The American Spectator

Dr Jack Ryan| 12.3.09 @ 8:19PM

Good points. However, I would not call GOP leadership socialist or Karl Rove. Keep in mind that many member of Congress were just kids or not even born when Medicare came into law, so you have a generation reared in a socialistic type system. Yes, I am sick of RINOs and republicans not having any backbone to stand up for what right. But, they were acting upon an inefficient government run system that needed fixing/funding that so many are dependent upon. That is the problem...so many are dependent upon it. Once you implement a socialist type system like Medicare, SS, it is impossible to dismantle it; if you do the consequences would so great it would take a long, long time for free markets/people to recover it. Same thing applies for obamacare. Again, I am not advocating socialism/Marxism or any form thereof, but just I want a cost efficient way to gradually dismantle SS, Medicare et al and turn it over to free markets.

Ron| 12.3.09 @ 8:45PM

How can you dream of the "free market" when you have the AMA dictating who gets into med school and acting as a union to keep medical fees high. If we can bring nominal or even token medical care to a third world village, Americans should be able to have a care clinic on every. corner

Margie| 12.3.09 @ 10:31PM

I like this part of what Viguerie said:
"A litmus test is only as good as the character of the person who endorses it. It’s easy for professional politicians to say they support something in order to pass a test that gives them access to campaign cash. The more important test is true devotion to the limited government principles embodied in our Constitution.
The road to new leadership for the Republican Party goes through the 2010 primaries. The current Republican members of Congress aren’t going to throw McConnell and Boehner out. But the Republicans elected in November of 2010 can get that job done. Conservatives can help make that a reality by supporting boat-rocking principled conservative candidates in the upcoming primaries, and making sure they win in November."

~Excellent idea!

Lazy Jack| 12.3.09 @ 11:46PM

In October of 2008 I wrote a post called "Obama, the Uber Bush."

The point was that Democrats had done all the things they accused the Bush White House of Doing, only they had done it consistently since 1932. It also pointed out that the Republicans were little different than the Democrats from 2000- 2004, and that the Democrats hated Bush because he was implementing their policies and they were getting none of the credit. It was a bit tongue in cheek, but there was a lot of truth to it.

An excerpt:

"So, in order to be considered a Great Democratic President one has to do three things: 1) Pick a fight, 2) Spend like a Hilton sister, especially on entitlements and social programs, and 3) Infringe on your rights."

See it here:
http://thanksforthelaughs.word.....uber-bush/

Lazy Jack

S.L. Toddard| 12.4.09 @ 9:28AM

"So, in order to be considered a Great Democratic President one has to do three things: 1) Pick a fight, 2) Spend like a Hilton sister, especially on entitlements and social programs, and 3) Infringe on your rights."

George W. Bush was a Great Democratic President.

Yosemeti Sam| 12.4.09 @ 5:48AM

Yes!

Primaries are key, going forward, in EVERY GOP
representational candidate selection process.

Let's get as many Red Dogs elected to force the
old guard GOP congressional 'leaders' - to heel to the preservation of the American peoples' ideals !

Roy| 12.4.09 @ 6:24AM

I just think that is raw nonsense. Who needs a VI Lenin to split us when we'll split ourselves.

Bush caved to Dems who wanted huge spending; Dems want huge spending. See the difference?

Or in practical terms: People howled and yibbered that "Bush"(ie, the Democrat Congress) was spending too much by wasting a few billion a year. They got what they should really have expected: Obama got in office and instantly - it took him what, a month? - hurled a trillion dollars into a shark tank of ravening Democrat public sector union lobbyists. And has been trying to toss them another two trillion ever since.

I don't mind getting rid of RINOs when possible, but the problem is Democrats belonging to the Democrat party pursuing Democrat goals through spending non-Democrat money.

