-
Laying Down My Pen
May 24, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Laying Down My Pen
May 23, 2013 | 73 comments
-
Despite the WaPost, Benghazi Is a Major Scandal
May 21, 2013 | 46 comments
-
Putting Heritage in DeMint Condition
May 10, 2013 | 57 comments
-
Military Might, Out of the Wilderness
May 8, 2013 | 115 comments
Streetcar Line
Party Like It’s 1995
A model for good Republican governance.
National Democrats this year are bombarding wavering voters with overblown horror stories about how a Republican Congress will screw up in the same way the previous Republican Congresses did during the G.W. Bush administration. The better comparison would be with what the first Republican Congress in 40 years did in 1995, 1996, and 1997. Set aside some Gingrichian histrionics that made Republicans unpopular on style points: The record shows that a Republican Congress coming in fresh from the wilderness can be extremely productive in passing broadly popular, effective policies.
What the Gingrich Congress did in those first three years — against calumny from most Democratic colleagues, fierce opposition combined with prevarications from the Clinton White House, and an extraordinarily hostile establishment media — was nothing short of remarkable. On the substance of domestic policy, it may have been the greatest congressional performance ever. Its performance provides a template for how to do things right, while providing Republican Leader John Boehner (a key figure in 1994 as well) some lessons about the sorts of actions to avoid — lessons that a duly chastened but energetic Republican Conference can make great use of in 2011 and 2012.
The first thing Gingrich’s House did was pass serious ethics reforms. Unlike the Pelosi Democrats, the Gingrich Congress made those reforms stick for more than four years. The GOP banned proxy voting in committee and opened committee meetings to the public. It saved taxpayer money by cutting committee staff by nearly a third. It allowed more “open rules” for fair amendment attempts than had been allowed for ages. It stopped exempting Congress from laws that apply to the rest of the country. It severely limited earmarks. It term-limited committee chairmen. And it began putting all legislation online so the public could read it.
The next thing it did was to carefully but significantly cut domestic discretionary spending. In just two years it cut what was then an astonishing $50 billion from already-established appropriation levels. These were actual savings, not savings from some mythical but ever-rising baseline. Compared to that baseline set by the Democrats in 1994, the GOP savings weren’t just $50 billion in Fiscal Years 1995 (via rescissions), 1996 and 1997 combined, but right at $100 billion. This was when domestic discretionary spending was in the $250 billion range, meaning that $50 billion in three fiscal years was the equivalent of about $140 billion of three-year savings from today’s $700 billion annual domestic spendathons.
Yet despite all the wailing and gnashing of teeth, nothing bad happened. Children didn’t starve in the streets. Little old ladies didn’t freeze to death in gutters. Crime didn’t spike. Kidney patients didn’t lose dialysis machines. In fact, so carefully did House Appropriations Chairman Bob Livingston and company make the cuts that almost nobody minded the de-funding of hundreds of government programs. Finally, rather than causing the economy to tank from the withdrawal of so much government spending, the Appropriations cuts inspired investor confidence, which in turn catalyzed one of the greatest economic booms in American history.
Meanwhile, the GOP stopped Bill Clinton’s cannibalization of the armed forces and rescued missile defense from the scrap heap. If the armed forces weren’t as fully funded as they should have been (due to Clinton veto threats), they were far better funded than they would have been if the Gingrich team hadn’t taken over. The fruits of that success were evident in 2001-02’s the amazing “shock and awe” campaign that overwhelmed the Taliban in Afghanistan and terminated Saddam Hussein’s reign of terror in Iraq.
Back to domestic policy: In 1996, the GOP Congress was undeterred by not one but two Clinton vetoes of welfare reform. With undaunted leadership by Clay Shaw and Bill Archer in the House and Rick Santorum in the Senate — along with some sage political advice from Dick Morris to Bill Clinton — Republicans finally forced Clinton to sign what is almost certainly the single most successful big reform of a domestic government program since at least World War II. Millions left welfare and went to work. The poverty level dropped significantly. And the government saved tens of billions of dollars.
Archer also led the way for some significant tax cuts, including a $500-per-child tax credit. Budget Chairman John Kasich, for his part, kept all the numbers straight and provided an overall budgetary framework — combined with a tremendous, can-do, bounce-off-walls energy that sometimes drove colleagues to distraction but left no doubt that, yes, the federal government actually could and, miracle of miracles, actually would balance its books. And, for the first time in some three decades, it did indeed balance the federal budget — no thanks to Clinton, who fought against Republicans, especially rhetorically, every step of the way.
Those seminal successes, and many others, show the good things a GOP Congress can accomplish when it hasn’t become jaded and arrogant. In some ways, a Republican House at least is positioned to be more politically successful than the Gingrich Congress was. Part of this better positioning involves personality. Brilliant as Gingrich was, his style was to ratchet up the heat and create conflict. John Boehner is smoother and less likely to turn off the political middle. In 1995 the Majority Leader was Dick Armey, bright but somewhat dyspeptic. The next Majority Leader is likely to be Eric Cantor, both bright and polished. We don’t know who the Whip will be, but it almost certainly won’t be someone with the sharp elbows of Tom DeLay. And so on. The rising stars in the House — Mike Pence (if he doesn’t run for president), Paul Ryan, Jeb Hensarling, perhaps Jo Bonner from his Ethics Committee perch, and others — are almost all eminently likable. None is likely to look like his opposition to President Obama springs from an ugly personal bloodlust, which is how the media portrayed the attitude of Gingrich and company in 1995.
In sum, a new GOP Congress could offer many of the benefits of the 1995 legislature, without the drawbacks. Moreover, it has a plan for action, known as the Pledge to America, that is both principled and popular with a broad swath of the citizenry. Repeal and replace Obamacare. Freeze federal hiring (except for national security). Jettison Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Roll back outrageous red tape. Repeal the horrendous new paperwork mandate on small businesses. Block tax hikes. Allow bills to be read and analyzed before being voted on. Protect the border. And, in every way, demand adherence to the Constitution that limits the power of the federal Leviathan.
These are all things with which most Americans agree. They are actions Americans would support. And they follow principles rooted in what’s best in the American tradition.
If Democrats warn against going “back to the future,” Republicans should say “bring it on.” Just as in the Michael J. Fox movie, a trip back, with a few tweaks, can actually change the future for the better. A future as good as 1995 turned out to be — combined with the enlightening lessons of the intervening 15 years, and the enthusiasm of an energized populace — could be a future well worth living with the practical wisdom of a Franklin and the optimism of a Reagan. It is a future most Americans would surely embrace.
About the Author
Quin Hillyer is a senior editor of The American Spectator and a senior fellow at the Center for Individual Freedom. Follow him on Twitter @QuinHillyer.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (104) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Quin Hillyer
More Articles From Streetcar Line
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/10/15/party-like-its-1995
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
The Spectacle Blog
The #FreeKate Narrative Melts Down: Lies Exposed in Florida Teen Sex Case
Robert Stacy McCain | 5.25.13
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Booger | 10.15.10 @ 6:33AM
From the Desk of NRC Chairman Michael Steele:
My Fellow Republicans,
While I appreciate the exuberance and enthusiasm that so many of you are showing prior to this election, it behooves me to warn you that we must, in the parlance of the street, "keep our cool". Many of our current partisans are, quite frankly, becoming just a wee bit too rowdy for the good of our movement as a whole. We need to reign some of this irrational exuberance in before it has a chance to do our Grand Old Party permanent harm.
