Redstate

The whole time I've been here, I've been hearing how the Democrats are masters of "spin."

However, for the last several months, as we begin to realize that November is likely to be very painful for the GOP (even if it Doesn't cost them the majrity), efforts at spin by Republicans have been coming more regularly and been more and more transparent.  Like this thread.

Stop trying to spin and start trying to get everyone working on a solution to the reported apathy and the betrayal of Conservatives by the GOP.

We know the Democrats are controlled by their extremists, but who controls the Republicans?  It certainly isn't the Base, but who IS it?

bought into the Harry Hopkins formula,"tax tax, spend spend, elect elect".  It's the easy way,easy to appropriate the money and they think, easy to sell to the public.  But they  can't match the dems at their own game and the war remains the central and defining issue.  Nice of Reid to inform us we'll know in another seven months where the dems stand, the war has only been going on since 9/11/01 so why rush.  On domestic issues watch out, Don Young may yet see his hope for bridges, to nowhere or anywhere, fade in the ignominy of minority staus.

The GOP as its true self: Reckless spenders, owned by the Abrahamofs, care little about the issues that matter to people, at times arrogant and out of touch with the people who put them in power.  It is my humble opinion that with the exception of Roberts and Alito, Bush's second term is turning into a disaster.

...in today's LA Times that nicely summarizes the Democratic excuse for their black hole of ideas - they're complex intellectuals with various points of view.  The Republicans, on the other hand, are in "lock-step" because they're simple-minded followers.  

Amazingly, I think most liberals actually believe that they are a party of intellect, diversity and ideas.  If so, they're intoxicated by delusion.  

I'm not sure Senator Lieberman would subscribe to this Democratic diversity of ideas excuse.  There does seem to be vital debate amongst Republicans over everything from strategies for WINNING the war on terror to immigration and social spending. The only "lock-step" in Washington is the reflexive adherence to Bush-bashing spearheaded by that renowned intellectual, Harry Reid. Four and a half years after 9/11, perhaps it's time for all those liberal intellectuals to come up with a bit more compelling excuse.

No, I'm being completely serious.  The entire GOP 2006 strategy is designed to keep voters like myself in orbit, while trusting that the base can tell the difference between bad and worse - particularly when they have the example of the Democratic base as regards to what happens when you don't.

So... this cycle will see no change in our military/national security policy; the further appointment of non-activist judges; further extensions of free trade and globalization; the ongoing drive to bring more minorities into the middle classes (via equality of opportunity measures) and an expansion of domestic nuclear capacity.  However, fiscal restraint will be given somewhere between an empty gesture and a jury-rig, there will be no viable federal marriage amendment offered and porn will remain freely available to anybody over the age of 18.  The social conservatives will be expected to make do with merely having a legitimate shot at getting Roe vs. Wade taken down or hacked back.

Where this system breaks down is in space privatization, true campaign finance reform (and if we weren't at war) a balanced budget.

Since you asked.  :)

Sen. Harry Reid told reporters last week that it might be true that American voters don't know where Democrats stand, but that they will know by November.

The question is: Do the Dimocrats know where they stand?  

Yes, they do.  But they are not saying.  Why is that?

Go back twenty years, and recall the 1984 election between Reagan and Mondale.  Reagan had just introduced tax cuts and tax reform, which triggered the most productive and profitable period in American history.  Mondale promised to raise taxes if he were to be elected president; he lost 525-13 in the Electoral College and took just barely 40% of the popular vote.

Raising taxes is the one constant in Dim politics, but they know enough not to say it out loud.  Clinton said nothing about raising taxes in 1992, but in 1993, Clinton's first year in office, Clinton and the Dimocratic majorities in Congress passed one of the largest tax increases in history.  

The political response was instantaneous: Republican majorities were elected in both the House and Senate for the first time in decades.

The economic impact was slower.  High taxes deprive the economy of capital for investment and growth, and the effect is cumulative.  Meanwhile, the markets were running wild.  The combination of lack of investment and the speculative Bubba Bubble resulted in the crash of the NASDAQ in Clinton's last year in office, and the DOW also peaked and started to decline in the last months of Clinton's term.  

So, it is Dimocratic Party policy to raise your taxes and adversely affect your economy, but they will never say that.