Warren Piece| 12.4.09 @ 7:41AM

The devil's in the details, boys. Once again we are posed to be too smart for our own good. Last time we got so cavalier about pointing the ballot box cannon at the Republican Party (to teach ‘em a lesson, you know!), one third of the dependable conservative congressmen here in Hoosierland were defeated and replaced with "moderate" Democrats. Meanwhile, guess which Republicans were re-elected. The same ones who then preached that the Republican Party should free itself from its conservative shackles.

There are times I think all our armchair Conservative war planners do is make the world safer for RINOs. If you REALLY want to do it right, then wrap your lips around both barrels of the shotgun and pull the trigger by telling us’n to vote Libertarian.

martin j smith| 12.4.09 @ 8:03AM

I am one of those so called independents--but the only viable opposition is thru the Republican Party-Spurred on by Conservatives as the tail wagging the dog so to speak. So I appreciate the issue of the article. I do not think that Rove or others are socialists-but--Compassionate Conservatism --unfortunately gives the real hard Left an opening--though the logic does not fly--a lot people throw logic out the window. Anyway the real issue is lack of aggressive leadership in opposing Obama and his minions in the house and senate. I also feel that it i important to prove Americans with an alternative ideas of how to solve problems and explain why they are better. But being up[front in the face of the Left is needed --one glaring very recent example of a lack of such leadership is Climate Gate.

S.L. Toddard| 12.4.09 @ 9:26AM

"Some would say that it is unfair to use "socialism" to describe those GOP-supported policies. But if conservatives are going to call Barack Obama's policies socialist, then it's hard to argue with Viguerie's consistency in applying the "s-word" to big-government Republicans"

Hard? Impossible is more like it. The right needs to jettison the hyper-statist faction that captured the GOP and ran it into the ground, and run on a platform based on traditional American principles, personal liberty, free markets, defended borders, the Bill of Rights, vigilant defense, states rights and a Washingtonian foreign policy.

Bob| 12.4.09 @ 9:33AM

When are you guys going to realize that true ideologues rarely get elected. Politicians primary job is to get elected -- not to govern. When they're elected, their primary job is to get reelected. Republicans get elected by promising to cut taxes -- which they do if they can, but then they don't cut programs to make government smaller. That's why Reagan and Bush left us with huge debt. You are not a true fiscal conservative unless you cut spending. Cutting taxes without also cutting spending is the worst of all alternatives as you leave debt for our children, and in my case, grandchildren. But if you cut spending, you cannot get reelected. Do you really think Reagan would have been reelected if he cut Medicare or even the Department of Education?

For fiscal conservatives, our issue is not taxes -- it is spending -- and no one can get elected if they actually cut government programs. So politicians talk a good game, but they don't do anything about it.

That's why we need term limits if we want to get true fiscal conservatives elected. Of course, you all know that I also think Republicans need to get off of the social conservative/religion bandwagon and be more libertarian when it comes to social issues. That is true liberty. Get rid of the nutty abortion and gay marriage debates and concentrate on secular issues.

And Martin, get off of this "Climategate" issue. The raw data actually shows a long term global warming trend notwithstanding the manipulated data of one organization. The decade long decline in temps recently also follows a statistical trend where we've had similar episodes about every 50 years or so. The data also strongly shows the rise of CO2 due to industrialization -- there is not question about that. However, we have not scientifically proven, nor to we have a good handle on the relevant coefficient for the relationship between the rise of CO2 and global warming. This is where the modeling is iffy. After looking at the raw data, I can't tell you with any certainty how bad this global warming trend will be. I can make an argument either way. But we are in a long term global warming trend -- whether is it primarily due to nature or to man.

martin j smith| 12.4.09 @ 10:05AM

I annoy y0u, good. Then I am happy to get you angry. Read the hacked e-mails why don't you ?
Gore cancels his speech, Jones steps down ? and more to come.
So stuff it.

Bob| 12.4.09 @ 10:54AM

I reviewed both the hacked e-mails and the underlying data. Perhaps if you had more science and math in your educational background you could do the same.