First of all, let's take a look at things on the Senate side. We are in serious danger of losing our majority here. No, I realize we do not have an actual majority in the full Senate. I am speaking of the moderate majority in the Republican caucus. This fine, moderate majority has allowed us to peacefully co-exist with our good friends across the aisle for many years. As a result of this we are able to maintain a fine list of friends who entertain us at many swank cocktail parties. Now these dreadful Tea Party folks have come along, and insisted on running their own candidate, such as Rubio, Miller, Angle, Paul, O'Donnell and so forth. It's simply maddening! Can you imagine if these people actually win? Think about it. Our days of friendly, peaceful co-existence may well be over. These folks could give that maniac Demint enough votes to be majority leader!
Fortunately, I have been in contact with some of my operatives within the National Republican Senatorial Committee. They assure me they are doing the utmost to make sure the worst case scenario involving these candidates (they all win their elections) does not happen. Unfortunately, they tell me there is only so much they can do. Apparently many of our donors are ignoring their obligation to send their money in to the G.O.P. headquarters for proper dissemination, and are instead donating directly to certain Tea Party candidates. The gall of those people! Don't they realize we have spent years recruiting the very best and brightest away from the Democrats? And now they have the nerve to think they can do better and choose their own candidates! My friends, what are we coming to?
I must point out that the problem may be even more dire on the House side, which is both more volatile and more difficult to control than even the mess we have in the Senate. There are so many of these Tea Party flooding in we cannot keep track of them. How can we make sure that they are taught the importance of proper Washington etiquette if so many of them arrive here so quickly? How can we make sure that their naive beliefs about the Constitution do not upset our fine applecart here in D.C.? Quite frankly, I fear these people may be nothing but a bunch of rabble-rousing boat rockers. I fear for the seats of many of our long-time friends across the aisle. I fear for our exemplary tradition of bi-partisanship. In short, I fear that we moderates may well be losing control of the party. And who knows where that could lead? I would exhort you to go out and fight the Tea Party, but of course fighting just isn't our thing. So instead we will continue to withhold what little funding we still have control over from their campaigns and criticize their candidates on national news shows. I really don't know what else I can be expected to do as party chair.
Sincerely,
RNC Chairman Michael Steele
Alan Brooks| 10.15.10 @ 9:09AM
Midterms are more local; general elections are national.
Translation: GOP fielding Bushes, Doles, McCains in 2012.
Doorgunner| 10.15.10 @ 10:07AM
Horses***. The Nevada, Connecticut, and Delaware races have already impacted the'12 elections in ways you're either too much of a liar to admit, or to stupid to see...
...oh, yeah... you're a Liberal: it's little from column "A", a little from column "B".
George True| 10.15.10 @ 11:28AM
Actually, Alan seems to be a puzzling cross between a libertarian and a leftist. He is occasionally right.
And he may very well be right about the Republicans putting up a RINO for 2012. The establishment Republicans despise the Sarah Palin types almost as much as the leftists do. Witness how they savaged their own Republican primary winner in Delaware. It would not surprise me at all to see them foist someone like Mitt Romney on us in 2012. A RINO is not going to fire up the base that much in 2012, and will actually turn off independents, who will rightfully see the RINO as Democrat-lite.
Siegfried X| 10.15.10 @ 11:40AM
The rules are already rigged to favor a RINO. Unlike the Democrats, Republicans allow winner-take-all in the primaries. That means that a RINO candidate can earn a lot of delegates by finishing first in big blue states like CA and NY.
These rules helped McCain win in 2008.
Cogito Ergo Sum Conserativum| 10.15.10 @ 11:06AM
I agree that midterms are NORMALLY local, but it has been clear for a long time that these midterms are acting as a national referendum.
The national media coverage on a usually ignored state such as Nevada is prime example. Would a midterm Senate race in Nevada attract so much national attention in any other time? Reid would normally breeze to easy reelection, as he has for some 24 years (with one exception in '98).
No, Alan Brooks, this election is not local. The 20 month destruction wrought by Obama has changed the dynamic.
Rev. Jesse Jackson| 10.15.10 @ 4:13PM
Alan Brooks,
Go back to yesterday's special report, "Internet Freedom Under Siege", where you said that, "God is a woman and Jesus is his daughter." I have a rebuttal there waiting for you.
Madge| 10.15.10 @ 5:22PM
Alan, your prissy girl.
Alan Brooks| 10.16.10 @ 9:09PM
"Alan, your prissy girl."
With your mustache, you are more of a man than I.
rdman| 10.15.10 @ 12:20PM
The Hapless, Insecure Establishment Republicans
With very few exceptions, the career republican fears if they act too aggressively, they may jeopardize their pursuit to be part of the Washington DC Ruling Elitist Clique and will suffer some sort punishment as a result. As a result, they become prey to intense anxiety, seeking reassurances that, no matter what they have done in the past, their pursuit to be accepted by the DC Ruling Elitist Clique is still a possibility, revealing a frightened, insecure, spineless person beneath the facade of the tough authoritarian.
Career republicans who exhibited blustering toughness during election cycles, even projecting that they no longer need to be accepted by the DC Ruling Elitists, once elected and seated now shift abruptly. Almost tearful and obsequious, they become frustrated and disgusted with themselves for not being tough enough to stand on their own two feet to defend themselves, to be independent, to stand on their principles. They feel cowardly because they have not had the spine to sustain their blustering toughness.
Career republicans become ineffective because their self-disparagement and insecurity which creates intense feelings of inferiority and worthlessness. Their indecision and evasiveness has now deteriorated into massive insecurity and anxiety, convincing them that they are incompetent and unable to do anything effective on their own. They can only marginally function with the hope of being accepted by the Ruling Elitist Clique by “morbid clinging” dependency.
The longer career republicans remain seated, the more worthless they become, whining and complaining and disparaging themselves to the extent that they weaken whatever remaining influence they have, becoming an emotional drain on their constituents and everyone else around them. Their despondency has the uncanny ability to induce their anxieties and negativity into others, virtually forcing their constituents to make other choices in their voting booths.
dw| 10.15.10 @ 1:09PM
From the Desk of Tim Kaine, DNC Chairman
Dear Mike,
I was glad to see you follow through with that open letter to your base regarding the dangerous potential for precedent setting election "irregularities".
As you noted the historical balance for our two partys continued co-existence, as you refer to it, concerning our "coopertive management" agreements has come into jeopordy due to those "rowdy partisans" of the Tea Party. Looking back, it seems we may have slightly miscalculated the general populations mood in terms of some of our latest initiatives.
As I told you at our meeting, I have Reid all over me about this Angle woman and I must say contrary to your assurances, I am worried you may not be able to control that outcome as you promised. Can you let me know what your latest thoughts are as to what we can do to defeat her? I can't let Harry down on this, you know how he gets, so let me know what more we can do. As for Rubio, I still can not understand how Christ got himself into the position he did. He was all set to be one of the very best "RINOs" ever and now his flip flopping has become cartoonish and, unfortunately, too obvious. I just don't know what we can do about him now, do you? Any thoughts? O'Donnell is no problem, but Paul, Miller and some others look like real issues for us. Thoughts?
Mike, we know you must maintain a minimum amount of visiblity in appearing to push your candidates but this bus tour you have been on may be taking it a little too far. It seems to have put you into a corner where you were forced to appear on Hannity. You, yourself told us you would not go on FOX but we can't help but note you have now been on more than once. Please stay off that network until after the election. Maybe CNN or MSNBC..... no one really watches them and those that do are on our side.
