Redstate

A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli

To keep up your current level of good cheer and good fellowship throughout the coming hearings, ideally in a televised manner. KTHXBYE.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

I have seen more homophobia out of the Democratic party in the last 90 days then from any party in recent memory. For a party full of people screeching about McCarthyism they sure are not ashamed to practice it.

Same for the profanity. One can not engage a LLL in a debate without them resorting to it.

As for pron, the Democrats can't seem to get enough of it.

Plenty of racism too whenever the Republicans run a minority candidate for anything.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

I am sure the Ds are breathing a sigh of relief that the republican lawn jockeys (according to Esquire magazine) lost.

McCain has been on TV all night saying that we need to get back to conservative ideals. But is he the person we need? He certainly is saying the right things. I can't think of anyone in the administration that can. I don't think Condi is the one. Hasert, Frist, the current leadership and the administration really botched this up. Talent is conceding right now.

Romney. Not sure.

and to be honest I suspect having a democratic congress to run against helps him as a candidate more than it hurts him.

Although I still can't stand him, and he won't be getting my support-at least not in a primary.

Is not someone who should be allowed to claim the term 'conservative'. He gets log rolled by the dhimmies all too often.
If it is McCain vs. any dem on the ballot, I will go McCain. But nearly any Republican vs. McCain will go against McCain. Thanks to McCain, Republicans were in disarray on Judges and borders.

being in the opposition/minority than majority.

McCain loves to buck the system-he loves a good fight. I suspect that with the dems the guys in power, we probably won't see quite as much McCain playing up to the democratic side of the aisle. I still don't like him, still wouldn't support the man in a primary, but I suspect he may actually be a better spokesman for the GOP in minority-since he will always have the guys in power to buck-and the media still loves him.

except that for the most part the media only loves him when he's bucking President Bush. When he and Bush are in agreement he gets little air time.

the Dems won, didn't they?

is that trying to be Dems Lite or We Suck Less (I first saw that term here - love it) doesn't demonstrate any sort of leadership. It comes across as cowering to the opponents and offering them concession after concession. Compare to the better days of a Bush getting tax cuts through or Reagan standing up to Congress.

To some extent, we were doing what the Dems have done for years, which is not offer a clear plan. The beauty of Newt's Contract was that it laid out what we were for and you could take it or leave it. Then when we won, he went after what he'd promised and delivered much of it.

Instead the past few years we've seen softness on immigration, love for huge government programs, etc. coming from our side. The Dems have offered little more than Bush lied, no matter how much you spend it's not enough, etc. as opposed to offering any plan, other than to hike taxes. But we've strayed so far off the path that people figured if we're not getting the job done right then let's try something different.

It's not as if we haven't been "cowering" all along. You are right on target with that bk. Where the hell are all the Newts??? Surely there are some staunch conservatives around that don't either scare people off with their hellfire and damnation attitudes (Santorum-not that I don't agree with him but there is a limit to where you can go)or believe in more than just staying strong on the war.
From the very beginning Bush lost the base. Unfortunately there is no other choice for me except to vote the Republican ticket, whether I like the candidates or not. Many voters didn't realize, I'm afraid, what was at stake if they "tried something different." Well, Nancy P. will certainly give them a wake up call now that she's got power. I'll bet many who voted Dem. don't even know who she is & what she's done,(ala Hannity's Man On the Street).

Arizona was a bloodbath for GOP House incumbents, but they passed an "English" proposal there.

I think the evidence is irrefutable that, contrary to the deeply held opinion of many, opposition to immigration is not a viable electoral strategy

The evidence must must be really irrefutable if I, and probably most other people around here, don't know what you are talking about. Is the evidence that being pro-enforcement is unworkable the enormous popularity of the White House, who was consistently for "comprehensive reform" including "non-amnesty" for illegals?

As for Roe, going to the pro-abortion side would reduce the Republicans to permanent minority status.

There is nothing to be gained by becoming the Democrats. The people who want Democrats will vote for the original, not the cheap copy.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

Quote from Zuiko:
"The people who want Democrats will vote for the original, not the cheap copy."

