … I think it’s got some possibilities.”

At Thursday’s briefing, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said Republicans were welcome to negotiate the terms of a co-op or public option in a committee negotiation process known as the “mark-up” period. “We always save the Republicans a seat at the negotiating table and will continue to do that,” he said.

But Michael Tanner, a senior fellow specializing in healthcare at the libertarian Cato Institute, suspects Senate Democrats are not likely interested in courting Republican support. He thinks “they are actually [speaking] to moderate Democrats” about the co-op plan.

“If it’s a co-op model, I suspect if it was sufficiently independent of government to make Republicans happy, the Democrats wouldn’t be happy,” Tanner told CNSNews.com. “The left wing of the Democratic Party would walk away, which is very insistent upon single payer, or certainly insisting on a robust public option and is not going to accept something watered down this much.”

The only rationale Democrats might have, then, for moderating their plans might be to “go far enough to make the [moderate Democrats] comfortable,” Tanner said. “[T]hat, I think, is their real target.”

“There’s no reason to do a co-op or any other option if it’s not somehow managed by government,” he said. “We have 1,300 insurance companies, and now we’d just have 1,350.”

Schumer seemed to concur, saying the plan would have to “achieve the same goals as a conventional public plan.”

“[It is] a question mark as to whether we can” do that, said Schumer.

Sen. Murray said she expected the Health Committee would present a draft of the healthcare reform bill by the middle of this week.

Marcell| 6.15.09 @ 6:29AM

U.S. health care lies about Canada
Posted: May 12, 2009, 8:40 AM by Diane Francis
Greed, U.S. Politics, dysfunction

National disgrace: Free health care handed out to Americans last year in an animal pen.

Another American blowhard
Just who is this jerk, Rick Scott of propaganda-mongering Conservatives for Patients’ Rights? He and his group are fabricating negatives about Canada’s health care system and I resent this. I am an American who has lived in Canada for more than 35 years. I can vouch that the system is more than adequate and is not run by civil servants but by doctors who are able to treat everyone, rich or poor.
Mr. Scott, and other conservatives (code for rich) are against universal health care without any justification whatsoever. Their criticisms are in accurate and should not be broadcast.
Where are the ethics in network broadcasting? I saw one of Scott’s ads on CNN recently and wondered why the same curation of content was not imposed on CNN advertising messages as is upheld editorially. If CNN is unwilling to vet content, then where is the FCC?

The real story
Here are the facts as to why Canada’s medical system, far from perfect, is dramatically better than America’s:
1. It is cheaper even though it takes care of the entire population, or 10% of GDP compared with 15% in the U.S.
2. Canada’s health care system which fully looks after 32 million people costs roughly what the private-sector health insurance companies make in profits in the United States looking after less than half the population for excessive premiums.
3. Canada’s health care system is cheaper still if the litigation costs of fighting over medical bills is eliminated as it is when the government is the sole-insurer. Estimates are that court costs and judgments add another 2 to 3% of GDP to the total medical tab.
4. Canada’s health care system enhances economic productivity. Workers diagnosed with illnesses can still change employers and be employable because they are not rejected by employers with health benefits due to pre-conditions.
5. Infant mortality is much lower in Canada and Europe than in the U.S.
6. Outcomes with major illnesses, such as cancer and heart disease, are better than in the United States.
7. Longevity is better in Canada and Europe than in the U.S.
8. No emergency is neglected in Canada.
9. Some elective procedures may take longer if compared to blue-ribbon U.S. health care but that’s no comparing apples with apples. More appropriately, the overall population’s care should be compared and there are tens of millions of Americans who are uninsured or uninsurable.
10. No one in Canada goes broke because of medical bills whereas ARP estimates half of personal bankruptcies are due to unpaid, high medical bills.
11. Canadians are able to choose their own physicians and to seek multiple opinions.
12. Canadian doctors and nurses are better trained than American counterparts and U.S. physicians must study for at least a year in order to qualify to practice in Canada.
13. Drugs made and invented in the United States are cheaper in Canada, Europe and Japan because our communal health care means volume discounts and savings passed along to society. Americans are overpaying.
14. Americans are being cheated by a patchwork quilt system where the highest risk people – veterans, the indigent and elderly – are insured by governments but the “gravy” or young, healthy people are handed over to private insurance companies.