We here at the DNC are very concerned about the poll trending and I would like to meet with you again to figure out what more we can do. I'm sure we will run across each other this weekend during the "cocktail rounds" so let's set up a meet time for Monday. Time is running out and the outcome is in doubt, so for our mutual benefit let us double our efforts so, as you put it, the applecart is not upset.
Let's get some fishing in after this is all over.
Sincerely,
Tim, DNC Chairman
rdman| 10.15.10 @ 1:57PM
The Exploitative, Opportunist Establishment Democrats
The darlings of the Washington DC Ruling Elitist Clique and their fawning Main Stream Media (MSM), failure is one of the most humiliating prospects for democrats. When they overextend themselves and cannot make good on their claims, and to protect their status with the DC Ruling Elitist Clique and the MSM, they will resort to exploitation to maintain their self-inflated esteem.
As democrats see it, exploitation is necessary to continue to project a superior self-image. Ironically, they believe they are superior not only to everyone else, but also to themselves by exceeding the limits of their talents, thus they must take what they need from others to maintain their superiority.
Their fear of failure makes democrats more than willing to be dishonest to get what they need to maintain at least the illusion of superiority. They are pragmatists and have no principles other than what works for them… the consequences: they lie about their policies, take credit for the work of others, or plagiarize to make themselves seem more outstanding than they are. Democrats are determined not to be losers, no matter who must pay the price for their corruption.
They are ready to sell out, lie, betray their loyalties and take advantage of others to come out on top. Because they have never developed a conscience, they do not feel guilty about exploiting others. In colloquial terms, democrats are hustlers, people "on the make," opportunists taking advantage of situations and crisis’… always to the detriment of others. Their lack of affect is also particularly valuable now… they can callously use people without the slightest thought for their welfare… "What's in it for me? How can I use this for myself?"
Hapless, insecure republicans, aware of the democrat’s opportunism are usually afraid of confronting them. Democrats count on the fact that others dare not say or do anything about their behavior for fear of retaliation. Their lack of decency makes it difficult for others to defend themselves against democrats because they know that democrats will go lower than they are willing to descend into the gutter.
Exploiting people reveals the contempt in which democrats hold others. Because they do not see other people as real or as having value without reference to themselves, using people is not a moral problem for them… because they have no morals. Others are merely providers of attention and admiration, as objects to be used to aggrandize themselves. This is why there is absolutely nothing reciprocal about a relationship with democrats. They will keep a relationship going as long as they get what they want, but will drop the “useful idiots” under the bus without a second thought, particularly if someone more desirable comes along.
Yet why are citizen voters so often taken advantage of by democrats? The answer lies in the strength of the narcissistic desires democrats awaken in some citizen voters. Voters unwittingly give democrats power over them to the degree that they lack true self-esteem themselves. They mistakenly think that democrats will somehow endow them with what appears to be their limitless self-esteem. This never happens… the sad fact is that democrats would have no power over others if people did not give it to them.
Unfortunately for hapless, anxious, insecure republicans, democrats remain highly functional. Democrats do not become depressed, anxious, emotionally conflicted, incapacitated, or self-destructive. On the contrary, they depress others, make others feel anxious and conflicted, incapacitate others, and drive others to self-destructive acts. It is always others who suffer. Democrats are able to walk away from relationships as if nothing has happened, and as far as they are concerned, nothing has.
Like sharks, they are extraordinarily well adapted to their environment. And like sharks, they injure and kill cold-bloodedly, and keep moving.
Kenneth E. MacAlister Jr.| 10.15.10 @ 1:59PM
dw, the only reason I am not in tears from laughter after reading your "letter" is because it is really not all that far-fetched. I think you have it nailed in that there is not much difference between the DNC & the RNC. They BOTH want big government & i wouldn't put it past them to be in collusion to maintain the staus quo. If The GOP were truly interested in changing the direction the country is going in under our little tin horn dictator they wouldn't be trying to elect so many damn RINOs & fighting against conservatism. Your letter speaks more truth than even you may be aware of. Take care & GOD bless!
dw| 10.15.10 @ 2:51PM
Naw, this has to be satire, right? But I am afraid that to some of these personalities it is more important to protect their elite status than to represent the people. Certain "unwritten" rules seem to exist that inhibits some of the republicans from dismantling the commies.
So we will have to....
rdman| 10.15.10 @ 11:23PM
dw,
So we will have to.... search out the hapless, insecure "establishment" republicans and the exploitative, opportunist "establishment" democrats, expose them to the citizenry, then vote them out of office and replace them with true conservative citizen representatives of We the People as the Founding Fathers intended.
wodiej| 10.18.10 @ 5:19PM
Excellent!
As for a RINO 2012 President....I would think that the RNC has more sense than they did in 2008. Please tell me the RNC is not THAT STUPID.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 10.15.10 @ 7:41AM
One other thing they did was make Congressional employees subject to the same employment laws as the rest of America.
Prior to that time, Congressional employees and employers could do just about whatever they wanted and often did.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 10.15.10 @ 7:41AM
One other thing they did was make Congressional employees subject to the same employment laws as the rest of America.
Prior to that time, Congressional employees and employers could do just about whatever they wanted and often did.
Cobra327| 10.15.10 @ 8:00AM
...and
"peace will guide the planets"
and
pigs will fly
and
John Boehner will change to something other than what he has been been for his past 20 years in congress
Siegfried X| 10.15.10 @ 8:24AM
Times have changed since 1995. Both the Republican and Democratic parties have moved far to the left. Many conservative Republicans now feel so excluded that they call themselves "Tea Party".
This can be clearly seen by comparing today's "Pledge to America" with the 1995 "Contract With America". In 1995 the Contract linked to specific legislation, hundreds of pages, which was ready to be voted on; today's Pledge is mostly principles, along with a few specific items.
The 1995 Pledge includes legislation for Welfare Reform and to get tough on crime. Today's Republicans have abandoned both of these issues. No 2010 Republican politician would say it is immoral to live on welfare instead of working. Republican politicians are afraid to say "We need to get tougher on crime", because the illegal aliens might think that Republicans meant them.
For the past 10 years Republicans have been just the War Party. It's tough to imagine that they will go back to being a full-spectrum political party as in 1995.
Turnditch| 10.15.10 @ 8:24AM
The majority of American voters will give the R's in the House enough rope to lasso arrogance, incompetence and fiscal irresponsibility; and they'll expect swift results.
If the R's neglect their duty, they might as well use the rope to hang themselves.
TKP| 10.15.10 @ 8:33AM
All those leaders you rightfully point out had an "edge", also brought a passion and clarity of mission I fear is severely lacking. That could be a blessing or a curse.
With no one lighting rod to focus on (Newt in 95) liberals will be pressed to use the standard ad-hominem attacks ("Newt is mean", "Bush is an idiot", "Reagan is an empty suit actor"...) as a substitute for actual debate along with the Amen chorus media. This year is really about ideas (as was 1980 and 1994) but with no galvanizing figure, besides the "racist tea baggers". That said, without that clear and articulate leader - focus can be lost quickly and the opposition is not encumbered by ethics or facts. R or D, we are talking about egotistical pols here, "herding cats" comes to mind.