That is probably the best quote to describe what happened last night. Republicans ticked off the base. Most held their noses and voted anyway but there is sure to have been a large drop off of frustrated voters who just stayed home or cast a "protest" vote.

And you cant completely blame the voters, a lot has to go to the candidates for creating the situation. Even Nancy Johnson lost. She shouldnt have since she has been an incumbent for years and not done a horrible job for CT liberal standards. But her promo materials have just been "im the biggest pig at the govt trough!!!"

That is typical, it seems, of many democrats...oops, freudian slip...republicans. So you get an angry base that may stay home and democrats who will just vote one of their own if there isnt a distiguishable difference.

As for immigration (further up the thread), I know many liberals who are also mad at that situation so I wouldnt categorize it as a losing issue based on one race.

The republicans should take a lesson from private sector marketing... you're sales will not be as brisk when you yell, "hey, im just the same!" The first thing every product/service/politico needs is a distinguishing feature.

The biggest problem is that in individual races there were distinguishing differences, not all republicans are RINOs, but without an overall agenda and clear conservative message that sets us apart (WHICH WE DO HAVE) even the good guys get knocked down with the bad. Honestly, if we had more "controversial" conservatives ticking off democrats and creating a stir in the media, people would see through that. Unfortunately whe we were left with was a bland bunch of "me too"s and we let the democrats paint us into an Iraq referendum when we didnt need to.

Was the GOP really helped by those who implied that dissent from the House GOP's hard-line was tantamount to treason?

Does saying, "If you disagree with me on this issue, it's proof you're betraying the country" really going to win votes? Or does it also promote people to decide not to stick their necks out for those who have shown nothing but contempt for them.

Unless those and those like you begin to realize that illegal immigration has been trinagulated against us (thank you, Mr. President), get ready for many, many nights like this one.

If the Republican Party doesn't stand for law and order, it fails.

And this time, it didn't.

But let us begin with those who bear these last names: Dole and Bush, before we begin to get to the more esoteric notions of leadership and all. Let us purge ourselves of them first.

Come on, are you serious?

In case you didn't notice, a lot of high-profile hard-liners lost. Maybe iof the self-proclaimed "base" had spent less time kneecapping President Bush and Senator Dole, and more time going after the Democrats, we might have held Congress.

Whether you are in the mood or not. And it is well deserved. Obviously that word won't be used, but it is about to begin full bore.

I am in no mood to be lectured by any self-appointed zampolit on any issue at this point.

You want to jab at me, you'd better be ready for me to swing back.

leadership, except I don't think Mitch McConnell would be bad as a minority leader-he is a pretty consistent conservative voice, he just had wishy washy Frist out front.

I also think where the dems creamed us is in recruitment of candidates. They recruited a lot of conservative leaning candidates to run in red districts-we recruited Katherine Harris.

I think the saddest thing tonight is that Steele was a great candidate, and I think in almost any other year he would have won the seat but this one.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

I think we can safely now, go against the President on things like open borders. No longer are Republicans required to try and
defend nearly indefensible things coming out of the white house.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

but McCain would have to be one of them. His being a maverick insulates him from the anti-GOP spirit that was evident, though he's saying things conservatives want to hear. Would he be able to run as more of a centrist than someone like Hillary?

People outside of Washington like Giuliani and Romney are helped because of all the damage done to the Republicans inside the Beltway. Besides McCain, is there any Republican left in Washington you can see winning the GOP nomination in 2008?

I didn't see any Republican in DC winning the nomination in the first place.

I'm not so sure this helps Guilini either. Nearly everything he has going for him is his 9/11 image and perceived toughness on security. Well, Bush has that too and we can see how that has worked out. What this turn of events tells me is that a very large chunk of the population is tired of the GWOT and wants to give up and go home. They don't want to be reminded of 9/11. I think that has to hurt someone like Guliani, who is so connected to the event.

