Redstate

As Augustine does on this, here are some links.  In fact, I think it's worth supporting them anyway, even if you're hedging your bets on Spelling:

http://www.home-school.com/

http://www.homeschool.com/

http://www.hslda.org/

Karl Rove proved that the big tent is turning out our base and slowly realigning Catholic, Jewish, and minority Christians to our side.  It is not watering down our beliefs to make the MSM or the simply greedy feel 'comfortable.'

is that if you believe in anything you can't have a big tent.

As I've said before, you guys are the ones cruising toward political civil war, not us.  Start with pro-choice Republicans and single mothers.  Please.

Political civil war, that is: the social conservatives will gripe about the choice, the digital libertarians will gripe that there's still an Education Dept, period and us evil, evil RINOs will relax at the sign that President Bush is keeping all the spinning plates balanced - but the Horrible Example of the Democratic Party will keep us all playing nice for a while longer.

You must have access to that same data Sen. Specter uses about the party being "50% pro-choice."

Yup.  Those were the values those voters cared about.  Mmm-hmm.

Why even HAVE a tent?

The "Big Tent" does not require that all Republicans like everybody in the party.  We can criticize people as not the right choice for a given position.  In this case, I disagree with those who would attack Spellings for being pro-choice or other such things.  What IS of concern is whether she is the right choice to advance the agenda in the education field, and that means fighting for stricter standards, expandsion of standards to high schools, vouchers, taking on the teachers union.

I'm not convinced that Spellings is the right choice for this job.  I want to have her views in the party, and I want to have discussions with all members about how to achieve goals.  That's probably a lot of what Spellings did as an "adviser" - but it's not what being Secretary is all about.  The Cabinet requires that you speak your mind when it is asked, but to lobby for the President's decision once it has been made.  I'm not convinced that Spellings will go to the mat when she disagrees with what Bush wants to accomplish.

And that's why criticizing the choice does not equal purging the party.

I think you now have to face the facts that you have voted for a new kind of conservative (the Bush's really have always invented thier own kinds of conservative... often with liberal influences).

Conservative now means loyal.  And on this Spellings appears to be a Very Conservative appointment.

Have fun getting what you want but remember if you don't, it wasn't Democrats and Liberal, nor communists, obstructing you this time.

All that Civil War rhetoric us red staters toss about is contributing to a perception that the country is evenly and cleanly divided into ...

Wait a second. The only time I hear that nonsense about a second civil war from a conservative is when it's being debunked by same. Those all-inclusive, high-minded progressives seem to be the ones insisting that those backwards, intolerant and divisive conservatives should be wary of a civil war ...

Despite your protestations to the contrary, it isn't Republicans, red-staters, conservatives or religious righters calling for half the country to secede if they don't get their way. I imagine we'd be happy to keep the lot of you, and more so if your party and its most visible members could learn the difference between whining and criticism. But if you and yours would rather carp about the sorry state of affairs you perceive in America than attempt to do something about it, I'm sure you don't need anyone else to show you the door and I hope you won't be hurt if we don't weep for you when you're gone.

And I think she should be given the chance.  It's going to take every iota of skill and diplomatic sense and integrity she has, and of course all of us know we're going to keep some part of the Aegis on her in the next couple of years, but we also shouldn't forget that there are (a minority) of conservatives in public education who will welcome her support and need her help.  

We'll see how that plays out, because I think that's going to be the major democratic strategy in the next few years.  Look!  It's right there on Democratic Underground!  Ever heard the words "rearguard action" before?  I bet that you did.

I think it should be pretty clear to all now that the guiding principle behind this round of appointments is neither ideology nor competence but a pre-existing personal relationship with the President.  It's true of Gonzales, it's true of Rice, and it's true of Spellings.  

Remember what Bush said in the debate, when asked what mistakes he had made?  He said that some of his appointments had been mistakes.  I believe that Bush meant that certain appointees weren't team players-- they weren't sufficiently loyal to the administration. Bush is correcting that "mistake" this time.  

Of course to some extent this is true of every President.  Look who was the AG under Kennedy.   But I think Bush takes a bit further than most.

I could more easily stomach a liberal energy appointee. Putting a liberal in charge of education is like leaving the fox in charge of the hen house. I imagine we will see more sex education curriculum focusing on contraceptives and abortions, and little to no mention of abstinance. We will probably see more books like "Heather Has Two Mommies" and "Daddy's Roommate" shoved down our children's throats.

If you want to see the liberal vision of tomorrow become reality, put them in charge of shaping our children's minds for 8-10 hours a day, five days a week.

The MSM and the non-MSM and the fringe wannabe MSM have been harping on this trope for everything they can think of over the past four years.  It's one of the Top Ten Editorial Commandments of the New York Times, for pete's sake.  They're not about to give it up now when it's one of their central tenets.