Martin j smith| 12.4.09 @ 11:04AM

So if these e-mails ar5e so insignificant why not have an open hearing about what they contain--and you have not responded to my points about Gore or Jones. There is trouble out there in glbal warming land --deny it all you want to. Also if the facts were in the Warmers favor then it could be easily refuted coun't it. Further more you do not have to be a rocket scientist to see how information is fudged and also --remember the freedom of information act also exists in Britain as well as the US--requests were avoided. Data was fudged etc etc. So keep you pomposity and be as Ostrich if you want to--but as for me will I like looking at what is happening in the real world. If science is real then there should be no fear in ing defend ones position publicly--in this case there seems to fearful of exposure that is the point Bob. Beyond that I think it Ironic that B Boxer wants to investigate the hackers yet when Left or Democratic supporters hack the other side that is OK. I am all for an honest and open debate on the issue but I do not ever see that happening..

Bob| 12.4.09 @ 11:23AM

Gore is an extremist -- just like you, but on the other side. He treats hypotheses as fact and is therefore dangerous. It is just as dangerous to disregard the underlying data analysis and throw the baby out with the bathwater as you have done.

Climate science is not exact because we have a huge number of variables and the issues are political, not scientific. Just as we have unknowledgeable extremists like you, we have scientists that are over zealous in making their point as these emails exhibit. This is just like the argument that tax cuts are stimulative even if the macroeconomic data doesn't support that hypothesis. You and other substitute anecdotes for science/math in these matters. You are certainly a part of the dumbing down of America.

And for the record, there have been lots of symposiums on climate science and there are lots of disagreements among the scientists. But these disagreements are not on the underlying data, but on the extrapolation of that data. None of us know with any certainty how much global warming is man made and what kind of damage, if any, will occur. But I can assure you that we are in a phase of longer term global warming and that CO2 levels are rising quickly.

Overstatement due to the misuse of data or to plain stupidity and a lack of science and math education, only politicize the science instead of looking at this issue as things we know, and the range of things we can hypothesize.

In terms of fear, the scientists in question misused their data and they are now paying the price -- and they should. But that does not negate the underlying data. The guys in Washington are politicians playing to their base. Whether they are right or left, they are doing us a disservice by politicizing the science. You are an example of that because you either can't, or refuse to examine the underlying data yourself to find out the truth.

I've put forth, on several occasions, factual charts that have been adjusted for inflation that show tax cuts are not stimulative to the economy (GDP) and no one has been able to come up with the inflation adjusted data to disprove that over the past year.

This is what is wrong with our politics. We pray to the god of ideology rather than to the aegis of truth.

Indiana Alex| 12.4.09 @ 11:19AM

Wow "Bob", you have the underlying data? Could you please make it public, as it seems that most of the actual data has been misplaced.
Or perhaps you reviewed the massaged data and came to the conclusion that it shows the earth is warming when fed into a model that will produce a hockey stick graph when a random phone number is entered?
Or perhaps you don't know quite as much as you think you do when it comes to climate change?

Bob| 12.4.09 @ 11:34AM

Actually, Indiana, there is more than one source for the data. While I have both science and math degrees, I am not a climatologist. Therefore, to come to my conclusion I look at the data from both sides of the political spectrum to see where there are agreements and where there are divergences.

For example, there is no disagreement that we are in a longer term trend of global warming. There is also little disagreement that we've seen global cooling over the past decade. There is also no disagreement that we've seen decade long episodes of global cooling in the early 1900's and the mid-1900's. Therefore, the question is whether we are repeating history with this current cooling trend or whether the longer term trend is reversing. Is the reason for these cooling periods a change in global weather patterns? I don't know. But as a mathematician, I know the the probabilities that we are still in a longer term global warming trend are significantly higher than believing the long term trend has reversed. All we can do to verify this is to look at the data for the next 10 years and we will know with 20/20 hindsight. That's why I cannot support going off of the deep end of global warming and believe our days are numbered and neither can I rule out the continued effects of global warming.

By the way, the manipulated data occurred primarily in the 1980's and the raw data for that decade is slightly suspect. However, the data for the 70's and 90's is fairly accurate and the raw data is available for review.