Whatever happens it beats the alternative - we are about to see what a backlash w/o a clear leader looks like.
Obama can be re-elected, how the leadership handles and communicates in 2011/12 will largely determine that.
tkp| 10.15.10 @ 8:38AM
The point you made which is most pointed and lacking in todays debate -
Clinton did NOT balance the budget 0 NEWT DID !
When liberals (and the boy Clinton himself) tout the 90's -
Yea, Conservative econimoc policy dominated the 80's and 90's, liberals dominated the 60's and 70's
I'll take 1981 - 2000 over 1960 - 1980 anytime.
Siegfried X| 10.15.10 @ 8:44AM
I would split the years this way:
1981 - 1998: Reagan years
1999 - 2008: Decade of the RINO / neo-con
2009 - 2012: Tea Party rebellion
2013: A new conservative president & era?
rainmaker1145| 10.15.10 @ 8:47AM
If Clinton balanced the budget the national debt would not have increased each year he was in office. Clinton's "balanced budget" claim comes from not reconciling the entire federal budget and leaving parts of entitlement spending outside it. Big deal.
mstahl| 10.15.10 @ 1:06PM
Finally! Someone else who realizes that the budget was never balanced! Every time I see Clinton or even a Repub claim that we "balanced the budget" in the 1990s I get nauseated. The CBO website is actually rather fascinating in that regard.
Siegfried X| 10.15.10 @ 8:40AM
Republicans in Congress will not be the leaders for long. The Republican presidential candidates will soon begin campaigning and releasing their platforms. The future of the Republican party is in those platforms, who we choose to run for president, and whether we beat Obama in 2012. By contrast, what happens in Congress during the next year will not matter much in the long term.
rainmaker1145| 10.15.10 @ 8:46AM
I have no faith in the Republicans. You can all kiss their rings for me. I agitated all year for the Tea Parties to go their own way and I lost that battle, but I'm not investing any hope in a bunch of corrupt Establishment Republicans who have been perfectly happy to spend money and run up the deficit and make awkward excuses.
When they actually do something I'll be impressed.
If they were serious, there would be every Republican showing a united front behind the phony "Pledge" of b.s.
If they were committed they were committed to the big mouth promises there would already be legislation on the table, because; that is what leaders really do. The don't fail to plan, they plan and have their plans ready to go the minute the game starts.
If they were conservatives, they would be agitating for a Constitutional Convention to make these changes permanent so that the fee train for K-Street, the Democratic Party, the banking industry and the Republican Party would stop forever.
I don't see a crowd of unified Republicans...
I don't see any plans ready to go...
I don't see anyone agitating...
I don't see anything different at all.
Siegfried X| 10.15.10 @ 9:06AM
The Republicans will accomplish what can be expected with a small majority of one house against a powerful Marxist president. They can do three small things that Quin mentioned:
(1) Cut spending a little more than Obama wants
(2) Cut the military less than Obama wants
(3) Block most of Obama's left-wing legislation
Nancy Pelosi's House didn't do any of those.
Petronius| 10.15.10 @ 9:22AM
The GOP hierarchy has a tine ear for the middle class who's households are plagued by the policies and laws inflicted upon them by the liberals.
Booger gets it. Steele doesn't. He knows that Our price for Our votes is return to meritocracy and to cultural primacy of traditional American values.
The District of Corruption being it's own world, he could care less.
Ken (Old Texican)| 10.15.10 @ 9:57AM
Quin,
One of your best ever. Thank you.
Folks, I said it again yesterday. Some attaboys to our congress critters via fax if you can really does encourage them.
When they stick their neck out for us...even a little...
Send them an attaboy.
Its called "positive reinforcement"... the best kind.
My Senator Cornyn hs stepped on his johnson with some dumb endorsements, but if you look at his voting record...it is splendid according to my wishes.
I wish he were the kind of guy who would raise a little more hell on the Capitol steps, but that is not who he is. He is a good pulling guard, but simply not a quarterback, OK?
I'm hoping Jim DeMint can play that role, and it seems he is warming to it. He walks softly and carries a big stick...with the conservative caucus behind him with the tea-party candidates.
Pray a lot.
idalily| 10.15.10 @ 5:43PM
Every time I think, "Senate Majority Leader Jim DeMint..." it makes me smile. Keeping fingers crossed.
RCV| 10.17.10 @ 3:12PM
Even in the unlikely event the GOP captured the Senate, it's hard to imagine a scenario in which Mitch McConnell would let go of the reins. He's already exacting commitments from the new candidates and has the existing GOP establishment in his pocket.
old-line conservative| 10.15.10 @ 10:04AM
Everything good that the Gov has done for this country in the last half-century has been done by the Republican Party. And everything bad has been done by the Democrat Party. You can look it up!
And it is because of this record that we can rejoice that the the center-of-gravity in American politics is more right-wing than at any time since 1900. Even Democrats Clinton and Obama are to the right of Republican Nixon.
So relax, my fellow Conservatives. We have already won!
Madge| 10.15.10 @ 5:26PM
Old-line you can't pull the wool over this old bag's eyes, when did tricky Dick support 2 cocksuckers getting married ?
Oldefarte| 10.15.10 @ 11:38AM
In adding my thoughts to Quin's brilliant article, I'd say that important differences between 1995/Gingrich and 2011/Boehner will be that the tea parting taxpayer-voting public outrage is an essential ingredient with the latter, whereas it was not present substantially with the former. People are simply PO at all politicians, lesser so with Republicans than with the vile, radical, extremist Democrats. If these surviving [November] Republicans think that they can just sit back and do their usual GO TO HADES thing and GIVE THE FINGER to their back home constituents from DC, then their political careers may be shorter than they anticipate. Elected Republicans had better WAKE UP and realize that they are being given a limited mandate, and that they will [for the very first time] be held accountable for obeying the taxpayer-voters' wishes. The buck will stop after 1/1/11 at the halls of congress! Oh, and another thing, I'' respectfully disagree with Quin's proposal of a freeze on governmental hiring/employment-----BS, it has to be CUT/REDUCED along with the budgetary departmental appropriations for social services, foreign aid, farm aid, excessive military hardware,etc. Finally, I'm now seeing speculative-indications of a possible opening for IMPEACHMENT charges to be brought up against El Chosen One and I hope that this proves to be eventual fact!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
who are you trying to kid| 10.15.10 @ 12:50PM
"brilliant article"??? Apparently you are lacking a sense of humor. Quin's article is a parody of the ridiculous spin that right-wingers reflexively engage in.
Oldefarte| 10.15.10 @ 1:03PM
"parody"??? Show me ONE item in the article which is not a proven FACT. You can't, because it's all right there in the historical record. So just GO AWAY. We don't need any LEFTist nitwits wasting our time.
Oldefarte| 10.15.10 @ 4:16PM
I did not write the above 1:03PM comment. Even though I appreciate the defense, I'm perfectly capable of making my own rebuttals. As to 'Who' comment regarding A SENSE OF HUMOR, I'd only advise this MORON to go back inside his Justice Dept cacoon and share his humor with his boss, Eric [since the socialistic and dictatorial nature of the current administration IS NOT THE LEAST BIT FUNNY OR HUMOROUS to the American taxpaying public, and same will demonstrate their displeasure on November 2, 2010]. In a nutshell, 'Who', simply TAKE YOUR PARODY AND HUMOR AND SHOVE IT WHERE THE SUN DOES NOT SHINE!!!!!!!!!!
who are you trying to kid| 10.15.10 @ 4:32PM
Hey, Oldefarte, it's not my sense of humor I am referring to, it is Quin's.
