Powered by TypePad

« The State Of Iraq | Main | Going For The Gold, Metaphorically »

March 19, 2006



Considering gerrymandering in the house, its quite a steep hill. What will probably happen is a sharpening of the red state/blue state divide. Yankee republican moderates are probably in the worst shape.

Black Jack

If this is all the GOP can come up with to get the voters fired up, then it's going to be a long several months till November.

The issues mentioned are OK, but don't come close to the raw red meat necessary to energize disappointed fiscal Conservatives.

I'd like to see a nationwide campaign of hard hitting direct attacks on antiwar Dems. Go after them where they live, in their home districts, hit them hard and defeat them now, or build an organization and set the stage for 2008.


As the coming centrist of three parties, Republican moderates are sitting in the catbird seat. Consider Texas emblematic for the whole US. The demographics are against the Democrats, badly, and universally. All they have is academia and media, the academedia nuts. Blue collar union are redstaters wherever they are; it's only public service unions who still serve nuts at their feasts. Latina want to own their own labor someday, not toil forever in others' vinyards, I'll not say plantations. The young generally perceive themselves as needier than their elders, and naive though they may yet be, on that their perception is acute.


If you have not yet read the work of Jay Cost, do so. He is the brilliant young political scientist who in 2004 had his own website, Horserace Blog. He now writes for Redstate. About a week ago he had a fabulous article describing why it is unlikely the Reps will lose their Congressional majority. The article was picked up by real clear politics.


disappointed fiscal Conservatives ...

... need to find a way to promote their agenda. Getting democrats elected tends to just piss off "conservatives" who favor lower taxes, free markets and strong military.


"women under 18"??? When did it become the practice to refer to girls as "women under 18"? We still have boys in America, but girls seem to have been abolished.

As for token tax relief, that has already been provided. More than token, actually. What might be a good idea is some spending relief; i.e. slow the growth in government expenditures. But the social-liberal wing of the GOP as exemplified by Specter will never allow such a thing.

All of the laundery list provided are good things as far as they go. If the Republicans were serious about any of them they could have rammed them through in early 2005. So I suspect they are not serious and none of these things will actually be made into law.


The RNC needs to put more emphasis on getting expenditures under control. Only the Prez lists it as a priority. Everyone else is afraid in an election year, I guess.

Has anyone tried to provide input to the RNC via their website? The only thing they are interested in is money, and giving same only results is a request for more!


Yankee republican moderates are probably in the worst shape.

I'm in the gym three times a week, pal.

But you are right - there are some House Reps from Connecticut that will be running scared this fall.


"All the talk in Memphis doesn't comport with reality," said Specter, savoring his victory in a leather armchair in the Senate press gallery. "I don't have any apologies to make for this 7 billion. I'm still not satisfied."

The difference between Specter and the average Democrat is what, exactly? The entire GOP gets a bad rap because it is held hostage by its liberal wing. Getting Specter re-elected has to rank up there as one of Bush's biggest mistakes.


Google Dick Durbin and Chris Wallace. Read the transcript from this morning's show. Very enlightening as to what the democrats will be campaigning on this year. Durbin point blank said impeachment is on the table. He also said some interesting things about leaking classified information to the press. I hope it comes back and bites him on the butt.


Impeachment talk is all about distracting from an anointing. There will be litte connection locally; Democrats would be foolish to trash Bush on national security, so they probably will; they are stymied from crying about expenditures, so they won't though the issue would resonate through the whole body politic; Social Security will stampede voters from the Ponzi scheme that it is; Latina comprenden; and the press don't dare keep up their lies: So how do the Democrats come out winners? Oh right, they got great spokespeople.


If the Dems are vulnerable on national security, the Republicans are vulnerable on their ties to the social agenda of the Religious Right, & that laundry list plays right into the Dems hands. Since Americans overwhelmingly oppose gay marriage & support varying degrees of restrictions on abortion, it would be smarter to frame these conflicts as issues best left to state voters, which deflects the issue of social engineering back onto liberal attempts to federalize the issues (rather than on religious conservatives).

