I'd be happier with republicans if they would spend less, cut taxes and reduce the growth of government. Squeaking by because your political opponent is in disarray is not sufficient.
Amen.
The left has been on the wrong side of virtually everything related to defense, national security, intelligence and foreign policy. Not that that is a new development.
I love Captain E'ds summary: "to RETREAT until we are out of sight of the battlefield." Yes, let's embolden the terrorists, shall we?
The calls for impeachment, the Plame indictments, Abramoff corruption, are the Dem's strategy to get people to forget how wrong they were on Afghanistan, Iraq and the GWOT. God help us if, and probably when, they take over the House or the Senate or the White House. They have never had a coherent plan on what to do. Their only plan is to demagogue to get elected. That's it. The Dems wreck this country and Reps have to put it back together while being blamed for the problems that Dems cause. Case in point, the Clinton recession blamed on Bush.
I think that BigDog has touched on the most important point. Republicans are out of control. Why? Because the Democrats are complete morons, they run candidates like John Kerry; they have leaders like Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, Ted "the killer" Kennedy, and Hilary Clinton. They are so such a joke that the GOP does not have to be all the good to beat them, and we get lackluster Presidents like George Bush. I really wish that the opposition from the left were more formidable. Perhaps then the GOP would be forced to run a serious Republican. Look at where we are now; a few weeks ago RWS and other Republicans seriously were thinking that John McCain might make a good candidate. This is where we are. I beg the Democrats to run a serious candidate in 2008; even if they win and I have to stomach a liberal imbecile for four years, perhaps it will serve as a wake-up call to the Republicans.
I used to identify myself as a Republican, I don't anymore. Fiscally, I am about 100 miles apart from the current crop of "right wingers". Socially I disagree with the party on two vital issues, but I also find that many of the Republicans lack the courage of their convictions anyway. John "what is more popular" McCain is a perfect example of this, two words media whore. The bottom line is that both parties are awful; one is simply a shade more palatable.
nicnerd,
I agree with you and BigDog on the fiscal irresponsiblity of the Republicans. They aren't as bad as the Dems but it is disappointing. BTW, it's hilarious to watch some on the left even talk about fiscal responsiblity.
Unfortunately, a lot of it I believe has to do with the media. That's changing lately but it's difficult to convince the voting public when the Dems lie and the dominant MSM distorts. Case in point, social security.
Bush proposed to give people a choice to access and own a small percentage of their social security. In the beginning it would result in larger defecits because over the decades the government has been spending our social security. Unfortunately, the Dems misled the public about the deficits and that Bush was trying to destroy social security. Only fools would believe this, but thanks to a dominant MSM, the public was successfully disinformed.
Another example is the decrease in increases of government spending. Dems lie and call these cuts. Reps have gotten beaten up because they get accused of starving children and killing the elderly when they try to reduce spending. It's all lies but the left doesn't care.
I think recent developments have shown that the pendulum is swinging to the right and lately Republicans are becoming bolder about criticizing the Dems. If that trend continues and we can actually have honest discussions about policy, only then do I think it's possible to reduce spending and the size of government.
As long as alternative media can continue to thrive and get the Rep's message out, will we have a chance of reducing government. We will shortly hear about the fairness doctrine, a doctrine that shuts down the right's free speech. That's the left's idea of free speech.
nicnerd,
Who would you consider a serious Republican candidate if you were the one choosing?
What is hilarious is watching Republican noses grow when they talk about small government and fiscal responsibility when they well know that the Country has gone from massive deficits under Reagan to surplus under Clinton and back to even more massive deficits under Bush. That they continue to sell their line to anyone is truly an act of marketing genius.
I have to agree with you on the Republicans dropping the ball on reducing govt. spending. Even without the war and all the disasters, we just haven't cut into the govt bloat.
Clinton did have the luxury of an economy brought to him by the first Bush and the Reagan vision (it was a democratic congress that refused the line item veto that plunged us into a deficit and to pretend other wise is foolish) But Clinton also governed like a Republican in many ways.
I agree that Clinton governed a lot like a Republican, but it was like a pre-Nixon Republican, not like the Republicans who have governed since.
I do wish that you would give up on the Clinton inherited Bush I's recovery. We recovered because of the fiscal restraint imposed during the Clinton years. Unlike you, I am prepared to give some of the credit to Republicans in the form of the Gingrich Congress. But to suggest that Clinton's balanced budgets and surplus had anything to with Reagan is fanciful, at best. I thought you didn't like moonbirds?
Had mostly to do with Newt Gingrich.
There hasn't been a surplus in a long time. They were still borrowing Social Security money during the Clinton administration. Remember all that Al Gore "Locked Box" talk.
