Free Republic

2DV, Thanks for posting this. For a while on 11/8, I thought I was on the outside looking in.

I hope you won't mind if I place a link to your blog on mine. Apparently we're of a mind on the failure of the party to maintain it's momentum.

"...Familiarity, as they say, breeds contempt or at least diminishes our sense of awe and wonder. We quickly forget the anguish of denial and become complacent and comfortable with our gains.

So it has been with the Republicans--and with us. In 1994, after being consigned to the minority for 40 years, they figured out the recipe with the Contract with America and the Gingrich Revolution....

Fast forward 12 short years. Republicans who campaigned on balanced budgets and term limits are now lying sideways in the public trough. With control of two branches of government and increased leverage in the third, the great life has become too easy. The revolution has stalled."

(excerpt) read more at http://discerniblyturgid.blogspot.com/

cj

Because they are stupid.

That's maybe a little harsh. I would suggest that Intellectuals prefer and anticipate defeat for 2 reasons:

1. Intellectuals don't usually get to take credit for winning. Victory is usually a blue collar/green collar achievement.

2. Intellectuals don't usually have much purpose after a victory. There's no call for deep analysis about why you won. Intellectuals only have a sense of purpose if they can supply multiple, often contradictory, explanations for why we lost.

cj

Fox is the only centrist major news outlet out there. If they go left, that's it.

Nah... It may take some time, but Fox's recipe was to be the only news outlet of the 4 cables and 3 networks to cater to the 30-40% of the country that was commitedly conservative. The other 6 guys split the remaining 65% however they wanted.

If Fox slides to the left, then someone else will step up to recapture that enormous slice of the pie.

cj

"You can't fool me, that's her uterus in the picture.

Ummm... Eewww?

The thing about Shehan is that she may have really pulled it off. On a national level, she and the press have convinced everyone that this is a referendum on Bush and the War--an astonishing feat considering Bush isn't running now or ever.

What this should have been a referendum on is Pelosi, Kennedy and Schumer. It seems quite simple. A vote for McCaskill doesn't buy Missouri anything except replacing a senior congressman who's won them federal concessions with a junior democrat who won't be on a serious committee for a decade. What it really is is a vote for Nancy Pelosi to drive the legislative agenda for the next 2 years.

If you really examine Pelosi, Kennedy and Schumer in states like Ohio, Missouri and Indiana, you scare the crap out of the nice folks in flyover country. If the Republicans lose control, it's because they're not creative enough or lack the spine to confront voters with the facts. Apparently, there's a pretty good economy out there and folks on both coasts want to take it away from you.

cj

Of course I'll vote, but I won't support a Republican who's lied to his base in order to open the borders, pander to an illegal constituency that has fully invaded Texas, Arizona, New Mexico and California (and will never vote majority Republican).

In a nonpresidential election, I can't see the benefit in perpetuating liberal policies advocated by Republicrats. I gave these people money, I looked the other way when the White House advocated more open borders, Franchised our national security and prosperity to our "partners" in Canada and Mexico and rammed through the largest new entitlement since social security. This, in exchange for some good appointments to the Supreme court and a set of tax cuts that won't affect most of us in 10 years because Republicans have abdicated on the alternative minimum tax--the weaklings in the caucus always wanted a flat tax anyway, so it's been implemented.

With all due respect to those of you who think that Party affiliation is more important than issues, in the end, a vote in support of the current crop of Republicans is really a vote for expansion Democrat policies. A vote for an independent or conservative democrat is just a shout to the Republicans: "You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists". Do something you promised, do something I like, or get the hell out of my government:

• Don't buy friends when the job is to subdue our enemies, enforce our laws and defend the borders.
• Don't try to buy votes with Government Largesse--Earn them with Responsible Leadership.
• When you've won a battle or an election, act like it.
• Never wait for France to say it's ok.
• Spare the Rod, Spoil the Iranian and North Korean megalomaniacs.

Some of you seem to forget that the best thing that ever happened to the Republicans was Jimmy Carter.

cj

Good Post.