And it's now perfectly clear that you have no sense of humor at all. You might want to see a shrink about that.
Oldefarte| 10.16.10 @ 1:43PM
"Who', since you DO NOT know me, and never have or never will; don't presume to ignorantly attempt to assign a psychological profile to me or any other stranger that you may encounter [if you're old enough to understand the old addage, TEND TO YOUR OWN KNITTING]. You only demonstrate your ability to act 'stupidly' [in the asinine terminology of your commander-in-chief there at Justice]. Whether or not I have a sence of humor [or flames shooting out of my backside, due to infuriation towards the insane governmental antics of this incompetent administration that is hazardously attempting to run our government is OF MY CONCERN AND MY CONCERN ONLY!]. Go analyze yourself and thereafter take my previous advice issued to you!!!!!!!!!!
JmsA| 10.16.10 @ 2:01PM
That was good, Oldfarte. Thank you.
George S| 10.15.10 @ 11:41AM
Don't look to the past, it has no bearing on today. Yes, the '94 Republican congress did things smarter and were effective, but soon fell into the trappings of power. They realized that listening to lobbyists and looking out after their interests was a far more effective method of raising campaign cash -- a must if you are to remain in power -- than cold-calling constituents in hopes of raising ten bucks a pop. As a result, we saw how they turned the fiscal discipline of the late '90's into a No-Child-Left-Behind-Medicare-Advantage-Homeland-Security orgy of spending a mere five years later.
Today, however, the dynamics have changed. The ability of conservative candidates to get on the ballot by knocking off Republican Establishment RINO's was only made possible by the grass roots fund raising that came as a result of the Tea Party and the backing of ordinary citizens who have had absolutely enough of business as usual. No longer are the national committees, or the senate national committees the only source of funding (if that were the case, there would be no Miller or Angle or O'Donnell) and no longer do candidates have to make a pilgrimage to the RNC for their blessings to challenge a seat. The newly elected Republicans will know this and be able to resist the siren song of lobbyists -- like AARP and the AMA, both proponents of ObamaCare with big lobbying bucks now neutered by grass-roots Americans.
We'll be watching intently over the next two years. We will not let them out of our sights to repeat the comfortable settling in to the Beltway culture that the class of '94 got sucked into.
Pat| 10.15.10 @ 12:41PM
Guess what Conservative political writers, many of us voters know it isn’t 1995 anymore, we know Ronald Reagan is dead and we believe Newt Gingrich would serve our nation better as a commentator on the women’s tennis matches at Wimbledon. We’ll hold the bus doors open until you board and you Conservative pundits need to hurry back to the year 2010 where polls consistently show us voters are thoroughly disgusted with both political parties and Congress in general.
As for you Republican candidates, you’re nothing more than the designated “Alternative” to the Democrats and as pinch hitters we hope you don’t get delusions of grandeur like you have in the past. Drop the “Compassionate Conservative” malarkey and gently milk the taxpayers in a straightforward and honest manner – you’re not Democrat Lite and, take it from us, they’re way better at bilking the taxpayers with the “compassionate” swindles than you are. Skip the “Contract with America” nonsense and take many more vacation days than the Democrats do now. We taxpayers feel much safer when we know you’re all off on a fishing trip – send us some postcards and have a great time. The economy is slowly recovering, don’t mess with it. Let your Wall Street buddies put you on their private jets for nice junkets but think twice about how many favors you repay with our hard earned money. Lastly, realize this is your chance for redemption, don’t screw it up and, as an incentive and daily reminder, picture an army of angry taxpayers waving torches and brandishing pitchforks with you watching from the balcony of your castle all alone and scared – take the hint.
Al Adab| 10.15.10 @ 12:41PM
Party like it's '95 all you can. BUT, do not fail us again like it's 2001. It was the failure of the GOP to continue the Conservative change after that date that led us to this pass.
Who ever thought Conservatives might quote Bob Dylan but,
"Come Semators, Congressmen please heed the call"
"Don't stand in the doorways and block up the hall"
"For he who gets hurt will be he who has stalled"
"There's a battle outside and it's ragin"
"It'll soon shake your windoes and rattle your doors"
"For the times, they are a changin."
Perusha| 10.15.10 @ 12:41PM
Details, details, details!
People, who bemoan the Pledge because it’s not as specific as the Contract for America, while surely well intentioned, miss that hoary forest for the trees.
What does a detail man do for your car? Making it LOOK good won’t make it run better!
I once subbed for a high school class that taught me more than the students, probably. It was election season, like now, and the students were given a handout that listed the MANY different issues involved---and, it was four or five pages long!
Have you ever wondered how the political dimension ever evolved---devolved?---over time so that we today face so many polarized situations? And, how it always seems to be so clear-cut, with leftists taking almost perfectly opposite positions to rightists?
It’s the BASIC principles, not the ----DETAILS!
Getting mired down in arguing about specific programs that flow naturally from basic principles is playing into the loser-leftist’s hands.
I recently rejoined the cable TV community, having delightfully eschewed the “enjoyment” of watching O’Reilly, Hannity, et al for the last four or five years. Pay attention to the “fairness” doctrine as inevitably followed by the masters of these “programs”.
There are always segments with people from the right VERSES the left. And, thus, around half of the time is spent = wasted when leftists spout their “principled” talking points-of-the-day, AND even more is down the drain when those on the right have to RESPOND to them. And the show-ending result is?
Obfuscation masquerading as analysis! Why?
Because the time is mostly filled with hot air blasted on and of and about—DETAILS!
Me, I’m from a Gary Cooper era of the laconic or taciturn man, where actions are all that matter, and spoken words are very carefully chosen. Today?
Holy SPIT!
Also, one of the insights, quite impossible not to come to, given the tsunami of actions AND words from losers = leftists, is the quip---“Shut up, he said.” This command on high from such luminaries as Harry Reid, say at a town hall meeting, usually only comes to light infrequently, when they lose their covering-up cool.
However, in essence, this is what’s being manifest in ALL leftist’s encounters with their opponents. They are just so tightly armored within their own killer political belief system that they always rebuff ANY nonbelievers with this repellant reflection.
NOW---I believe ALL their actions, most assuredly including the myriad words they spit out to take up valuable time arguing in “fairness”, are just clever attempts to SHUT UP their critics.
Understand---they have NO = ZERO respect for them = us!!!
As a youthful hippie dropout, I have personal experience in this attitude. Talk about extremists! While the MSM = leftists prefer to try to convince the ignorant and unwashed masses that Tea Party types are “extreme”, what MUST be finally realized is that it is the LEFT that is, by definition, wholly EXTREME!
Thus, it is almost too late to get to truly know freedom’s enemy, before they become impregnable in their lawyerly “Ivory” tower. Indeed, when Obamacare passed, it certainly seemed to me that the ignorant masses had totally tipped into a coming Dark Age, within which it would be impossible to escape, with horrendous logical outcomes for all of us---except “Shut up, he said!” leftists--- cooked in the “laws” already passed and to come.
Maybe, though, KISS will fight back against SHUT UP.
By Keeping It Simple, Stupid, people have perhaps the final and only chance to stifle, a la Edith, the boneheads destroying this country.
And, therefore, let us be absolutely SIMPLE, by not getting distracted by the exponentially growing number of “programs” both to be done AND undone! Forget such DETAILS!