Truth to Power| 12.4.09 @ 1:51PM

Data was manipulated in the so-called hockey stick graph by Professor Mann. In the emails I believe it was referred to as Mike's trick or something like that. The emails in themselves only demonstrate ethical issues. The logical question of why the ethical issues should make us wonder who are watching these criminals. They get government money and have played fraudulent games. It is funny that 3/5 Bob is sometimes very concerned about totally accurate content (even recently in a blog title) but now wants silence. If conservatives are quiet about this it will disappear. Why would 3/5 do this? He is a troll.

Bob| 12.4.09 @ 3:00PM

But it was not manipulated in the bulk of other scientists analysis. In fact, I have asked for the opposite of silence. I ask you to actually look at the data instead of just picking it out of an orifice. I want the data to be open. The only issue is that it seems that you and others don't have the educational background to actually analyze the data.

S.L. Toddard| 12.4.09 @ 9:50AM

"You are not a true fiscal conservative unless you cut spending. Cutting taxes without also cutting spending is the worst of all alternatives as you leave debt for our children, and in my case, grandchildren."

Hear, hear! I have said it before - it is more fiscally responsible (and therefore conservative) to increase spending and increase taxes than it is to increase spending and DECREASE taxes.

"But if you cut spending, you cannot get reelected. Do you really think Reagan would have been reelected if he cut Medicare or even the Department of Education?"

I think he would have, if he did it right. What would be important would be to communicate to the American people that such programs are unconstitional and therefore illegal, that they are bankrupting the country etc, and then stress that we are not *eliminating* these programs, but are instead returning their maintenance to *more local governmental authorities* - to the states, cities and towns - so that the people have more influence and power over them. It is not so much cancelling these programs as handing them off to the states, with a (federal) tax cut to ease its acceptance. It should be presented as an effort to decentralize government and return to the confederated republic authorized by the Constitution, and one that is consistent with traditional American principles. It could (and should) be thought of as a populist move, friendly to families (local control of schools) and consistent with local autonomy and subsidiarity.

Tim| 12.4.09 @ 10:00AM

Interesting (to me at least) is that he fingers Rove but not GWB.
Dubya was allegedly in charge during those eight years...

martin j smith| 12.4.09 @ 10:14AM

I do not know what it was with GWB but he really was wonky on all sorts of issues including immigration, and including the War on Terror. In some sense ( if logic is word ) he gave us Obama. Obama I believe is a real idiologue--a Marxist true and true --but the CVompassionate Conservative slogan is ill advised . Now what will fly in elections is yet another story. But, if you run a phony campaign, supported by a phony and your true political agenda nature is hidden --even not pierced by your oponenet ( that would be JM ) then you can get away with murder. So the difference between GWB and BHO is that once in office BHO shows you who he really is over time and there is no mistaking it. GWB does not verbalize hatred for this country or its global significance, but he endorses policies that are contrary to party base and definetly not conservative. So who the heck is GWB anyway ?

Clay Barham| 12.4.09 @ 6:39PM

Republicans have always leaned to the notion of community management, influenced by Hamilton, then Clay to Lincoln and TR, except for a brief time of Goldwater and Reagan. The 19th century Democrats were the libertarians who followed Jefferson, as cited in THE CHANGING FACE OF DEMOCRATS on Amazon and claysamerica.com. We may put our hopes in Sarah Palin, but certainly not Romney and GOP stalwarts.

Bob Belvedere| 12.4.09 @ 7:06PM

While Barry O and his Leftist minions in the Congress deserve the lion's share of blame for our speeding down the Road To Serfdom, we cannot forget that the GOP have been the kids in the backseat.

What profiteth a Republican if he winneth elections, but loseth his conservative soul?

Quoted from and Linked to at: USEFUL ROVEIOTS

pallet racking| 1.8.10 @ 4:03AM

http://www.t-racking.com
http://www.cold-store-equipment.com