Bush can have my approval (and the republicans my vote) back as soon as they move troops and construction crews to the borders.

It's unfortunate but I, for one, have still not seen enough attention to domestic enforcement, border control or fiscal restraint to endorse this crew at the polls.

Still mulling my options...

cj

My recollection of Clinton's "watch" is that the number of Republican representatives increased by 27, the number of republican Senators increased by 12 and the number of Republican Presidents increased by 1.

Clinton's legacy, at least, seems pretty clear.

cj

Yup! I just saw Drudge's story and popped out and bought 2 copies (the single preorder wasn't enough to qualify for free shipping and my dad'll love the book).

This book needs to hit top 10 before prerelease so that the brick & mortar stores freak out and give it Window space. Get yours now!

cj

"Think so? Not in the Fifties and early Sixties. "

Wait a second.

The point is specifically that it isn't the 50's and 60's any more. These policies don't exist and would be rejected by the vast majority of Americans at a grass roots level. The tired attempts to impugn the collective will of Americans, who are by and large decent people, by recalling images of segregation era injustices is a red herring. We might just as well begin an argument by asking our audience to picture a return to the Inquisition or to pre-Internet. It makes for a compelling story, but not particularly realistic.

cj

"Business already discriminate. I think Denny's and Cracker Barrel are recent examples. "

I understand that there are individuals and even individual businesses that may make stupid decisions. If I recall correctly, the civil matter at Cracker Barrel raised a firestorm of bad press, managers were fired and policy was rearticulated from the corporate level to the franchisees. Obviously, the general public outrage was the motivator and this goes to my point. Hotels, restaurants and retail businesses in general are universally crying about falloff in revenue. No one can afford to turn away an identifiably large segment of the population and comments to the management will usually suffice. If not, they suffer the consequences of public disapproval.

Legislation and Government Intervention is not the answer and I believe most people *do* learn from history. Please don't forget that this country, for all it's faults, has essentially led the world in accepting and offering opportunity to diverse races, repealing slavery (my corporate employment situation excepted), and opening the public forum to the views and concerns of minority groups.

This historical upshot is that the majority of government attempts to level the playing field since the 1960's have backfired, increasing the socioeconomic disparities between certain ethnic groups and siphoning funds and political capital to the remaining leaders of an aging civil rights "movement" which had already realized most of its original goals. These leaders have made stunning personal gains largely at the expense of the constituencies they purport to represent.

cj

I understand the desire of a great many people to properly memorialize Dr. King. I have a couple questions about this campaign, though.

1. Aside from the Vietnam Memorial, are any nonpresidents currently memorialized in this manner and place?

2. If this campaign is successful, will they follow up with requests to memorialize other heroes of the civil rights movement? Perhaps Malcolm X, the Honorable Elijah Mohammed, Huey Newton should also be enshrined next to Lincoln, Jefferson, and FDR? Is there room to expand Rushmore?

3. Isn't it about time to admit that the majority of American citizens and businesses have reached the point since the reforms of the 1960's that the examples in the Ads, (Barre being escorted to the black section of the restaurant and Roker unable to find a treadmill not marked "Whites only") are wholly unacceptable and that certainly no businesses would be willing to alienate 15% of the customer base by reenacting such policies?

4. Is it even remotely credible that Al Roker would be inconvenienced by a whites only policy on a treadmill? Wouldn't a whites only desert cart be more likely to disrupt his routine?

I like Al Roker and I don't really mean to pick on him. He seems like a genuinely nice fellow and he's also pretty entertaining. I suppose it's possible the dredging up of bygone era images has awakened in Mr. Roker a heretofore latent interest in fitness. There may be some small gain in this, but I think, on the whole, the advertisements might be a thinly veiled attempt to engender even more fear and loathing between races that, but for the constant efforts of his prospective heirs would have achieved even greater reconciliation a la Dr. King's vision than we already have.