Is Canada’s system perfect? No and nobody said it was. Networks should stop allowing propagandists to tell lies and any arguments about other countries’ practices should be ignored as totally irrelevant.
The United States is a rich and talented nation and it’s very upsetting to me, as an American, that it does not have the world’s best medical care for its citizens instead of one of the worst.
Americans deserve better.

Marcell| 6.15.09 @ 6:37AM

I apologize for the inconvinience.

*************

Lets take a look at the math of health care in the Senate
by UpstateDem

Sun Jun 14, 2009 at 03:11:45 PM PDT

I have been doing a lot of thinking over the past couple days about how we will get health care with a public option through the Senate. Before October, we are going to need 60 votes to pass it and it appears to be a very uphill battle. It appears that every Republican but Olympia Snowe will not vote for healthcare reform with the public option. That leaves us with a solid 39 NO votes. It looks like Joe Lieberman, Mary Landrieu, and likely Kent Conrad and Ben Nelson will oppose the plan. That puts the NO votes at a certain 43, more than enough to kill the plan without reconciliation.

In October, reconcilation kicks in and Democrats will only need 50 votes plus Biden to pass the plan. This seems like a more reachable goal. Lets for all intents and purposes say that in the end Olympia Snowe, Blanche Lincoln, and Evan Bayh also decide to oppose the bill. That brings the NO votes up to 46. Assuming Democrats can get everyone seated(including Franken), they can lose up to four more Democratic votes and pass the plan with 50 votes with Vice President Joe Biden breaking the tie.

I dont think people realize how difficult this is going to be. We could not get this in the 1940's under Truman and were unable to get it under Clinton in 1993 with a Democratic majority almost as big. I feel that if we cannot get this done this time, we wont even be talking about universal healthcare again for another 15 or 20 years. I dont think we will ever see circumstances this favorable for many years.

Bob| 6.15.09 @ 10:31AM

Angel -- this is what Rush said about Chelsea Clinton:

On his TV show, early in the Clinton administration, Limbaugh put up a picture of Socks, the White House cat, and asked, "Did you know there's a White House dog?" Then he put up a picture of Chelsea Clinton, who was 13 years old at the time and as far as I know had never done any harm to anyone.

Is he still your hero?

Angel| 6.15.09 @ 1:58PM

I've never said Rush is my hero, I certainly don't seek him out for spiritual counseling and I didn't like what he said about Chelsea.

I do admire Rush's courage in standing up for our freedom, though.

Schuster's on the left like you, Bob--did you like it when he said that Hillary was pimping Chelsea out?

Both remarks were wrong.

However, both of those comments pale in comparison to Letterman's perverted remarks about Willow Palin. She's only 14 years old, Bob, and Letterman was laughing about her being raped in front of 50,ooo people at Yankee Stadium--and his audience guffawed in response.

What did Willow do to deserve this hatred from the Left?

Would you have liked it if this had been said about one of your daughters? How about your wife looking like a slutty flight attendant?

It's okay with you because you hate Palin, pure and simple; but I'd be angry if this had been said about ANYONE'S daughter. Bob, as a Social Conservative, I strive to develop a strong moral core and--unlike you-- I'm not, "A slave to pop culture who weathercocks into the latest, breezy social trends..."

My conscience wouldn't allow me to countenance Letterman's perverted verbal abuse toward any woman, especially a sweet 14 year old child like Willow Palin.

Shame on Letterman and all of you on the Left for your disgusting behavior.

Bob| 6.15.09 @ 2:31PM

Angel -- I happen to agree with you that Letterman's comments were far over the line. I did understand, however, that the remarks were not about Willow, but about 18 year old Bristol. Even so, it was still over the line. I have three daughters, and I've done far worse than verbal battle defending them. One of my daughters had the most heinous crime done against her and they had to hold me back from killing the perp. So don't you lecture me on something like verbal abuse.