Romney comes out on top. If there were any other decent prospects from the ranks of governors who were likely to run in 2008, I can't think of any others that would qualify.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

I couldnt disagree with you more regarding your assetion that the public wants to give up in Iraq and go home. I think the opposite is true. The public wants a path to victory, and their frustration was taken out on the GOP because Bush could not, or would not tell them what that path was.

The Dems were smart this time around. They took republican clones (and good candidates) and ran them in red states. We sat back on our laurels and ran crappy candidates in blue states.

But I think these voters know better. Do people really think there is some magic solution to the Iraq problem that it sitting there waiting to be administered by a Democrat controlled congress? I don't think so. There are two options. Fight on or retreat. When people voted for the D candidate, they knew which option they were really voting for. I've never seen as much fatigue on anything as I've seen on Iraq. So many were eager to turn it into Vietnam, and I think they just might succeed on that count. These hideous electoral results serve to confirm this phenomenon.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

However, if we ran moderate candidates in blue states, many posters here would jump up and down and call them RINO's and the Club for Growth would fund some social conservaite in the next primary to defeat them and hand the seat back to the Dems.

To come up with a plan for victory. It doesn't sound like much, but thats what opposition parties do.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

How many polls does it take to convince you that
Roe is noteven close the the top issue on the mind of the electorate?

Yes the problem is the post-war Iraq/Afghan operations.

Yes the problem is entitlement spending.

Yes the problem is unchecked immigration.

Yes the problem is a culture of corruption. Both parties are guilty of this.

I could go on but the bottom line is the party must return its focus to things that matter to people's every day life. Taxes have been addressed to a large part. Can we move beyond being just the party of tax cuts and be one of fiscal restraint, personal responsibility, government accountability and strong defense? Reagan did not win by crusading about abortion or gay marriage - he spoke his peace and everyone knew where he stood but he knew there were other problems which needed to be addressed that were far more important and pressing. Lets return to that approach.

Rant Street! www.rant.st

I'm a little puzzled on your comments about the death tax though. You almost make it sound like we should just do away with wills and the government takes it all, since the beneficiaries didn't earn it. I know I'm overstating it, but where do you draw the line? The person who earned the money paid the taxes on it, so he should be able to do what he wants with it. If he wants to give it Uncle Sam, fine. If he wants to give it to a charity or his church, fine. If he wants to give it to his relatives, fine. You say it's not fair for you to benefit from money you didn't earn without paying some sort of "guilt" penalty, but what the hell, no one who's looking to take it away never earned it either - the person who earned it is dead.

And to make it more complicated, what about people who work all their lives to build some small business out of nothing? Their family no doubt suffered through years of false starts and lean times before reaching any point of success. Now when that person dies, should the family lose the business? Should they lose half of it? Why shouldn't the family who sacrificed in the building of the business get to continue to run it or seel it or whatever they want to do with it without some arbitrary goverment rule saying that they have suddenly have to chop themselves up?

Which is more fair, letting people decide in their wills how to handle their money or having the government take their hard-earned dollars out of their family's hands?

You make a good point that I'm drawing a fuzzy line here. And fuzzy lines seem to be somewhat unprincipled, since their exact placement is to a degree arbitrary.

But the way I think about it is to compare harms. Yes, it is bad for the government to take hard-earned money from a family that earned it. But it is also bad that very rich families have money that is in essence completely un-earned. Just think about the Kennedy's -- without a death tax they can sequester some of their assets into an income-generating account and their descendants could reap the benefits literally forever, since assets grow exponentially faster than inflation.

Neither situation is entirely fair. That is why I strike what I think is a balance between the two -- dilute a family's assets every generation. This allows descendants to retain a proportion of their family's success, but they also have to continue to earn that success.

njson - under our constitution, where is it said that one man can decide how much accumulated wealth another should benefit from? Is it not at our discretion to decide whom we transfer our personal possessions to? Who amongst us has more authority than ourselves what we do with our labors and assets?

Who is king?