"I laughed at Geraldo denying the truth claiming character assasination ..castigating his old bosses at MSNBC etc... "

I'm not sure he was too terribly sorry about the whole thing, either. As I watched him call his old comrades "rats" I had to keep wondering why in several different webcam reports he kept announcing that he and part of the 101st were holed up in the former headquarters building of the baath party. If he's trying to create the news (as usual) wouldn't it just be faster to supply GPS coordinates?

cj

"DO NOT trust ANY poll.

WE MUST VOTE "

I agree. However, I think it behooves each of us to take our time, maybe visit a few different polling places for the purpose of being available to exit pollsters. Just because it's not on the web, doesn't mean we can't freep the poll.

Poll early, Poll often.

If you're lucky, you might just see the same democratic "constituent" stumble out of a van to vomit before voting at more than one polling place.

Regards,

cj

"He actually works for Sanunu, so I don't think he does public polling for NH. " Actually, I believe Zogby works for folks on both sides of the aisle, but he donated his services to the Democratic party. He's a Palestinian and I'm not sure the last few months of middle-east policy has really made him happy. It certainly pissed off his brother. Regards, cj

ah. now I see where you're going. In any case, I'm still pretty black and white on abortion. It's wrong. It stamps out innocent life and is generally easily avoided by people who are willing to act responsibly. There may be substantially more people who manage to rationalize their way through it in order to make their lives more comfortable and their actions less meaningful, but less than a hundred years ago the vast majority of people new it was wrong, accepted that it was illegal and, for the most part, took responsibility for their actions, especially where the life of a child hung in the balance.

As far as the capability of those individuals who think it's ok and a reasonable method of birth control, I'm not willing to let them off the hook the way you are. I'm quite sure most folks know it's wrong. They've consciously elevated their own sense of convenience above the life of another human being. Selling short their ability to understand the evil of it just makes it easier for them to justify their actions. I don't want to do that.

cj

The ultimate solution is the separation of Church and State.

You mean like the Soviets did?

This is well-trodden ground here, but it seems necessary to repeat that this country, currently the greatest experiment in individual achievement and civil liberty ever attempted was very clearly founded on a firm judeo-christian ethic the underpinnings of which are, not surprisingly, very spiritual and quite religious. The "Separation of Church and State" is a fallacious concept that was not remotely considered by the founders, who were mostly born-again Christians. It was not even a topic of conversation until the second half of this century. The Constitution and the liberties it guarantees are assumed to be endowed upon all people by a divine creator. This is critical whether or not you think he exists because if that's the source, no individual can take them away. This is why it's not terribly surprising that the same folks who clamour for separation always seem to championing policies that erode individual rights in favor of whatever gubment program will ultimately transfer the power to them.

cj

Cain didn't seem to have a problem with it.....so you see, not every human agrees with you.

Neither did Jeffrey Dahmer. That doesn't mean the vast majority of us are incapable of distinguishing the evil in their actions nor does it suggest we are unjustified in passing judgement and meteing out punishments.

cj

I don't know about you, but I have the moral capacity and I claim the authority to say, definitively, this is very wrong.

cj

I think there is a closet Post type audience in Manhattan.

This is indeed good news!

Look. I really hope the Sun catches on in New York and that the readers and advertisers of the Village Voice either read it and see the light or are buried under piles of read and shared copies. Don't get me wrong.

I just think that Fox has succeeded because there's a national audience of 20-25% conservatives and 45% swingvoting spineless moderates that require a consensus to make up their own minds. The Liberals and moderates had to be content being split amongst 5 major media outlets. Fox scores a direct hit by being the single vendor for the disaffected minority. Manhattan doesn't have anywere near 20% conservatives. Their idea of a radical right winger is Giuliani. He's a pretty good man, but as a pro-choice, pro-AffAction, pro-PublicEd politician, he makes Colin Powell look positively hawkish. The Sun looks to split the miniscule conservative audience for city news into 2 vendors. I'm a little afraid they'll not only fail, but take Alexander Hamilton's paper down with them.

cj