Better to attack Dems on issues they're powerless to defend themselves against, like school vouchers (the Dems are shackled to the teachers unions) & illegal immigration (but that's an issue neither party wants to touch for fear of offending the Hispanic street), to say nothing of the Reagan / Thatcherite agenda of small govt, slashing federal red tape & bureaucracy, & tax cuts.



A) the Republicans are vulnerable on their ties to the social agenda of the Religious Right

B) Since Americans overwhelmingly oppose gay marriage & support varying degrees of restrictions on abortion,

I'm having touble seeing how you manage to reconcile statements A and B. You appear to be claiming that Republicans are vulnerable if they adopt positions which American overwhelmingly favor. How does that work?

the Reagan / Thatcherite agenda of small govt

The biggest obstacle to the small government agenda of the Republican party is its liberal wing. It's not the dreaded social-cons driving up spending, its the social-lib wing of the party as exemplified by people like Specter, Snowe, Chafee, and Collins. Those who are serious about shrinking government need to work harder to get more Santorum's in the Senate.


I heard that some new immigration legislation is being introduced [by Frist] as well. This is something people are worried about.

If all those liberal Republicans [oxymoron alert] out there decide to go vote for the other party because the real Republicans got rid of them.... the GOP can kiss their majority good bye so I am not sure that trashing moderates will help them come November.

Specter did come through on Alito even after a lot of folks said he would not. He may not always vote the way some people want him to but he does not always vote with the likes of Kerry and Kennedy either. And besides whether or not he keeps his job should be up to the people of his state.


Good question flenser, let me try to explain. The majority oppose gay marriage, but support civil equality and justice for the non orthosexual; similarly they oppose abortion but support feminism to some extent. Get into religion, and the vulnerabilities multiply.


Hey, at least they're laying off a flag burning amendment this time around!

Although they may be saving that for the clincher.

JM Hanes

beaut --

Ditto that. Social conservatives are not the folks that the GOP is losing!



That obscures rather than clafifies. You seem to be saying that opposing gay marriage and abortion is fine, as long as it is not done on religious grounds? Ignoring the difficulty in ascertaining motive for now, how do you even justify such a stance?


Actually, they are precisely the people the GOP is losing. Which is why it is offering this package of proposals to try to get them back.


Whether or not Specter keeps his job as SC chair is up the the GOP as a whole. Somebody needs to explain to him that this is contingent on his performance, and that impersonating a Democrat is not cutting it.

The one thing the GOP can do if it wants to kiss the majority goodbye is to contine to indulge the "moderates" like Specter.


Still funding the Dept of Education? Check.
Still funding the Dept of Agriculture? Check.
Still no border control? Check.
Still no controls on pork? Check.
No bounties on terrorist supplies? Check.
No sanctions on 'Sanctuary' cities and such? Check.
No action to bring treaty language forward to stifle laundering of funds to terrorists? Check.

So, no fiscal sanity, no protection for the homeland, no attempt to undertand their powers and use them.

Wooly, fluffy sheep... bleating...

*looks around*

A Zero party system. Both sides just the same: mirror mirages.

I have voted and will continue to do so. But only for people who have the courage to actually *stand* for something. Even *evil* is something. Even the lesser of two evils is something to decide about.

But the evil of two lessers?

baa-baa... sayeth Republicans.
baa-baa... sayeth Democrats.

Bah! I would wish both parties to rot... but that has apparently already been done by those within them.

Excuse me, I am disgusted and intemperate with both parties. I will go do something pleasurable now... gargle with listerine, mayhap.


No, no, no, flenser, religion had little to do with the first two issues, at least in many in the middle's minds. It is possible to be both pro choice and pro life; it is passible to be for civil unions without any religious imprimature. You have pointed out a contradiction that many in the middle bridge, practically.


I also read the article by Jay Cost and found him to be spot on in his analysis. He and Mark Steyn are my go-to guys.



I think Specter has his own ideas about exactly what being a Republican means. People do disagree sometimes.


On Fred Barnes' list, I find exactly one issue that I half agree with.
However, I can't vote for another impeachment. I would love Dems to take that off the table, because I think my issues are better served by having at least one chamber of the Congress led by Dems. But not Pelosi. Or Reid.


