Posted on 11/11/2006 2:28:17 PM PST by crusher
In the Northeast it seems that Republicans still won't vote for a black man.
I think this is wrong. I think if you put a strong black man up for election they will vote for him. The problem with Steele is that he said he was Steele Democrat and that turned Republicans off. Why he tried to be Ronald Reagan I don't know. In fact, Ronald Reagan never said that about HIMSELF but refered to the voters in that way. I thing that cost him the election. Just my humble opinion.
I don't think Chaffee or Snow are black. At least they weren't last year.
Indubitably. My point obviously is that as a middle-class conservative I am likely to have a lot more in common with a black conservative politician than a rich, liberal, elitist politician. We will certainly be a better country when we ignore racial categories and vote for honest politicians that will work for the greatest good.
Thanks.
They're taking care of the problem themselves. Their most loyal audience is the WWII generation, which, if I'm not mistaken, has not discovered the secret of immortality.
The youth of America doesn't watch the alphabet network news, and they don't read papers.
The lamestream drive-bys can only get them in small doses, which is not enough to be effective.
Now, our generation is about 50-50. Most of us don't have time to waste on the major media.
bookmark
In an overtaxed environment, if tax rates are lowered suddenly, there is a positive one-off effect that does increase tax revenues. If your government thinks that's okay to spend (rather than to retire debt or provide for unfunded liabilities such as Social Security and Medicare), then by ratcheting higher the annual spending levels it will contribute to deficit spending once the one-off effect of tax revenue enhancement fades. That deficit falls to the next generations to pay. But Republicans did more than just spend the sudden excess, they increased future unfunded liabilities with the Seniors Drug prescription plan. Their raided future generations.
The 'gang of 14' (a) helped get some judges confirmed without fireworks, *but* left us emasculated from gettign *ALL* our juedges (several still languished).
"But then I checked DeWine's ACU rating and he had a 56 in 2005. Almost Chafee numbers! Horrible!"
Not true... Chaffee numbers are around 10-20%. DeWine the RINO is *MORE* conservative than every single Democrat!!!
RINOs are not my faves, but they are better than socialists like Sherrod Brown (who propbably has a 0% ACU rating).
The Bush tax cuts payed for themselves doubly:
- increased growth meant the debt/GDP ratio got lowered
- increased growth increased long-term tax revenues.
"But cuting taxes while doubling federal spending"
It would help if you had your facts straight. Spending as a percentage of GDP has barely budged from the Clinton years.
Oh BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH....Do you think the troops deserved it? Do you think the Iraqi people deserved it? Try to rationalize it all you want. But leftists do what they always do...they trashed our troops in a time of war...WHAT'S YOUR EXCUSE?
As far as the "Gang of 14" scheme is concerned, it is very possible (likely?) that an attempt to "go nuclear" would have failed because of the RINOs. Do you have any idea what that would have meant? Sure, we would have had a lot of fun watching the showdown, and screaming like loons in righteous indignation if we lost, but the consequences of losing that battle are too horrible to imagine. Seriously.
The "Gang of 14" con job worked beautifully, and for that I will be eternally grateful.
I'm with you on that.
Incidentally I held my nose and voted straight-R again but I am seething that Republicans could be poisoned so quickly after 6 years in power. Mostly I voted R because Democrats are hopelessly unelectable swine, but like the author I don't think the R's are yet hopeless. Sit on the sidelines and think why you're here might be a blessing in disguise.
That chills my blood because it is so true.
A great piece and a dry-eyed view of both sides.
Does this include Newt Gingrich? I'm hot and cold on the Newtster. His marital shenanigans are hard to get over, if only because parallels to Clinton will be drawn. Ironically, the Dems who defended Bubba would beat the drums against Gingrich and dub him morally unfit. Hypocrisy? Just another day in the life of the Dems.
Gingrich's re-entry into the spotlight wasn't very becoming with his kiss-n-mug-with-Hillary-and-the-Dems tour, either.
This election will be remembered as the one where brilliant and charismatic men like Michael Steele and Ken Blackwell were elevated to national prominence.
Love 'em both, especially Blackwell who I knew from my Cincinnati days. But they will be crucified without wood or nails. Both have had a taste of it already, of course. Obviously the party chairman is a highly visible position and the long knives will be out for him 24/7 since he'll be on TV constantly.
The Ohio/Diebold kooks already have Blackwell up on their dartboards (aside: where are the Diebold kooks throughout the country now?). Everyone thinks their favorite politician is intelligent and has strong values but I think Blackwell REALLY is intelligent and has strong values. I'm not big on party-machine politics but I hope Blackwell is elevated to a position worthy of him.
'Silly' is too gentle a term for Bush's immigration pratfalls.
For Democrats and the MSM there is no excuse. They willingly spoke the talking points of the enemy in their shameless quest for power.
The media is a business....the only way to win in business is to compete. FNC is a great start but an entire media structure must be built outside the Broadcast Row firmament. Murdoch laughs all the way to several banks by playing both ends against the middle. I don't know if there's a white knight out there but obviously there is a (paying) audience if someone will just launch an unabashedly conservative media structure.
Unfortunately communications and J-schools continue to turn out wannabe Dan Rathers and Katie Courics at a prodigious rate.
"Steele is apparently a front-runner for GOP chairmanship in January."
Would that be the pro-affirmative action Michael Steele?
"Need I say more?"
How about "No".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.