Thank you for your constructive input. By “pragmatist,” I assume you mean you’d like to support what “works.” But to do that, one must define the goals toward which we should be working. The issue that divides us is smaller, more limited Government as opposed to bigger, more intrusive Government. Constitutional conservatism believes in the former, and sites such as Redstate or the Madison Project can be very helpful in presenting the conservative philosophy and why it works when implemented. I don’t think we can do much to change the mainstream media, but that doesn’t mean we should waver. We need to continue getting our message out, and even if the media spins or filters it, the more often we get it out to as many national and local outlets as possible, the more of it gets through to the public. Incidentally, except for things like election night coverage and televised sporting events, I don’t get my information for the mainstream media anymore either.

The “lay low and wait for reinforcements” strategy made a fair amount of sense prior to the election. Compare the strategies employed by the Dems when they took over Congress in 2006 with what the GOP did in 1994. The Republicans immediately tried to enact their agenda, though most of it was blocked by Clinton. By 1996 they had lost enough popularity that Clinton was able to get re-elected running against them. After that their numbers gradually eroded and their agenda effectively ground to a halt. The Dems took a different tact after 2006. They avoided major confrontations with Bush, let funding and authorization for Iraq get through, and basically didn’t do anything to tick people off. By 2008 people trusted them not to do anything crazy and they got the Presidency plus a filibuster-proof Senate. Which they used to pass Obamacare, stimulus, etc.

Unfortunately, the GOP’s attempt to emulate the Democrats’ 2006 strategy gained them the same electoral results as 1996, but without having made the limited gains that the GOP won in 1995. I suggest that the reason was that in both cases the GOP Presidential nominee’s record was incompatible with the principles that had brought victory to the party two years earlier. But the country can’t afford to wait another four years for at least part of the government to get serious about reducing spending and do whatever is necessary to save it from Obamacare.

Punitively punish the rich doesn’t sound bad enough.

Small business workers? Savers?

I find it hard to take serious people who complain about GW Bush and then say they can’t go back to the GOP after experiencing four years of Obama busting the budget so bad it makes GW Bush look like a Scotsman. You got burned on Bush, but not on Obama? Really?

Then, they need to pursue an aggressive media offensive…

These house republicans have proven incapable of pursuing any media offensive. In fact, they have demonstrated a complete lack of a spine.

They still hold the upper hand because they can refuse to pass any appropriation at all, which would force the dems to quickly cave, but are too scared of being called mean names by Jo Scarborough and the rest of the media clowns to play hardball.

Daniel, you really tick me off with your comment on making the reduced payroll tax permanent. What is the reason given for items such as the Earned Income Tax Credit expansion? I have always been told it was to offset the “unfairness” of the payroll tax. But isn’t now granting a roll-back of that same tax sort of like having your cake and eating it also?

The average voter is not politically involved and only loosely follows the actions of the national government. Which makes them susceptible to media lies.

The Bush’s deregulation cause the depression meme is a case in point. A majority of people believe that bs, despite the fact that there was no deregulation during the Bush administration.

Second, how did the shutting down the government work the last time we tried it?

Pretty well, it led to the only real cuts in federal spending since 1947.

And I am still not taking them and their arguments seriously. Especially when they come here to Redstate. The only way to educate people like this is to call them on it when they are making illogical decisions.

The brand is not worth preserving if it does nothing to change the demographics of the map. Democrats control the big blue cities California, the Rust Belt, the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic states and Florida. Standing up for conservative principles is meaningless outside of a constitutional convention. That doesn’t mean we should give up on restoring this great nation, but to do anything we need political power. How does protecting America from the consequences of their voting decisions help improve those decisions. Want to really help, stop standing on our principles and start attacking the Democrats power. Negotiate for things that drive a wedge between the establishment’s voters and the establishment. We know that the progressives are enslaving people with their patronage, so use it. Trade capitulation on taxes for focused spending. Make Obama restore Medicare Advantage. Make Obama tie educations funds to vouchers. Make them live up to their own ideals. Obama is just going to spend money and Boehner is never going to say no. So focus on how the money is spent, make Obama and the Progressives expose themselves as the lying, oppressive establishment they are through their own tools.

How do you make the connection between the government shut down and GW Bush?

The republican Congress was doing fine after the shutdown and subsequent deals with Clinton. It was the impeachment that killed them. (Not to say that he shouldn’t have been convicted, but it’s indisputable that it was very unpopular politically).

If they did so great on the budget under Clinton, why didn’t they keep it up with Bush? Why didn’t they stand up Bush on spending? It was not as if Bush was threatening vetos of spending cuts. The GOP survived under Clinton by increased spending and earmarks. We had lower deficits because of increased revenue from a booming economy. (Remember the dot com bubble?)

And we stunk politically. The people gave Clinton the credit for the economy and the budget. They still do. It is part of what got Obama reelected.

Gary North wrote this morning, “Government really is out of control. Congress can do nothing about the spending. Congress is like Flip Wilson’s character Geraldine, “The devil made me do it.”

Yes, very clumsily worded, indeed. Including the crack about conservatives “deeming” gay lives and families “less valuable.” What’s that supposed to mean; we think someone who murders a gay guy should be punished less than if he killed a straight guy?

As for why we would wish to deny them … well, it isn’t for fun and profit. It isn’t hate. It’s the simple fact that Conservatives look beyond Stage 1 – gays feel good, YAYYYYY!!! Liberals stop here. Conservatives, on the other hand, wonder what happens next?

I ask, given your support for gay marriage; if two adult siblings apply for a marriage license, will you be in support of the state issuing them one? Or not? If not, why?

I wonder how many of your homosexual friends deem the lives of unborn babies less valuable, i.e., babies who are killed in the womb. Because if they’re voting Democratic, they’re voting for the platform of death.

Afraid Boehner will cave and kiss Obama’s butt. I want a strong leader in the House, but it sure is not Boehner.

Can I pile on a-little more? You write:

“There is an emerging consensus from some CONSERVATIVES (my emphasis) inside and outside of Congress that we have no leverage on the tax fight and are thus compelled to give in on the higher tax rates. To that end, they advocate voting present on an extension of the tax rates sans the highest two rates, so that the extension will go through for the middle class without having to own the tax increase on the higher brackets.”

WHY DO YOU NEED TO USE THE TERM CONSERVATIVES, WHY NOT REPUBLICANS (at least)?