And Angel, don't make the mistake that social conservatives are the only ones with a strong moral core. I volunteered to fight in the Army against communism in Vietnam while Bush, Cheney, and Clinton stayed out. Did you volunteer to die for this country? So don't lecture me on values and morality. I don't need to be a Christian to have high morals -- and I don't need to agree with you, either.

As far as bigotry is concerned, I grew up in a black neighborhood in South Central. You said you're from California. I went to Washington High -- look it up. I was a white Jew with nothing but black friends and, after college, ended up marrying an Hispanic. I experienced a lot of bigotry from religious leaders from both the Jewish side (Zionists) and the Catholic side. In the Army, before going to Nam, I experienced anti-Semitism. So again, don't lecture me on bigotry or racism -- I know what it is in real life.

If you've seen my positions on fiscal conservatism and the military, you could not, under any circumstances, say that I'm on the Left. You look at things totally through the lens of your religion -- and that is your bigotry emerges. You must look at the totality of an individual, not just their religion.

I fought my way out of the ghetto to go to the best schools in the U.S. -- and education gave me opportunities my parents did not have. So every time you put down Ivy League schools, I just have to shake my head at your intellectual weakness.

I do not hate Sarah Palin. She is just unqualified to be President because she lacks all of those things that YOU refuse to value.

Angel| 6.15.09 @ 3:59PM

Willow attended the Yankee game with her mother, Governor Palin; they were guests of Rudy Giuliani. Bristol was at home with her son 4,000 miles away.

I'm sure it was in all of the New York papers. Letterman knew it was Willow, the creep didn't care.

Don't let the truth get in the way of an abusive 'joke', right, Letterman?

Angel| 6.15.09 @ 4:08PM

I already know all of this about you, Bob; too bad you didn't defend Willow but saw fit to defend Chelsea for Rush's far less egregious remarks in your snotty comments addressed to me.

That's why I lectured you--because I knew you were a good family man. You deserved it.

And it worked! Mr. thin-skin.

Bob| 6.15.09 @ 4:10PM

Angel, do you really think the joke writers for Letterman knew, or cared, if it was Willow or Bristol? I'm sure the joke was about Bristol as joke writers don't do due diligence well. Just look at the Rush's joke about Chelsea and you'll see that. That aside, it was still crass and uncalled for.

The other thing that is crass is Palin using this as a continuing political stunt. I don't blame her for reacting the first time, but continuing to bring this up is just crass politics. She wants to appeal to you and the rest of the base. She needs to go away and learn something about foreign policy and the Supreme Court and the Constitution.

I see you didn't respond to my rant about morality. I didn't think you had the stature to recognize that a non-social conservative could have strong, but different morals and values. You are an example of why I dislike social conservatives in the Republican party -- they are just bigots under another name. That's not true of all social conservatives, only those that believe non-social conservatives are "bad people".

Angel| 6.15.09 @ 5:45PM

Bob, you're so funny. You've been lecturing us for months about our backward fixation on religion, our lack of reason and our fear of knowledge: Yet, you get so upset when we turn the tables on you.

If you only knew what a fool you've been for your spurious assumptions and insults.

Like you, I've always loved the pursuit of education and knowledge; it came naturally to me, and I've also worked hard to realize my dreams.

I don't disparage Ivy League Schools, I disparage the snobbery of many who define themselves by the schools they've attended. I think it's bad form to brag because it reveals an inferiority complex. But, that's just me. I think your life experience has been a wonderful story; kudos to you that you have a happy, successful family.

It's great that you attended Stanford of the East, but I have been fortunate to be part of the real thing. We have two generations of Stanford Alumni in my family--my daughter went to Stanford when Chelsea Clinton was there and Condi Rice was Provost. She graduated with honors in three years and received a great education. Another daughter is a USC graduate working on her Masters in Opera, which requires multilingual studies . She sings Wagnerian Opera. It's really hard to do! My youngest, a son, has been more problematic scholastically--but he's coming around. I'm wearing off on him.