I direct you to the following photograph:

http://home.comcast.net/~dbrockstars/images/Seenoevil_large.jpg

I really should duck after posting this - but Id rather that the master of compromise do so with the Education Secretary than the Pentagon, considering what we have going on globally right now.

Remember back during the runup to the 2000 election, when the press was amazed that the Republican Governor from Texas was known by his peers as a master of compromise?  A master of building a consensus?

Well - there is no way to make a consensus in this fine nation right now - but he still seems to be sticking to his guns about compromising.  It may not be pretty - but it does set an example which will (im sure) be ignored by all his detractors both right and left.

Now if only we could find something that he could compromise on that didnt piss us off so much....(achem - there is no such thing folks)

You're right that this "trope" has been run into the ground by now.  Doesn't make it any less true, though.  

Two good arguements. I think it's almost right down the line of good thinking Bush has shown in the past.

I know I am gonna get it for this but here it is.

She has virutally no power and would most likely fall inline with what Bush wants with a posible few exception, nothing I think she could get any kind of support for, she doesn't really have a base of support (voter wise). However, if I remember correctly, woman prefered Bush almost 2 to 1 when it came to values and family. Strangly, he trailed with the very same woman when asked about education as many of those indeed had somwhat liberal views about education. Her appointment solidifies this shifty base for him without really risking anything, not at all a dumb move.

in re: putting a liberal in charge of energy....

The depatment of energy - in time of war and otherwise, but especially in time of war - needs to not be a compromise - its way too important.

For example - did you know that a large number of computing labs, nuclear labs, and for that matter most of the national labs that house our most destructive military secrets are actually run by this department?

Many lunatics consider the DOE to be a bigger source of social coersion than the Pentagon its self - when infact they work hand in hand to deliver not only nuclear technologies to the battlefield, but also explosives, guidence systems, etc etc.

Consider the DOE - for better or for worse - one of the breadbaskets of our rapidly advancing lethality.

Yes - I agree that he shouldnt have gone this far - but well have to see if she steps out of line wont we.  I for one would rather the die be cast in the education department than anything that could effect our ability to wage war, strike back at aggressors, and defend ourselves.

(/ducks again)

But I'm going to Little Green Footballs right now to find out what Republicans really think....

I started warning against the danger of civil war after a conservative relative assured me one was coming... and that it would solve a lot of problems!

No more anecdotal than your position.

Let's just agree we don't want a civil war, our commonalities, whatever appearances, still far outweigh our differences.

But education is definitely not where I would place a committed liberal (except in such case that the liberal is a puppet with no independent authority).

if you are correct, and I think you are, the people getting marginalized are those who appear to have been the most autonomous and powerful.

Could Bush be preparing a coup against Cheney!?!  I am (half) joking.

... that you are willing to incorrectly apply the term trope?

trope   n.

   1. A figure of speech using words in nonliteral ways, such as a metaphor.

   2. A word or phrase interpolated as an embellishment in the sung parts of certain medieval liturgies.

please, give in to the dark side and just say what you meme.

Since the liberal media won't show the pictures of what is going on in Iraq I thought people here might want to see. Iraq Photos

Re; my comments just above. And then let me have it I suppose, lol.

See the exception I listed in parenthesis. If that is the case, sure. But unless Bush is going to be looking over her shoulder constantly, I am not comfortable with the appointment.

That was funny!

I meant the picture was funny, not the comments.  My apologies.

Republicanism = coherence of the traditional family. Try again.

Low divorce is not an indication of traditional family values. It is a nice statistic, but taken alone it doesn't say anything conclusive about moral values. For example is it more moral if the low divorce rate is due to more people living together out of wedlock? Or is it more moral if there is more try-before-you-buy going on?

I'd take someone who is twice divorced over someone who is five times shacked-up, and slept with twenty+ people and still not married or divorced. But that is just me....

It really is an undefinable term. Very loose, with thousands upon hundreds of thousands of interpretations. I believe a family value that allows "hertitage", a feeling of where you came from, who you are tied to, of those who would support you, is family values to me. Divorse digs heavily into this value for me, but I like Seth do not see divorse as an indicator of anything other than maybe people didn't realize the consequnces and responsiblities of marriage, are not to well acquainted with the long haul thing for the sake of children and that connection of family that I beleive is so important is many times not seen at all.