This is not a Constitutional issue, but that doesn't mean it isn't properly under the purview of legislation (whether it's more appropriate for the state or federal government to administer is an argument I can't even think about right now it's so late).

The Public Good and the Sanctity of the Individual are both king, and are at odds here as in many cases. Is it written in the Bible that money should have the ability to grow exponentially, ad infinitum? No, and it is not our natural right.

It is our natural right to provide for our family, however, but as I have said, this must be balanced against the unfairness inherent in our economy for families that have gross surpluses.

Fairness of opportunity, not fairness of outcome. I may outperform my neighbor in droves, that does not give said neighbor the right to benefit from my production. Nor does it give me a right to tax thy neighbor for underperformance. No man has a rightful benefit from another's labors, unless the first lends him that benefit. We are supposed to be equal under the law.

is more that these gross surpluses trickle through generations while growing exponentially.

If investment didn't pretty much guarantee exponential growth, then I would agree with you. If I make $100, it's mine, whether I want to give it to my great-great-great-grandkids or not. But when that $100 turns into $2000 by no real effort of mine? That isn't something I feel I have nearly as much of a claim to. Especially when a family has so much money they don't need to sacrifice anything for those benefits.

I try to understand your public good argument, and I think you lean towards a philanthropical ends. Here is where I think we differ... I think gov't lacks good judgement and markets seek the best return on money. Even when charity or public good is concerned, I think private investment adds more to those in need better than gov't programs. Private investment, even in promotion of public good requires a return, whereas gov't seeds and there is no accountability. This is why I think private enterprise could better serve those in true need of a hand up than gov't.

From an economic perspective, dead money has far less velocity than live money, Meaning, heirs are less likely to use the wealth in the same money generating ways. I would however, allow
a generous exemption for family business and farms to remain intact.

This is my one bow of the head to socialism. It seems silly to me to take a firm stand against it on principle when in fact our entire economic system is replete with socialism of all types and not likely to change.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

unless the heirs are going to stick that extra money in their mattress I would have to disagree with you. heirs are probably going to invest that money in other corporations through mutual funds and stocks who will, in turn, use it for money generating pursuits.

Much moreso than the government will.

Even if they just spend it like drunken sailors living a life of idle luxury, they'll still be bolstering the luxury hotel, auto, boat, food, entertainment, etc industries better than the government can.

The person who earned the money paid the taxes on it, so he should be able to do what he wants with it.

Is this: The person in question can't do whatever he wants with his money without paying taxes on it, today. If he gives it to someone, the recipient is taxed. If he hires someone with it, both he and the recipient are taxed. If he spends it on something, he is taxed. Sure, he has this pile of money that he paid income taxes on, but nearly any use he puts it to, other than giving it to charity, will result in taxes having to be paid on it.

I don't see how taxing a $5m inheritance is any less fair than taxing a $5m gift or a $5m job or a $5m purchase or $5m in dividends or capital gains. Nearly every bit of money floating around out there has been taxed over and over again. It gets taxed nearly every time it changes hands. That's just how our system works.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

I am the "heir" to this exact situation. When my father passed in '03 I didn't "inherit" his empire...Because of the Death Tax I had to use the insurance $ and go into deep debt to purchase it and still pay taxes on his estate to the tune of four million. This with the aid of an entire accting firm and five estate lawyers. My family & I ended up with a few condos and a 40' boat.

He paid the Lion's share of taxes his entire life. Why should MORE of it go to the gov't???

Can any Dems, or anyone answer this???

Iraq - What do you do about it? I don't see some easy solution just waiting to be implemented. Do we bail and leave the Iraqis to their own devices, or do we stay? At the end of the day that is what it comes down to. We have to decide. I'm afraid that the majority is leaning towards option #1.

Taxes - I don't get the part about "Comparing that to what we've got now...well, I'm sure you'd rather not have what we have now." Would I be willing to trade the higher taxes of the Clinton years for the lower taxes today? No. I'm not sure why I would be. The Clinton tax hikes (after promising "middle class tax cuts") demonstrate that we don't "make too much of Democrats raising taxes."