Similarly, defending freedom and the United States is against Dimocratic Party policy.  But every time they say that, they lose elections.  So the Dims talk in code about police actions, which is the way Clinton treated Somalia, the Embassies, and Osama bin Laden when they had him in the Predator's sights.

The Dimocrats will not tell you that they want all education under the control of the leftists in the NEA, but why else would they restrict access to Charter Schools and private vouchers?  State controlled schooling invariably create terrible results for the education process, but excellent results for the education bureaucracy.

The Dims can't just tell us what their platform is, because then they would end up like Mondale and the congressional Dims in 1993.  They have to contrive a plausible argument for the elections, to be followed by their real agenda if they succeed in 2006 and 2008.

Dems are [over]educated, cultured, nuanced, and genetically engineered to lead.

Repubs[Repugs, Rethugs and other variants in their lexicon] are genetically inferior, intellectually and culturally deprived, and generally not to be trusted with a ballot.

Lib arrogance astonishes me too. But it helps them lose elections, so I don't mind as much as I would if it didn't. :^D  

Is the issue that is destroying Republican credibility.  It is the #1 issue that has somewhat soured both myself, and other conservatives I know, on Bush's time in the White House.  I came out of the 2000 elections with high hopes that 1/3-1/2 our debt could be re-paid by 2008.  Obviously that hasn't happened.

We are lucky that the Dems are spineless and have no agenda of their own.

However, the Republicans need to return to fiscal sanity and balanced budgets in order to win back conservative voters.  On the strength of that agenda, we can pick up a lot of independents and former Perot voters and reassert our credibity on this issue.  We are dangerously close to allowing the Dems to steal the mantra of the more fiscally responsible party.  Obviously that is a load of bull, but if we don't do something to assert our spending restraint, they will start to convince some in the country that they are better at managing money then we are.

with the 'message' lies not in Washington, DC.

"Conservatives simply have not made it absolutely and abundantly clear what we expect from our elected officials in return for our continued support, and more importantly our vote."

I came out of the 2000 elections with high hopes that 1/3-1/2 our debt could be re-paid by 2008.

This is surely a misstatement, I hope.  It would not be wise, desirable, or possible to lower the debt that much in such a short period.  

As I pointed out above, the USA economy was doomed to a recession by Clinton's misfeasance, malfeasance, and nonfeasance.  

How do you get out of a recession?  The economy has to grow.  

How do you make the economy grow?  It requires capital investment.

Where does the money come from?  It comes from tax cuts, and if possible, from keeping interest rates low.

This formula has worked superbly for JFK, for Reagan, and now for Bush 43.  The Dimocrats do not want to hear this stuff, because it violates their pathological need to control your money through higher taxes.  This in spite of the fact that the principle was newly discovered and first applied by JFK.  

But, but, but, but, what about the deficit?  What about it?

The USA deficit at the end of WWII was well over 100% of GDP.  The poor people were starving in order to pay for the war that was already over.  No, wait, that did not actually happen.  What happened was that the deficit spending during the war (including a healthy dose of R&D) stimulated investment, which resulted in jobs, income, demand, and tax receipts.  Not unlike what JFK, Reagan, and Bush 43 did without all the mess of WWII.

We knew we were going to increase the deficit when we lowered taxes in Bush's first term.  That was the proper thing to do at that point in the economic cycle.  That was the ONLY thing to do without generating more economic misery.  Then we had a couple of unfortunate incidents, like 09/11 and the GWoT.  None of which affects the correctness of the decision to lower taxes, but it does slow down the recovery.

If the USA economy remains strong, it will pay for the piffling war on terror, and many other things.  If the Dimocrats get back in power and raise taxes, the USA economic engine will be seriously degraded, like during the Carter Catastrophe, and Lord help us all.

For a look at recent OMB deficit projections:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budgetcharts/2007_budget/deficit.pdf

The very fact that we are fearful of a loss to a party run by these weak demagogues is a testament to the Republicans failure in power. There is no argument we can posit to excuse their behavior. They are the majority party. They are supposed to represent the conservative ideals that have been proven, time and time again, to be superior to the liberal ideology. As I've pointed out before, we need a written document that outlines the Republican agenda. As it is now, a vote for a Republican or Democrat is a vote for a politician. But, a vote for a contract is a vote for an inviolable set of actions. My only question to the Republican Party: Where is our contract?