There are a thousand thoeries, but recent studies that I have read, both for and against indicate that Divorse is devastating to children, even in the best of circumstances, because they lose that sence of connection and family. Here is where I get into trouble. Woman seem to advocate this multiple family scenerio more than men. I believe, for better or for worse that many woman in fact have caused many problems with this "family" tradition, this family "connection" if you will, because mostly of uninformed ideas about what actually happens to children and a great socialization process that puts thier needs above even there own children. (i.e. "the girls and I wanted some new lipstick") kind of socialization. Glamour and Cosmo kinda stuff that is not really mainstream America.

The only answer I would have is to make marriage a much more difficult situation to obtain a marriage license and an educating experience for those who seek it. New contracts that allow for much more consideration of the child, including not favoring woman in courts, but also allow men to have an equal chance at gaining control over their children if divorse occures. Those conditions for the sake of the children are made before any marriage is obtained in state contract.

Dubya, I think you have some valid points here.  Much has been said about the low divorce rates in the NE USA.  Reasons for this have also been given.

I think the attention paid to the Christian denominations is worthwhile.  Catholics and most liturgical based protestant religions require prenuptial classes before being allowed to marry in the church.  Some of these classes take months to complete.  Preists/pastors simply will not allow a couple to be married in the church without them.  I think these are a worthwhile endevour for young couples.

From my experience, limited as it is, many protestant/evangelical denominations that are predominant in the South, especially, do not focus on premarital counseling the way they should.  It is an area they could definitely improve.

Serman said "war is hell".  He then proved it by burning down everything in hius path in a blody march to the sea.  Things have not changed much since then.  

As far as education is concerned have you asked a teacher what they think of the no child left behind act?  Many of them say that out of nessisity they must teach to those that are lagging in yhe class lowering standards rather than raising them.  Looks good on paper in pratice it dosn't work.  

Two words can fix that problem-

SCHOOL VOUCHERS

Overall I think that's a fair assesment. I don't think there's anything wrong with appointments based on personal relationships. He's not rewarding slavish loyalty, just recognizing good people with whom he has strong working relationships.

5-10% of your party is really all I need, thanks. There is a limit to how far you guys can push the "moral" agenda before people start peeling off.  Carry on.

But hey, I'd be stuck well behind enemy lines if it happened.  And you'll show me no door.  I can wait for the political wheel to turn, as it always does.

As long as you guys keep pushing the immoral agenda and keep moving left so that people like Michael Moore, Babs, and Jane Fonda now find themselves at the center of your party, 10-15% will keep peeling away from your party to the Republicans. What you fail to see is that you guys have already experienced the limit of how far you can push the immoral agenda and yet you still haven't reacted--you just keep pushing your hand farther into the fire. Keep doing it, because you simply increase the tolerance factor for the counter movement.

What you fail to see is that the political wheel only turns when it actually does turn. One party running itself so far left that middle America sees that Democrats have more in common with the communist party than it does democracy, isn't creating the backdraft that would normally occur. Running itself so far left that you guys complain about the right-wing media when everyone else in the country recognizes we have a problem with the liberal MSM, isn't going to create the counterspin you want it to.

This isn't the first time a major political party died, and it probably won't be the last. But hey, its your party, so I'll encourage you to just keep waiting and standing by while your party continues to get hijacked by the fringe elements and driven into irrelevance.

but we dont have to agree to disagree....

anyway - I agree with you - it sucks that he choose Education.

I stand my my commitment to keep the outward facing face of the Administration and the Nation in line with a hard line, anti terrorism, action oriented stance.

If that means we have to let our house get a bit messy along the way, then so be it.

Id rather hit evil (as opposed to discussing it incessantly) and have the paint peel, the carpet rot, and the tomatoes go bad, then discuss evil while having an immaculate dinner in a pristine dining room clear of a pet stained carpet.

That doesnt mean im comfortable with the risks or for that matter the smell - or for that matter that I believe for a second that this was some sort of planned compromise that will get some concessions out of the lefties in congress (or anywhere else).

Maybe it was though?  Who knows.  As I said - he used to be known as a grand master of political compromise - and that label wasnt just talk.

Seth, if you think this party ran left in the election you couldn't have been paying attention (which I know you were, and I've been as guilty of hyperbole as you are here).

48% and 70,000 shy in Ohio does not place the Democratic party on death's door, no matter how much you might wish.

Yes there was the talking tough on terror that went on...the first tough talk from Dems since the real JFK. However, we all know that was just talk to get votes. If you look at the primaries, it was pretty much all anti-war, bring the troops home. Even Kerry fell in line. After the primaries, you got the makeover--a little lipstick for middle America (but you forgot to lock the party loons away in the basement so we couldn't see them...another critical error). If you had nominated someone like Lieberman, it would have been believable. But you didn't. You nominated the male version of Hanoi Jane. If Kerry had apologized for his involvement with the VVAW and other things, it, again, might have been believable. If he had said he was a different man from back then, that he had matured, grown up, and grown wiser since then, it might have been more believable. But he didn't. In fact, as you know, he basically said he has always been the same person (and coming from the same party that lobbed the "he can't admit mistakes" grenades...sheesh). And on social issues, he was as left as it gets (with the exception of the lip service toward traditional marriage though he voted against every protection of traditional marriage in the Senate).