Death Tax - I really don't have a problem with it either. There's nothing more unfair about the death tax than there is about the income tax or any other tax. It is hard for the government to confiscate your money under threat of imprisonment while maintaining the impression that they are being fair about it.

Stem Cells - Well, we were never talking about a ban there. We are talking about government funded research. That puts it in an entirely different category. Because we aren't talking about a ban on the research, I don't really have to decide whether I think stem cells are worth protecting. It is enough for me that other people have strong convictions on the issue, and it is not a constitutionally mandated function of government to fund research, there's funding available from private industry, non-profits, foreign governments, and even some states.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

I didn't mean to say that you would prefer higher taxes. I meant to say that you probably don't like the profligate spending and its implications for the long-term viability of further reducing taxes.

I don't like the spending at all, but that has been getting better in recent years, with the worst performance (by far) when we had a Democrat controlled Senate, after Jeffords jumped... so that indicates to me that a Democrat controlled House and Senate are not going to be some boon to the fiscally conservative taxpayer, divided or not.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

I dont like it so why would I, then, approve of a Death Tax? You think that it isnt a constitutional issue but it is. The Constitution allows for the taxation of its citizens to pay for solely the purposes enumerated within it.

since the goverment is full of unconstitutional endeavors, such as the department of (place name here), we already have too much unconstitutional taxation going on to even laughably support a confiscatory tax on the dead that for money and assets that they already paid taxes on.

Here is where you are heading in the wrong direction:

Iraq -- You have fallen for the anti-war hysteria of the left, same as the Lamont supporters here in CT. I'd attribute this to the never-ending "all-negative-all-the-time" reporting from Iraq & the relentless attacks on the President from the power-hungry Dems. The public has been duped in this regard ... for one to state "I believe that the war is simply, irretrievably lost ..." is proof-positive of this observation. To actually believe that a fully functioning gov't w/ security forces can be up & running in ~18 months is simply unrealistic, especially in a place that endured centuries of internal strife & decades of iron-handed dictatorial rule. 50+ years after the Korean War & we still have troops in the south, we still have bases in Japan, Italy & Germany ... 60+ years after WWII -- both of which were convention, troop-vs-troop warfare, unlike this conflict. I'd much rather see us engaging the enemy in this theatre vs. our well armed, well trained military, than on the streets on NYC or even Main Street USA.

Taxes --- Your first mistake is believing that the gov't is in the busness of showing a profit (i.e. a budget surplus) ... make no mistake, a surplus is over-taxation. With 80% of the economy being generated by consumer spending, how one could come to the conclusion that the gov't could stimulate the ecomomy by sitting on our $$$'s in a surplus vs. the power of the people (i.e. the consumer) makes no sense, at all.

Death tax -- While you may come from "means" & face this tax, not everyone is. If this tax reverted back to the pre-2001 law, it is not too difficult to see that family-owned property can quickly eat into the $1M exemption. I'll give you a personal example ... The beautiful home my father, a carpenter, built with his own 2-hands in the late 60s for ~20k is now worth well over $400k ... likewise, his forward-looking retirement investment was to build 5,000 sq/ft of commercial property for rental income. This property is worth over $500k, FMV. If my folks live another 20 years, into their 80s, these 2 properties will easily reach over the $1M cap ... this scenario can play out many different ways with people of "lesser means". It is very Un-American to penalize those who feel a sense of accomplishment by providing the next generation with some tangible assets from a life time of hard work.

Stem Cell Research -- I think you are a bit misguided in one respect ... the debate is on gov't funding to manufacture and\or harvest embryo's for research purposes. Ask yourself this question: Do you want embryo factories? I believe most people do not want to see one come to a research-triangle near them. The thought is like a really bad King or Asimov novel.

Finally, like like many guilt-ridden people "of means" ... your statement: "It's just not fair that I'm making so much income for ZERO contribution to society." is so telling. If you really think about this statement ... you would see 2 very different paths to subside your guilt. The first, of course, is to mindlessly give your $$$s to the gov't for redistribution ... but the other ... more Republican solution .. would be to take some personal responsibility & CHOOSE a charity that you can donate your guilt to ... hey, why not walk up to a person of less means & write them a nice-big check instead.