That lock box talk in the debate was hilarious. Al Gore made the usual fool of himself talking about that. Especially when he talked about it in such serious tones. Who do these people think they are fooling?
I still remember one economic expert say that the only thing Clinton did to deserve credit for the 90s economy was that he simply "stayed out of the way." I guess we can give him credit for that. But that's about all. Didn't he cut military spending a lot? That seems to be the first thing they like to cut.
I still laugh at the way the Democrats referred (and still refer) to the Contract With America as the Contract ON America, and all the other predictable things they say about people with ideas. And then didn't Clinton pass 6 or 8 out of 10 of them?
BTW has anyone noticed that not too long ago the Dems kept harping on the economy and how Bush had destroyed it, etc. etc. Now I never hear them say anything about it. Hmmm... I wonder why that is.... Lol.
Very insightful post and comments, but no one has mentioned an acceptable candidate for either party?
I think Gen. Wesley Clark is a great candidate for the Dems. His chances are slim, but I believe he is in the middle on enough of the hard issues. Of course he does have multiple medals from the military, which open him up to smear campaigns in our present political climate, but maybe Rove won't be working for the next Republican frontrunner...
Jill:
What economic indicators do you look at when making your determination of the state of the economy? The case against the economy being more fragile now than it has been in a long time are actually pretty good. This does not mean that it is failing, it means that it is at a much greater risk for a catostrophic failure than it has been in a long time.
Such a catistrophic failure is not predicted (such a prediction, no matter how discredited would have a negative effect on the current economy), but the risk of catastrophic failure has increased.
Do you disagree that the growth of the economy is at greater risk now that it was before, or are you simply interested in how many people received unemployment checks?
"At the core, we are dealing with two parties that have fundamentally different views on national security," Rove said."
Oh, the irony. A partisan operative who outed a CIA agent for political reasons talking about "national security"...
I'll remember the title of your post in November RWS, no matter what happens. I still think that if you gain seats in both houses that it would be quite a shock. The various overreaches and excesses of the past year or two are catching up with your party, and with more intrusions every day (now the Google subpoena), the tide is turning decidedly against you. I know that if you lose seats in November you will blame the media, but you may want to consider the possibility that maybe more people just don't agree with where you are taking the country.
Have I heard a serious Republican candidate mentioned yet?
No, I think not.
BTW, any bets on when the security alerts begin again? My money is on early summer, say July 2nd, just before the 4th, when the candidacies are more solidified and serious polling begins.
Borrow and spend, borrow and spend.
War, I might point out, is another tried and true way to boost an economy...
just sayin'.
Dumbya is apparently too freaking dumb to understand that Rove did not out anybody, and has not been indicted for anything, despite the left repeatedly convicting him based on their desire to do so, rather than having any evidence.
Jandrew, all I know is you guys were talking recession, (worst since Hoover) etc. etc. Now you don't mention the economy at all.
Don't make this into something complicated. There is nothing complicated about the tactics of the Left. They're pretty transparent.
And the only thing "outted" was that Valerie Plame was in cahoots with her husband and both had a partisan agenda. That was whistleblowing.
You guys are really desperate. I love it. 
OK, first off to Jill. Mr. Clinton's military cuts were the reward of the "peace dividend". I don't fault him for cutting the military and it should be noted that he was able to do so becuase of the breakdown in communism set into play by Mr. Reagan. I do however fault Mr. Clinton for woeful policy decisions concerning the armed forced that continue to plague us to this day. That is a subject for another post.
Since nobody else offered up a lamb, here is one:
Michael J. Badnarik (FYI RWS - he is from TX and is currently running for the Senate seat in the 10th District/Austin)
"Whistleblowing" involves an illegal act by your superiors that you are willing to risk your career and reputation to put a stop to.
Explain to me how anything done by Libby or Rove was "noble" in this sense.
They could have had her fired from the C.I.A. secretly if they found her to be disloyal without destroying the entire Brewster & Jennings cover.
How many Weapons of Mass Destruction and other illegal weapons trades have been able to move forward since the "cover" of Brewster Jennings was revealed to the world??? Is this how the administration sets about to win the war on terror??
Dumbya is apparently too freaking dumb to understand that Rove did not out anybody, and has not been indicted for anything, despite the left repeatedly convicting him based on their desire to do so, rather than having any evidence.
JD | 01.22.06 - 10:35 pm | #
Hmm, so I guess that's why Fitzgerald's still investigating him? Because he's so innocent...
the democrats always have been socialist.
when PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN was president, the democrats were very critical of PRESIDENT REAGAN's statements about the soviet union being the evil empire.
and when Boris Yeltsin became president of russia, Boris made the statement paraphrased as what are the democrats talking about, communism is evil.
Commenting by HaloScan