So if that is what you meant by "not running left," I'll leave you to your delusions. However, I was more talking about larger trends. There was a time when communists were not welcome in either party. Now they are a part of the Dem base. Now the same communist class warfare rhetoric has been adopted by the Dem leaders (albeit with a little more makeup than Marx put on it). At one point Michael Moore wasn't comfortable in the Dem party, nor was he wanted by the party. Now he is comfortable with the Dem party, and they are so happy with him that he gets the honored seat at their convention. The long standing trend has been more and more left. If the motivators within your party get their way, it appears the reaction to 2004 will be to more farther to the left (while learning to "speak values").

Regarding the death of your party, it certainly hasn't occurred yet. But each election, you are pushed farther and farther from power. Unexplicably, you lose midterms, and during an unpopular war, you still cannot make inroads or win the presidency! Basically, if the party had any sense, they would have taken what was offered on a silver platter. Instead, you nominated Hanoi Jane thinking he was more "electable" than the other candidates. Only a party so completely out of kilter would have thought that a MA liberal, who was not only a MA liberal, but a MA liberal and Hanoi Jane rolled into one, would have even had the remote inkling that such a person was electable. Lost 7 out of 10 of the last Presidential races, lost the Senate keeps losing more, lost the House keeps losing more, lost state governorships keeps losing more, keeps losing representation at the state government levels, etc.  Yeah, you are a stones throw away from complete domination. Please by all means, keep thinking that because as long as you guys stay in denial, those trends won't reverse. If you did something about it now, the trend might reverse. But if you don't, I'll start warming up the fat lady for you.

The point bears repeating.  The Center-Right coalition will always be bigger than the Left alone.  If you think the Centrists are actually leaving the party, I'd like to see you make an argument for it - for it requires you to maintain that Andrew Sullivan comprises the Center.  60.8 million votes say otherwise.

Let me be clear: I am not for pushing Margaret Spellings or Arlen Specter out of the party.  I am against putting them in positions of leadership in areas where they disagree with the majority of the party.  That's different, and you know it.

But losing by 3.5 MILLION isn't exactly a good thing for party building.

what is our proposed seced's position on vouchers?

What is her position on home schooling?

No doubt, beginning with the 92 takeover a clear trend can be seen. Whether or not either side really has an advantage I am very hesitant to speculate. If it were a football game the Republican's definitely have the mo'.

People like Barack Obama, somewhat of a "Michael Jordan" of politics right now could show some interesting and unexpected leadership. But much like Michael in the first few years, he's is on a subpar team. However, this is the type of man that in the future could certainly get support from all sorts of deferring social legions, taking huge chuncks of votes from many places. When (and it has) this happens even the strongest lines of support can waiver to someone who is perceived as a truly great leader. Politics is indeed fluid, morphing constantly, but right now the Republican's have the only "constant".

not sure where you are getting the 70,000-shy figure from. I still see about a 135,000 differential. Is your source anecdotal, conspiracy theory sources, or the wistful thinking that "if only 70,000 people changed their minds..." (which is almost as productive as speculating, "What if we nominated someone with a remote chance of winning...")?

It may be more convenient to your ideology to assume I wish the Democratic party to die, and thus you can dismiss my perspective out of pocket. I actually do not. A healthy, viable Democratic party reflective of parts of middle America is to everyone's benefit. It isn't helpful to the US when Michael Moore and co. set the party on a course for the sun and lock the controls. It isn't helpful to the US when communists find themselves [mostly] ideologically compatible with one of the major political parties.

If today's Dem party was the Dem party from 3-4 decades ago, we'd be talking about the Republicans driving themselves into obscurity right now.

If the Dem party does die or moves into obscurity, it is only because the moderates in your party have allowed the vocal and rich extremists to wrest control away from you, and that is not good for the country, nor is it good for the Republicans (as a whole). If the Dem party does die, it will create a power vacuum which means political instability. If you are a revolutionary, that would be a great thing because it means opportunity. If you are someone like me, who wants stability and predictability, that is a bad thing. So no, I am hoping you guys get your act together. I am not hoping to see you plunge into the sun in a blaze of glory.

I don't usually subscribe to conspiracy theories.  But I do think minds can change.

--but then I realized your were joking! LOL!

In any case, I think TV has just as much influence on children as school, and you KNOW what kind of liberals run the entertainment industry.