One of the political “tricks” is never to answer any question laid on you. Think about it. By playing the “answer the question” game, you are letting the questioner RULE. So, instead, take a deep breath, and refuse to be drawn into this pit of excrement---remember, “journalists” are NOT neutral “reporters” anymore, and haven’t been for many decades. They THINK it is THEY who are in charge!
My advice is to channel George Washington, and move and act as he did in public!
His ACTIONS, both as a warrior and as a President, are eternal examples to be followed.
On to PRINCIPLES, not programs, my freedom loving fellows!
Ken (Old Texican)| 10.15.10 @ 1:03PM
Perusha,
Welcome, and well spoken!
Ben (Older Texican)| 10.15.10 @ 1:29PM
It would have been better spoken if Perusha's comments had any actual content.
Ken (Old Texican)| 10.15.10 @ 1:32PM
Ben - You obviously need to brush up on your reading skills, if you have any. Perusha has laid it out all very clearly, which I can't say about every commentator here (you, in particular).
Al Adab| 10.15.10 @ 4:10PM
But Perusha,
Taciturn, Laconic? Pretty lengthy post (et al)Nonetheless allow me to second Ken, welcome aboard.
Margie| 10.15.10 @ 2:17PM
Perusha's post is one of the most well spoken and reasoned posts (read: Common Sense) that I have EVER read here at AmSpec.
..and Gary Cooper type man!.... swoon.
Ben (Older Texican)| 10.15.10 @ 2:53PM
OK, Margie, perhaps you can explain to us losers just what he is saying? I certainly can't make it out beyond something like "right-wing good -- left-wing bad".
Margie| 10.15.10 @ 3:06PM
Let me see if I can add to the above:
Liberalism=Socialism=Communism=Satanism.
Read your history, and while you're at it read the Bible.
And here's an author I highly recommend to you who was actually part of the historical record who survived Communistic torture and lived to tell. He explains exactly how Communism is Satanic.
Richard Wurmbrand: Tortured for Christ
and the book Marx and Satan.
The Left in in its many forms is vehemently opposed to our Constitutional republic, and against those of us who espouse its virtues. They have many guises but share the same "Father." Satan himself.
Communism
Marxism
Socialism
Totalitarianism
Authoritarianism
Progressivism
Leftism
Neo-Nazism
Anarcihism
Fascism
Ben (Older Texican)| 10.15.10 @ 3:55PM
Wow. I thought the Middle Ages ended with the 16th century. Perhaps you are a time-traveler?
Nick| 10.15.10 @ 4:03PM
Ben,
You think Karl Marx lived in the Middle Ages?
Do as Margie suggested, and read some history.
Ben (Older Texican)| 10.15.10 @ 4:09PM
No, Nick, I don't think that Marx lived in the Middle Ages. But Margie's thinking is medieval.
Nick| 10.15.10 @ 4:45PM
Ben,
Which part of Margie's thinking is medieval?
Believing that the Enemy, Satan, really exists?
Or, knowing that Marxism is evil?
Ben (Older Texican)| 10.15.10 @ 4:50PM
When you invoke Satan to explain the motives of your opponents, that is medieval thinking.
And when you demonize your opponent, it is only a short step to calling for murdering them.
If you can't understand why this kind of thinking is un-American, then there is no hope for you.
Nick| 10.15.10 @ 5:12PM
Ben,
Why are you liberals so quick to label others as un-American, when it is you guys who hate what this great nation has stood for since it's founding: Freedom.
Oh...wait...I remember, it's called projection.
You also seem to know little about Christianity or the over 2 billion Christians in the world. The fact that Satan is real, and has influence in this world, is still a major tenet taught, TODAY, by many Christian denominations.
"And when you demonize your opponent, it is only a short step to calling for murdering them."
Only on the left, Ben.
Madge| 10.15.10 @ 5:30PM
Ben, you cockadottledoo dummy! Leave my Margie alone.
RCV| 10.15.10 @ 5:12PM
Ah, yes. The ever-widening definition. Now everyone who is progressive is satanistic. The reality is, it is the afficianados of TAS who claim to "espouse the virtues of our Constitutional republic", yet spend day after day running down our culture, our government, our President, specific provisions in our Bill of Rights including the First and Fourth Amendments, the Fourteenth Amendment, the Seventeenth Amendment, etc. etc. It is only here on TAS that we hear talk of secession and similar traitorous utterences.
It's quite evident who are the supporters of our great American Republic and who are its subverters.
Nick| 10.15.10 @ 6:10PM
RCV,
You should've been watching Glenn Beck today.
In fact, you should tape the repeat, tommorrow morning, at 2 a.m.
Mr. Beck, and his guests, discussed the evilness of lefty ideologies. And, it basically comes down to the left's hatred of humanity.
Man is the apex of God's creation, because we are created in His image. The left raises creation to the apex, and man is at the bottom.
It is the left that foolishly believes man is destroying the planet. It is the left that thinks animals are on an equal plane of existence with man, and have equal rights. It is the left that believes in collectivism, and, therefore, taking away individual, God-given rights.
One of his guests made a great point: In this country, it is against the law to destroy an American bald eagle egg, but abortion is completely legal.
Someone can go to jail for killing an eagle embryo, thanks to lefty tree-huggers. But, killing a human fetus (unborn baby in Latin) is perfectly legal, up to the 9th month of pregnancy.
In fact, even if the human baby survives the abortion, it can be left to die. (O'Bama blocked legislation to ban this ghoulish practice in the Illinois state senate.)
This is evil, RCV. And, even if you are just a little left-of-center, you are on the wrong path. A path that leads to total hatred of God's greatest creation: Man.
Ken (Old Texican..the real one| 10.15.10 @ 6:24PM
RCV
It saddens me that you feel that way.
I was delighted the other day about you being excited about sending your kids to college.
Well, because of the last four years, some four million families have given up that dream... just given it up.
Well, maybe that's OK.
Maybe their kids will go to Junior college, then work their way through Senior college like I did. They will come out of that experience tough and rangy...like I did.
On an offshore drilling rig my sophomore year, I had the "opportunity" to save a man's life by risking my own. I grabbed a whipping swinging stand of pipe headed for his head...
Got thrown down two decks...knocked cold. My helmet was wrapped around my head like the tin-foil hats people laugh about.
(OH... a stand of pipe is 90 feet long and acts sorta' like a limb on a bow and arrow when lifted off the deck without instant arresting...seven inches in diameter.)
When I emerged from my coma two days later ...back on shore in the hospital, that big old tough as nails Cajun was sitting at my bedside with tears of happiness trickling down his cheeks. He was holding my helmet in his hands.
Sir, I am not a traitor. Our communists in charge,(Pardon the shorthand), are the traitors. THEY have seceeded from our constitutional republic.
Obviously you have never spent much time interfacing with the middle east and the rest of the "undeveloped" dictatorships around the globe.
I have.
I have seen Satan in all his glory... with no restraints at all. I was sorta' bullet proof because my company could build things for those folks that they simply could not build themselves.
I quietly began revolutions of freedom all over the world.
So.
Please do not whine to me about being a subverter.
As far as the amendments you mentioned, I notice you didn't mention the Second, and you detest the First. Something in there about freedom of religion ain't there?
My religion is Christ. A lot of folks' religion is polishing their shoes religiously. I'm a "little Christ". I just stumble along trying to follow Him.