Can't remember ever being so disgusted with my Party. Remember being bored and even sitting on my hands, but this disgust is different. I have the anti-abortion/illegal immigration on my right and the Specter/Chafee/Collins/McCains on my left and all the idiots that would be Kings as Overseers. These Gang members and Overseers can't seem to quite get the hang of being in the majority.

They all have one thing in common though....they think nothing of joining in a good Bush bashing over their own personal issues and turf. They have only made me appreciate Bush that much more... warts and all. He is the only cheerful vote I would cast.

They have only one thing going with me at this point.....they are the only game in town and the good Congressmen should get down and kiss the ground for that.


Oh, I thought of another nightmare. A house judiciary led by Conyers. This is distressing.


House proposition offered there at 57; sounds like a pretty solid way to make a 43% return on your money in less than 9 months. Might become an even better buy in the coming months - but might not, too.

Outside the asylum

"And the NRA had, as of December, an urgent bill - surely they are not to be overlooked in the summertime pandering."

Actually, they are going to be overlooked. They're not part of the agenda.

Think about it. The Republicans are in the majority. With the wave of a pen, they could have undone every ban and law regarding firearms of the 20th century. They have not.

Why? Easy. What would-be group of imperialists who really, really in their hearts wants a dictatorship...would want the population to be able to fight back, in the event of a police state, with anything effective?

The Brown Bess musket was the state-of-the-art "Assault Rifle" of the 18th century, it was only because American revolutionaries had access to them that they were able to fight off the British..who had the same.

Now, we have word that DynCorp mercenaries are going to be patrolling New Orleans with the powers of arrest. This is a company found to have been trafficking in underage sex slaves in the Balkans, a company with a mile-long list of rights violations. They are not officers of the peace. They are mercenary killers. Hessians.

Do you really think the very people who are installing them want the populace to be able to fend them off if a complete police state comes to be?

Just watch. The neocon cabal's support of the NRA has been steadily getting quieter...and...quieter.

And there's contracted mercenaries patrolling US cities.

Scared, yet?


Which neocon has ever said word one about the NRA?

Refresh my recollection.

Outside the asylum

Mayor Bloomberg of NYC, who is most certainly a neoconservative, outright blamed them for NY police shootings.

Neocons have two deities, power and money. And letting The People have any means to fight back is not part of that. They just can't say what they really mean and want to do, because it'd still be political suicide at THIS point...but just wait.


Which neocon has ever said word one about the NRA?

Well, "quieter...and...quieter" may mean that "real" neoconas have gone from silent to actually putting up eggshell foam to dampen sound.

Any chance that, as actually used, "neocons" just means "conservatives with whom I disagree"?


I just love the way 'well disciplined' and 'shall not be infringed' occur in the same sentence.


I know people who object to the term 'neoliberal' merely because of the pejoration associated with the prefix 'neo'.


Miller at NRO on the Senate races.

I don't know how accurately he's handicapped the races but he doesn't have any likely Dem takeovers.

Dems taking over one of the houses is possible but fairly unlikely. Its just a really difficult thing to do. If I were betting on the election outcome right now I'd probably put my money on a dead heat with little change in composition. A seat here or there in the Senate, a few seats here or there in the House.

November is a long time away though and almost anything can happen between now and then.


Scared, yet?

Only with the knowledge that you managed to escape the asylum.

Gary Maxwell

Bloomberg is a Neo CONSERVATIVE. Now I have heard everything. You need to get out of the Upper East side a bit more. Bloomberg was a democrat who saw an easier path to the mayor's chair by changing parties. He is not conservative in any way, shape or form. Period.


I want Chris Hutchens comment to Hugh Hewitt about MSM and the Dems encouraging al Qaeda to be made into a huge ad campaign for '06, or '08, or both.


For the most part, "neocons" is a fancy way of saying "Jews" who are Republican. (See Wilson's last Goebbelian outpouring at FSU).
So, in like vein, I propose that "neolibs" be adopted so anti-Semites in the Dem party(where BTW they generally reside these days--Moran, McKinney, etc) have a genteel way of referring to them.


Should I have said 'pejewration'? Just as the word 'liberal' has been co-opted to a parody of it, 'neoconservative' has been warped into hatespeech. It's really that simple. Ever again.

The comments to this entry are closed.