I do admire your accomplishments, Bob--I just take umbrage at your imperious attitude. You've made assumptions about me and others on this site that just aren't true, and I am tired of it.

Maybe my personal story will help you understand why your insults have been so offensive to me--and so unfair.

I am truly sorry about your daughter, I hope she is well.

Angel| 6.15.09 @ 6:12PM

Bob, don't give me that crap! Letterman is an old professional with the best comedy writers around; of course they knew. The 'joke' was scripted by Letterman's comedy team and repeated numerous times--Rush doesn't have a comedy team and said it once. It's so very unseemly of you to give Letterman a pass and fixate on Rush.

I start to like you and then you quickly disabuse me of the notion. Happens every damn time. And YOU started this one!

Angel| 6.15.09 @ 6:24PM

Bob, I honestly think there is something psychologically wrong with you. Perhaps you hit your head real hard one too many times.

Call me a bigot; I see it as a compliment, considering the source. I shall wear it as a badge of honor because it came from a stupid, ignorant SCHMUCK like you!

Richard Baker| 6.15.09 @ 7:22PM

Double Standard=liberal. Don't be upset with them, they can't h'ep it.

Mary| 6.15.09 @ 9:28PM

Looks like the Governor won this one, and I'm glad for that.

In case link doesn't work: http://tinyurl.com/lc8m4f

Angel| 6.15.09 @ 11:26PM

Yeah, Mary--GIRL POWER!! lol

Jamie Lynne| 6.16.09 @ 7:40PM

Good for you, Sarah! David Lecherman deserves public excoriation.

Kinda' restores my faith in the American people.

porno izle| 6.29.09 @ 12:10PM

If you only knew what a fool you've been for your spurious assumptions and insults. porno izle

porno izle| 6.29.09 @ 12:11PM

Bob, I honestly think there is something psychologically wrong with you. Perhaps you hit your head real hard one too many times.

cheap handbags| 7.27.09 @ 6:16PM

We only sell the top grade replica cheap handbags, some of them are genuine leather handbags, yet the price is far lower than the authentic designers want you to pay. We lead you to a genuine pool of bags : collections in wide range: handbags, shoulder bags, clutches, tote bags, purses and wallets, the hottest brands you can find like replica  Louis Vuitton handbags, Replica marc jacobs handags, Replica Prada handbags, Coach,Replica Chloe handbags,Burberry, Dior,replica  Chanel handbags, Chloe,Replica gucci handbags, Dolce & Gabbana,Replica Balenciaga handbags . Crafted to the highest standard, from the finest materials in the industry, we guarantee the toppest  Replica Hermes handbags   at low price you'll find anywhere.

george| 7.29.09 @ 4:36AM

Louis Vuitton Damier Azur handbags , commonly referred to as

ouis Vuitton Damier Azur, or sometimes shortened to

Louis Vuitton Damier Canvas handbags has become one of the most

Louis Vuitton Damier Canvas luxury brands.

louis vuitton outlet storelove

luis vuitton outleti like

lv outletsgood

louis vuitton onlinenice

s| 8.20.09 @ 3:45AM

Cheap Jordan,Cheap Jordan shoes,Retro Jordan,Air Yeezy Shoes,Supra shoes,Kanye West ShoesJordan shoes,New Jordans,Air Yeezy,Air Force Ones,Nike Dunks,Retro Jordan, Cheap Jordan Shoes,Nike Dunk High,True Religion Jeans,New Air Force OnesAir Yeezy Shoe,Supra Shoes,Retro Jordan,Creative Recreation,Nike DunksNike Air YeezyTrue Religion,Air Jordan Shoes,Air Shox,Air Max,Dunk Shoes.Air Jordan,Cheap Jordans,Jordan Shoes,Cheap Air Jordans,Air Jordan Shoes

Wedding Dresses| 9.10.09 @ 2:46AM

Very good article written,Wedding Dresses
Designer Wedding Gowns
let me understand a lot

Supra Shoes| 11.18.09 @ 12:57AM

Supra Shoes
Supra Skytop Shoes