It's true that one program or another was going to be enacted, and that we asserted our majority, not to kill it, but to enact a Republican version that relied on market forces and it's ability to create entities to manage it. This keep the socialized medicine idea at bay for a few more years.
I disagree that opposing the program in all it's versions would have been a viable alternative. Had we not done it, the media would have it as a lead issue going into this election and they would be showing video of dead and dying or starving seniors because they spent every last nickle for lifesaving meds or they could not purchase it at all. Also, don't forget about the runs to the Canadian border. Note that all those stories have completely gone......(you know I'm right about the results) I saw no choice and it made sense to do it, but the cost is a big issue.
The failure of a Republican Senate to do it's work and enact some simple reductions and program cuts, after totally blowing away any possible social security reforms has upset any possible improvement in entitlement spending.
We elected these people to do the job and to not be affected by public dissents and pressures of various groups, and we expected much better from them, but they have failed.
I noted through all of this, that self proclaimed conservatives did not blink an eye and proceeded to attack Bush on border issues, abortion, Miers, ports, air port security and now they are upset that Bush's polling numbers are low and that some of us are blaming them as well as the Democrats.
You have to be careful as to how you describe a Republican moderate. here on this forum it is a dirty word, but frankly like most labels it is inaccurate and insufficient. There are as many versions of moderate as there are races, and no two moderates are alike. They simply are not extremists and they are willing to listen and compromise. That is one of the definitions of politics.
The art of compromise.
I consider myself to be moderate in some respects, but that is a function of my understanding of political realities, and not how I think things should be. certainly their are some called moderates who are really liberals with a "R" attached, but that is often a electoral and constituent reality.
Republicans coined the term "big tent" and they truly are a collection of various beliefs and understandings, but there is a core collection of people who have always manage to come together for the big show, and the important issues that affect the big picture.
In recent years there came a couple fringe groups of what I call unappeasables who cannot or will not compromise and never will under any circumstances, even if it means destroying a presidency. This happened before and will always happen, It has also happened to the Democrats, but their hated of all things Bush will hold them together for the next three years, where we will no doubt fragment.
That's the political reality and that is why all the candidates who move center will have a better chance of winning. The support for the hard right conservative or even the wacky liberal will not happen under these conditions.
That is what McCain sees, and what Hillary sees, and what all the candidates will be advised to do this season.
Forget the fringes...move and capture the center. The fringes are at war with their own party and without the moderates cannot win.
It's really pretty simple. They will throw a bone or two, but the votes are in the center and when the slate for the general election is clear, the unappeasable fringes will defect, as they always do.
There is one thing we can do. All Freepers should send one message to the RNC or the RCC. That message is, "I will not vote for any Republican who turns on President Bush." If the GOP doesn't hang together, they will surely hang separately.
To be accurate, liberal Republicans coined the term "big tent".
Which makes it ironic that y'all are always trying to kick out the ideological tent poles...
My observation actually goes back to the Republican "response" to one of Bill Clinton's state-of-the-union addresses. I think it was 1998. Bill Clinton proposed a bunch of new programs, and all the Republican responder could do was offer up a bunch of "lite" versions of the same thing.
The proper way to attack the socialists would have been for Bush et al. to point out that every single time the government gets involved trying to make something cheaper for a select group of people, it causes the market price of that good or service to skyrocket to the point that it soon costs more for everyone--including the supposed beneficiaries of the program--than it would have if the program had never existed.
Bush et al. should have pointed out that part of the Democrats' definition of insanity is doing the same thing again and again and expecting a different result.
Republicans need to come clean and admit that they've let themselves be pushed around by liars and thieves, but make a promise that they will call the thieves out on the carpet and stop doing business with them.
The people who could rightfully described as moderates are fine, though the media usually refers to those people as "right-wing conservatives". If the media refer to a person as "moderate", that really means (1) the person is really a liberal, and (2) the person hasn't done anything terribly bad. If a politician does something very bad or crooked, the media will refer to him as "conservative" regardless of his ideological stance.