Communists, (pardon the shorthand), are Satan incarnate. The millions upon millions of murders on their hands bear witness to that.
I believe in my heart of hearts that our president is a communist. I believe his congress are useful idiots...except for the closet communists.
I do respect our constitution...and even more...our Declaration of Independence. Finally, I believe my "rights" are conferred by God.....not some preening lawyer/politicians.
That seems to be where our communications break down.
RCV| 10.15.10 @ 7:35PM
Ken, I respect and revere our Constitution, and even more, our Declaration of Independence. The words stir me every single time I read them. And I too believe our rights are conferred by God. As for the First Amendment, I spent most of my professional life zealously defending the rights guaranteed by it.
idalily| 10.15.10 @ 5:53PM
Margie, Margie, you give Libs waaaay too much credit here. Satan, at least, is an adult.
Margie| 10.16.10 @ 10:36AM
Oops, I forgot one: RC
Let me see if I can add to the above:
Liberalism=Socialism=Communism=Satanism.
Read your history, and while you're at it read the Bible.
And here's an author I highly recommend to you who was actually part of the historical record who survived Communistic torture and lived to tell. He explains exactly how Communism is Satanic.
Richard Wurmbrand: Tortured for Christ
and the book Marx and Satan.
The Left in in its many forms is vehemently opposed to our Constitutional republic, and against those of us who espouse its virtues. They have many guises but share the same "Father." Satan himself.
Communism
Marxism
Socialism
Totalitarianism
Authoritarianism
Progressivism
Leftism
Neo-Nazism
Anarcihism
Fascism
Roman Catholicism
Anthony| 10.16.10 @ 12:00PM
Roman Catholicism?
Margie, your bigotry knows no bounds.
But I won't waste any more words on you or your ilk.
Margie| 10.16.10 @ 12:35PM
That was NOT my post, Anthony. I've asked AmSpec to have a registration process in order to hold those accountable who do this sort of thing. Perhaps if all of us write to them, they will do it.
Chris| 10.16.10 @ 3:34PM
If this is not Margie's post, it's what she thinks of the Roman Catholic Church.
I've been reading her for months and she and dozens more on here are hate-filled, venomous bigots.
Listen up, Margie! I've read your posts and I know what you believe about a lot of things. You're a monster.
Margie| 10.16.10 @ 3:45PM
Listen up "Chris". It wasn't my post and if I had wanted to add the last line, I would have done so.
I'm no coward who hides behind screen names to attack and lie about someone else as a human being.
Telling the truth is not bigotry or hate but those who reject the truth of the Bible and accuse others of being monsters because it may not please their own ears are actually practicing what you accuse me of.
Both hate and bigotry. Are you so bigoted that you refuse to search the Bible for yourself to find out if anything I have ever said is true? If not, why not? Before you accuse me of hate are you hating God by rejecting His Truth?
Who is the monster but the liar and accuser of the brethren? Who is the hater but them that refuse to go where God's Truth speaks to us, the Bible to learn for themselves about what He says?
Tim*| 10.16.10 @ 3:57PM
Apocalyptic Crank Lady Margie , is the Fred Phelps of American Spectator .
RCV| 10.16.10 @ 12:21PM
Sadly, it's postings like hers that drive people away from Christ. The reality is, though, you don't have to cling to mindless ignorance and hateful bigotry to be a Christian. You can use the brain God gave you and embrace his creation.
scythe| 10.19.10 @ 7:00PM
Considering the RC Catholic Church was vehemently hated and still is by the left BECAUSE THEY STOOD AT THE RAMPARTS AND REPULSED INTERNATIONAL SOCIALISM (COMMUNISM), for you to include that in your list reveals your dementia. You went off the rails on that one. You must be a Christaphobe or just an old fashioned Catholic basher. Hate Catholics, do you?
Margie| 10.20.10 @ 1:37AM
I said I didn't post that, and I don't lie. So stick your comments where the Sun doesn't shine.
Np, I do not like Catholicism because it is not Biblical and I do post Biblical truths refuting their false doctrines, however I didn't write the additional post.
Someone is posting not only in my name but others as well.
I have no control over that. Believe what you wish.
God is my Judge, not you or anyone else.
Tim*| 10.15.10 @ 9:02PM
There's Still A Wee Bit of Hope for Margie .
In 1958 Cooper had a private audience with Pope Pius XII at the Vatican, and in the following year became a convert to Roman Catholicism.
Margie| 10.15.10 @ 10:11PM
Yes but did he have his private audience with Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all?
Tim*| 10.15.10 @ 11:12PM
We all do anytime we pray .
Apparently , ya didn't get the memo .
Margie| 10.15.10 @ 11:29PM
Do you do that in between cursing and reviling Christians?
Tim*| 10.16.10 @ 7:03AM
Aaaand, You hypocritically do that in between you're Anti-Catholic Rants and screamin' Scumbags " at American Spectator Posters ,who dare to oppose your Apocalyptic Last Word Crank Lady Agenda, Sweetie Pie .
Margie| 10.16.10 @ 12:29PM
Scumbag? That would be the term a certain troll who uses many monikers ahem, posts under mine and others names to harass and intimidate.
If the word fits.... But perhaps Viper would be a better word to describe.
"You brood of vipers! how can you speak good, when you are evil? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks" Mt. 12:34.
Tim*| 10.16.10 @ 3:45PM
You're still gettin' punked by Madge ,Stupid Ass .
He or she is usin' the term back at ya.
The term is another name for a rubber , ya Stupid Ass.
You're foul mouth is schizophrenic with your chronic obsessional Apocalyptic lecturing .
You're The Reverend Fred Phelps of American Spectator .
Margie| 10.16.10 @ 3:51PM
Foul mouthed you say?
Schizophrenic you say?
Chronic obsessional you say?
Margie| 10.15.10 @ 7:55PM
Ben, RCV:
I have been accused of threatening murder before here for saying I will defend myself, so you're ridiculous statement is just par for the course. Speak the truth to Leftists (who appear in many guises and screen names) and you will be labeled some of the most vicious and vile things.
But that's ok because loving the Truth bears fruit, and that includes gaining some of the most faithful of friends. And losing some, too. But Jesus said He came for division. Yep. It's true.
"Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man's foes will be those of his own household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who does not take his cross and follow Me is not worthy of me. He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it. "He who receives you receives Me, and he who receives Me receives him who sent Me." Mt. 10:34-40.
So much for the Left's phony claims on Christ, eh? No one ever gets anywhere by being "moderate" or "centrist" or "middle of the road." There are strong divisions between right and wrong.
Jesus died for right and wrong.
Ben, you may not see the fact that Leftism is Satanic because you don't have "eyes to see." We are involved in spiritual warfare and evil takes many shapes and disguises itself as an angel of "Light." Progressivism et al via Liberalism and all the rest of the "ism's" sound so peachy but they are all designed to take away our freedoms and destroy the individual. Just take a look at how the Left operates~ they make themselves gods with more and more laws and more and more regulation and more and more taxation, until we are strangled and can't breathe and.. until we then have to cry to the government for help. This, all in the name of freedom of course, and all the while and the MOST sinister of all~while accusing us of doing what they are doing.
That also is the mark of evil~ it points to you while it does the very thing it accuses you of doing.
"Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of His might. Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the Devil. 2 For we are not contending against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. Therefore take the whole Armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand." Eph. 6:10-13.