See, your outlook of making "ZERO contribution to society" is of your own doing, not of the generation before you ... just you. If you were so motivated, you could eliminate this self-prescribed guilt all by yourself.

Oh, it all looks and sounds reasonable, but only if you don't dig deeper.

Iraq - Wars are never unwinnable. They are either won or lost. They are either won or lost when the other side loses the will to fight. You do that by killing as many of the enemy as possible, as quickly as possible, and with ruthless efficiency that breaks the will of your opponent to continue to fight. We haven't fought that way. Our political leaders ordered our troops to back off every time we were on the verge of doing that. When we leave Iraq (sorry Moe, I wish I could say if, but the Dems won) the terrorist will return, and having once again kicked our *** they won't hide the fact that they are using Iraq as their Al Queda training ground like they did when Sadam ran the country, they will flaunt it openly. Then, they will strike here, probably in lots of major cities across the country at the same time. This is what your "victory" has brought our country. I say this because even though the President is the commander in chief, the House has to fund the war. They undercut simple covert support to Nicaragua when the confirmed communists there were intent on exporting totaliterianism all over South America. Given that history, they won't have any qualms about cutting overt aid in the Middle East.

Taxes: As has probably already been posted, the so-called Clinton surpluses came about AFTER Newt Gringrich lead the revolution that took the House. This one thing more than any other probably undercut Republican turnout this election cycle. If you can't trust a Republican to cut spending, nobody is going to. And that means taxes are going up. Which in turn means the economy will slow, or slump. Either way, thay means taxes will need to go up because there will be even more "need" for "help" from the government. And we once again will spin into the cycle of malaise from the Carter years that too many have forgotten.

Stem cell research: You should probably start by reading the following editorial at the Washington Times, http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20061107-082914-1508r.htm
I'll wait while you go read and digest it.

...

Okay, got it? There isn't "stem cell research," there are multiple kinds of it. I'm all for adult stem cell research, and all for placental cell research. I think the embryo is a human being and that any time you make a human being an means to an end, you devalue all human life. So for me, embryonic stem cell research is right on par with Mengele and his research on the Jews and all the other "undesirables". JMS had an a good episode of B5 that I always think of when this debate comes up. There was a Dilgar war criminal who devised a serum that would restore youth and vigor to whoever took it. It worked, and the doctor on the station scientifically proved it. The catch, making it would requiring killing tens or hundreds of people for each dose. In the episode the Vorlons eventually kill the war criminal, but here in the real world, there are no Vorlons to save us from our folly.

taxes: This is probably where I believe you least of all.

First, the government doesn't need to take any money from inheritance to dilute it. If you're a typical family, you dilute it within a couple of generations. If you've got two kids, the minimum necessary for population replacement, the initial inheritance is halved on first pass. Then that family uses some of it to pay for things, be it a house, pay off debt, or send their kids to college. So it gets harder to get back up to the original amount that was divided, which is necessary to prevent further dilution.

Second, I don't think it doesn't make a contribution to society. Whether that money is helping someone buy a house, a boat, a business, or a vacation, the money does contribute to the well being of someone somewhere in society. Disregarding that good is typical of the arrogance of most of the libs I've encountered who are sure they know what it best not only for me, but for all of society. If you don't like those options, give it to the church, the peace corp, or the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation. It's your money, do what you want with it. Just don't tell me what to do with mine, even through mob vote.

http://gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan

This is why I am constantly surprised why so many conservatives who claim to uphold these values consistently side with people who /want/ censorship, government intrusion, police states, etc. Namely, many people on the christian right, and many of the cryptofascists currently in government.

Hun...

Right now it is the Democrats who are practicing the principles you mentioned.

