Free Republic

The big impediment in the way of a Hillary run is her solemn pledge not to run.


Since when does a Clinton's word have any meaning?

Will has an incomparable touch when it comes to this sort of issue. He likes taxes a bit too much for me, but "Statecraft as Soulcraft" is one of the greatest books on political theory I have ever read.

Absolutely '08 is the goal in her mind. I tell you, her election in ANY year would be an unmitigated disaster. She is easily the most nefarious candidate for the White House since David Duke.

I bet there are some old Japanese Americans that would disagree.

Conservatism requires, at all times, the moderation of impulses. In fact, that is an essential element. We do not wake up one day and say, "We will end poverty, all we need is a Great Society to move a little income here and a few rules there.". Conservatives are the ones that require research and study and especially, a respect for lessons of the past. We do not impulsively implement policy that requires a blind eye to be turned to elements of the constitution that are inconvenient owing to our determination that all Americans be treated alike by the law. Meaning, we do not lightly tread on the Bill of Rights. That's what the other guys would do.

The PA is out of proportion to the needs of law enforcement.

But what happens when you need $50,000 to pay one terrorist to kill a worse terrorist?

The expansion of law enforcement powers way beyond what has always required a certain strong suspicion accompanied by warrants signed by a judge.

The implication that had these expanded powers been available it might have precluded 9/11 or at least the pollution of terrorist cell groups, which isn't true.

The fact that the PA was the FIRST thing Justice tried and not the result of trying less intrusive measures and seeing them fail.

It is simply that the conservative position should always be predicted on two beliefs;
1) Government is already too big.
2) Government is already too intrusive.
Now, how do we get things done?

Instead, Justice/Homeland Security is spearheading a monumental increase in the size and power of government. Safety does not require the power to track your purchasing, reading and recreational habits through violations of your right to privacy, which is actually a guaranteed right. Like I said, it's unconservative and way too early for them to entertain thoughts of this nature.

We need to figure out why in the world the last election was so close. I'm guessing here, but I think perhaps the men went to work instead of the polls. Hillary as candidate is no laughing matter, now or in 2008.

Ashcroft allowed, if not encouraged, the appearance that he is a zealous righter of wrongs rather than an impartial administrator of justice. That is awfully dangerous when it is an appointed position and isn't an elected one. I wasn't commenting on his personal religiosity, only that he never really was very enthusiastic nor very convincing, in his assertions that he could be the impartial protector of American law.

As far as Hillary, it wouldn't surprise me to find out that every document ever issued by the Clinton administration had her fingerprints on it.

More likely, he's there to confuse the field further. I wonder if, by encouraging this professional pretender to run, she's not trying to set up a situation where Greens and those that pass for centrist in the party rip the party in two. That way she can be seen as a healer.

Look, I appreciate Blair's courage during the long, long, long ramp up to the war but, he's still just another labor party liberal. Offer the guy citizenship if you want, but let's not confuse our friends with OUR friends. Better a state visit to India or the Czech Republic.

Frankly, I think new drug policy should include a requirement that all members of congress smoke a joint at least 1 per hour during business hours, every day. (Adjusted for daylight savings time). Ever watch stoners debate? "Resolved: Double Stuff Oreos Rock or What?".

My point exactly, and it is unconservative to have ever entertained the notion of their creation in the first place.

I smell a potential Presidential pardon in this guy's future if Hellery gets the keys to the old, white frat house.

*Maybe GWB should think of finding a good AG for his second term... *

I nominate Bob Barr of Georgia.

I say don't confuse politicians with thinkers. Of course we are all aware of the liberal tendencies to which you refer. We should also keep in mind the truth that our reps are only as principled as you pay them to be. If you were able to create a smart bomb that would take out only the liberals and threw it into the halls of congress, it would probably just turn itself off due to lack of input. We are winning the culture war here, on the internet and in broadcasting.

You tell me, is Denny Hastert a Newt Gingrich? Newt was as principled a conservative thinker as congress ever had, where is he now? Where were other principled conservatives in congress when he was being demonized 24/7? I'll tell you. Cowering in corners as far from him as possible.

Government has grown. We still have tax indexing. We still have a DOE. We still have no line item veto. We have no term limits. Our borders are almost no more than hypotheses. The point is, the conservative force in this country is US, we the people, not those the congress. Diligence is required or else we may end up with a Republican Party that looks like John McCain. Then what would be the point in having labels like conservative and liberal? It would be 1976 all over again.

Congress will do what is necessary to, say it with me.....get reelected! We, out here in that part of America that liberals don't know exists, need to insure that the ideological gulf between the socialism of modern American liberalism and our conservatism is as wide in government as it is here in Freeperville. They won't do it themselves.

So, conciliation isn't the issue. These people are sleeping in the same bed, already.

I did not, do not and never will encourage a policy of appeasement toward the left in any circumstance. I also do not encourage principled adherence to strict interpretations of individualism and individual liberty, I simply expect it. A strict reading of the constitution is appropriate in all circumstances or none. Conservatives, like the President, should know better than to double deal in that regard.

I was thinking more along the line of free health care. Or federal usurpation of the state's right to regulate marriage. (Oops, that one's on us, sorry.)

From bobbarr.com:

*Why the concern over Executive Order 13303? After all, on its face it relates only to matters in Iraq (a long ways away) in such a way as to simply protect Iraqi property: "Protecting the Development Fund for Iraq and Certain Other Property in Which Iraq Has an Interest."

This executive order grants to every company or other entity with any interest -- direct or indirect -- in Iraqi oil or any proceeds thereof, blanket immunity from any judicial process whatsoever. In layman's terms, according to this presidential "stroke of a pen," companies or individuals with any interest in Iraqi oil cannot be sued for anything, anytime, anywhere.*

It should also be of concern that this bit of legislation circumvented constitutional process. The general idiocy of House debates are infinitely preferable to Presidents deciding, unilaterally to impose legislation by executive order. Remember, some day Hillary might be President. Can you imagine the EO's that might be implemented in that regime?

It's time for conservatives to do the President the good favor of an escort to the Federal woodshed and leave him with the problem of, (to paraphrase my Grandfather), explaining to the Surgeon General how that big conservative shoe got stuck in his big, conservative butt.

Let me say from the outset, I never liked Ashcroft. There's a problem having men on a religious mission mixing it up at high levels of government. I'm staunchly anti-abortion, but also sensitive to the undeniable fact of our tissue thin majority in the last election and felt that Justice needed a truly conservative philosopher, one able to prepare the road for a national debate on the existence of abortion-on-demand and not a flamethrower that made even a lifelong conservative like myself, nervous.

It is ironic that at a time when we are using war to extend the concept of individual liberty to a people who may not even have the cultural mindset to grasp it, we are facing government overreach into our own personal freedom. Justice seems to think that it is sufficient to explain that they only want the power to ignore personal freedoms "in case" (my quotes) they need it, but don't worry, they don't even have enough agents to use that power (wink, wink). No problem, then. Right? Wrong. The administration has already demonstrated their disdain for public debate over issues of individual liberty with the signing of Executive Order No. 13303. Now Ashcroft is campaigning, yes campaigning, for public support for his tactical theories largely because Congress appears ready to swat the entire administration over them. Sad thing is, they have it coming.

If Ashcroft is so unimaginative that he cannot protect BOTH life and property AND individual liberty, he should be replaced.

I'm not thinking of an attack on networks so much as an act of aggression of any nature.