98 and 1/3| 10.16.10 @ 3:50PM
Margie,
Are you a member of Westboro Baptist Church? Do you hate in the name of God? In the precious name of the Baptist God Almighty?
Westboro Baptist (naturally it would be Baptist) Church seems to be your cup of tea . . . I mean Kool Aid--cup of Killer Kool Aid.
Margie| 10.16.10 @ 4:10PM
Newsflash: Speaking the truth coming from the Bible is hate.
So sue me.
Call 1-800-RCV.
Tim*| 10.16.10 @ 5:06PM
Same Crap The Reverend Fred Phelps Spews .
Christian Kindness| 10.16.10 @ 6:40PM
Please do not respond to Margie's post. She's a fanatic, and your cooments are sending her into a crazed fanatical frenzy of self-righteousness.
Obviously, her life revovles around AmSpec. I imagine her sitting in a wheelchair in a dilapidated doublewide somewhere in a blighted rural area.
No money, no friends, no family (she's alienated them by her crazy religious-zealot tirades) no nothing.
She's to be pitied.
Pitied.
Margie| 10.16.10 @ 7:05PM
LOL. Funny how you Lefties claim to know Christians, and those whom you oppose, so well. Geniuses, all.
Look to your self, dear person.
Life is short.
Margie| 10.15.10 @ 7:58PM
Nick and Ken (Old Tex),
Bravo! Wonderful, wonderful and truthful posts. It is my honor to have known you here.
Ken (Old Texican)| 10.16.10 @ 5:53AM
RCV
I heard a term yesterday that tickled my mind all night. (You might note the time stamp on this post)
I did a search on the term. WOW! Please do so. I believe our present "regime" is engaged in "Lawfare" against the citizens of the United States.
Perhaps your legal background sorta' insulates you against the threats ; you have the know-how to fight back.
Most people do not, and fortuntely some of us can "rent" that know-how upon need.. but wow it is expensive. Especially when the opposing government lawyers are actually paid by our own taxes.
I have not been there since the Soviet Union collapsed, but back in the day, the customs agent explained very carefully that they "had you any time they wanted you" ie: that their laws were structured so that you could NOT be innocent, and left alone.
Ken (Old Texican)| 10.16.10 @ 6:01AM
Margie, speaking of bravo.
Above may be your best post to date.
Nick,
I missed the show, darn it, but thanks for your thoughts above.
Ken (Old Texican)| 10.16.10 @ 6:19AM
OOPS!
I forgot.
Chapter one of "Texas Said NO!" is now available on the web-site. Scroll down, Give it a read and see if you want to get it all www.texassaidno.com
Nick| 10.16.10 @ 1:11PM
Margie,
Thanks for the props!
I appreciate it.
Ken,
You're welcome.
Fox News might repeat the show this weekend. Check your tv guide. My guide lists 3 and 9 p.m. today, but it is frequently wrong.
God Bless both of you!
Nick| 10.17.10 @ 6:23PM
RCV,
Were you able to catch the repeat of that Glenn Beck show this weekend?
RCV| 10.17.10 @ 7:11PM
I didn't Nick. My son is home from college for the weekend and I'm caught up in lots of family stuff this weekend.
wodiej| 10.18.10 @ 5:42PM
Margie, I respect your faith but numerous rambling posts citing scripture are not really necessary to make a point.
I am an optimist and I see better days ahead than even 1995. I think we are going to hit another rough patch before it's over with because of the now foreclosure mess but with the help of real conservatives in control, we will prevail.
Margie| 10.19.10 @ 1:39PM
Heh, you may soon have your wish as I am sure there are many Catholics like yourself who are probably writing to AmSpec to have me banned for citing the Bible.
Imagine that! So called Christians objecting to the Bible.
Religious doctrine trumps God's own words.
Now, what would you prefer me to cite from?
The editorial column from the New York Times?
CNN perhaps? The Christian Science Monitor?
Anything but Scripture.
C. Smith| 10.20.10 @ 1:44AM
A letter to Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott during the Senate impeachment trial of President William Jefferson Clinton:
The Honorable Senator Trent Lott
The Senate of the United States
Washington D.C. 20510
Date. Jan 1, 1999
Dear Sir,
On the first Tuesday in November, 1992, I went to Republican Headquarters. My wife was there making calls on one of many phones. I recognized others too. Surprisingly, every phone was manned by someone from either my church or the Christian school my children attend. Even the woman coordinating the entire affair was a dear friend who worshipped with us. I remember reminiscing as I contemplated what the coming hours would determine: I recalled how my children had in the preceding weeks carried campaign literature door to door. I remember how my wife flawlessly hand addressed literally thousands of letters for local Republican candidates. I wondered what would come of the Saturday after Saturday I had spent with so many others of conviction in platform committee meetings, addressing the spiritual direction of the party. And I remembered the flyers in plastic baggies that I distributed in the rain the night before. Senator Lott, this was typical of the passion and conviction that believers once had for the Republican Party… passion and conviction that has all too often been replaced by feelings of violation, abandonment, and betrayal.
Over the last six years, the Republican Party has proven that conviction and courage are a rare commodity: Republican leadership allowed a pro-abortion governor to deliver the State of the Union response. Republicans failed to oppose the nomination of a Supreme Court justice whose opinions often resemble those of early 20th Century anarchists. The 96 Republican campaign was little more than a "going away party" for a nice old man who reportedly bragged that he had not even read the Republican Platform. I could go on Senator Lott, but I think you can see why I didn’t even bother to go to Republican Headquarters this last election… AND I WASN’T ALONE!
We now stand at the crossroads Senator Lott. The House has HONORABLY determined that it is the rule of law, not public opinion, that must be followed. The house has resolved that there IS to be a trial. And you also have said: "We [the Senate] need to go forward and do our CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY to hear the evidence.'' (emphasis added) Yet, a day or two later, you proposed the means for terminating the implicit constitutional mandate for a full Senate trial! Senator Lott, how can you take what you have called your "constitutional duty" so lightly, the "constitutional duty" you swore in an oath with your hand upon the Bible? Senator Lott, have you forgotten that it is the "oaths" that we honor or dishonor, that is the substance of the matter that now confronts the Senate?
The Constitution gives the Senate "the sole Power to try" the President. No other authority on earth has that Power and no other individual has greater Power and responsibility in holding this man accountable then you do as Senate Majority Leader. Our President has forgotten his oaths…Senator Lott have you forgotten yours?
Your leadership in this matter will determine the future of the Republican Party. It will determine whether it is the party of conviction or merely the "moral" equivalent of its opposition. If you take a stand for a full Senate trial with witnesses and the admission of all relevant evidence, it will cost you something. Courage and conviction always cost something. The coliseum in Rome is still stained with the blood of those who refused to betray their convictions… and their contemporaries will not betray them now. Your leadership will determine whether those who have made the most significant contributions to the Republican Party will remain part of it or will consider it an abomination. Sadly, if the latter, the Republican Party literally "WON'T HAVE A PRAYER"!
http://popularapostasy.blogspo.....rayer.html
jacky | 1.20.11 @ 1:54AM
Margie, speaking of bravo.
Above may be your best post to date.
Nick,
I missed the show, darn it, but thanks for your thoughts above.
jacky | 1.20.11 @ 1:55AM
Margie, speaking of bravo.
Above may be your best post to date.
Nick,
I missed the show, darn it, but thanks for your thoughts above.