They want to burn Fox News to the ground because it doesn't spew forth the Democratic line. Same for talk radio and blogs. On the rest of the MSM they intentionally bury/spin anything and everything that may be a problem for the Democrats. They only report on things that are to the advantage of the Democrats and leave out important facts. You never see a Republican given a fair chance on CNN or MSNBC. And just wait, you will see the Democrats try to censor them by trying to place regulations on non liberal Democrat radio/TV/internet that the liberal Democrat sources do not have to adhere to. To me that is censorship straight out of the NSDAP handbook.

You seem to hate "government intrusion" into a persons privacy yet are quite happy to encourage it when it will benefit your side. OMG! We can't listen in on phone calls by suspected terrorists but it is just fine and dandy to pass around video/phone call records/emails and IM records like a bottle of cheap wine when it suits your purposes. Rather hypocritical don't you think?

You talk of "police states". Where in this country might those be exactly? One thing I can tell you is that if you have a "W" sticker on your car in San Francisco you will find your car trashed by some nice upstanding liberals. If they actually see you getting into that car you stand a good chance of getting beaten up. I know that one for a fact after a visit to San Francisco for a convention-don't worry, I will never set foot in that city again. In places like those you have a police state of the mind where anyone who doesn't follow the Liberal Democratic line is subject to hatred and violence. Rather fascist behaviour, isn't it?

Sorry hun but your whole post is just more of the same out of your side of the fence. You do not see your hypocrisy.

First of all, yes there is a lot of spin on BOTH sides -- this is what has happened in the divisive political war here at home. People's self interests [civil liberties, security, etc.] have been pitted against each other because leaders on both sides have more to gain by seeing us fight and align with them. We ALL have to work to defuse our own respective spins and misinformation.

Second, I sincerely and dearly believe in freedom of expression as a fundamental American value. If censorship of right wing media channels were to ever happen, I will personally fight against it - just like I would hope you, as an American, would do for me. Yes, there are a some real "moonbats" in the left and power hungry corrupt bastards in the democractic party that wouldn't, but they are NOT in the majority by any stretch, which is why it is important to keep check on all crazies.

I mean I know there are a lot of contentious points that I am trying to skirt around because I dont want this to devolve into an off-topic flame war, but it still gets back to: we both have COMMON VALUES. And we are both Americans. I've gone out of my way to try and understand the variety of points coming from the right wing -- I read your blogs and your magazines. And what I am trying to say is that if we keep creating bogeymen out of each other, we aren't going to get anywhere.

Finally, America at large is no danger of *ever* being like SF or NYC. You'd sooner see a mass conversion to islam in salt lake city. But this gets back to another issue where both conservatives and libs can find common ground on: STATES RIGHTS.

Four of his kids are lobbyists according to what I heard today, so I'm sure he'd be interested in something that limits them.

It's kind of like how the Dems supported CFR and we see how it's limited the influence of big money from people like George Soros, Steven Bing, Peter Lewis, etc.

I am not swallowing that one-I might if the first thing she does, when they take official control in Jan is ask Jefferson to resign, but I won't be holding my breath.

Pelosi is apparently debating dumping Jane Harman for head of Intelligence and bowing to CBC pressure and installing Alcee Hastings. That would be the same Hastings who was so corrupt that a Democratic Senate impeached him when he was a federal judge.

And if John Murtha backs off Sotny Heyer, he'll get his pick of committees to head - Armed Services maybe? Appropriations? This is the same Murtha who was caught up in the Abscam scandal.

And of course Mollohan was re-elected in West Virginia as was Jefferson in Louisiana. It's amazing that the Dems apparently got great traction from this Culture of Corruption idea. That's an even greater manipulation of spin than they pulled over stem cell research. When Republicans get busted they get ousted in disgrace; when Democrats get busted they get re-elected and advance up the chain.

Now I'm really depressed :(

First point, its easy to keep a party together when its the opposition party, Just watch what happens to the Dems now.

Second, if you have no principles then what happens? You are rejected by the voters, happens EVERY TIME to conservatives.
Stick to your principles and you can win in most parts of America, stray from those principles and you lose.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle