I've felt for some time that Bush-43 seems to view the conservative wing of his party in a similar fashion that the Democrats treat the African-American electorate.

If the Dems had any sense, they would run Nancy Pelosi out of their leadership and replace them with a more moderate backbencher. Were that to happen, the house swings to D in 2006. I just can't see the American public actually voting for Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House. The polls may say it before the election, but the damndest things happen once you get inside the voting booth.

The Senate won't switch, tho, unless it gets close enough that the Maine twins and Chafee get tempted enough to pull a Jeffords.

Maybe this most recent statement by Michael Chertoff regarding the "catch and release" policy is an attempt by the Bushies to woo back the Conservative wing. If so, then too little too late. Better for the Reps to embrace the "Porkbusters" campaign and actually back up the Chertoff statements and dare the Dems to cling to the MoveOnners.

I can't disagree with what you said, but I also have to wonder at how much of the disgust with congress is directed atthe democrats who have collectively gone off he deep end. Look at the antics of Kennedy, Pelosi and all the other usual suspects. They have failed to articulate any policy of their own and simply bite at Bush and the republican's ankles. The republicans may come out even bigger winners in 2006. Stranger things have happened.

I guess you could probably say that the biggest problem with politics is that all politicians are politicians. As such, whether Republican or Democrat, they will ALWAYS act in a way that preserves their own power and influence, no matter what kind of noble person they were before running for office. If that means spending somebody else's money to maintain their votes, then they'll do it. No human principles can withstand the perverse warping effects of holding high political office.

As you can probably tell, I'm disgusted with Republicans, and thoroughly disgusted with Democrats. I loathe Greens, and I simply roll my eyes at capital-L Libertarians. My political philosophy is to vote for the least bad candidate and grumble while doing it.

Hey, maybe if the Republicans get scared enough, they'll re-embrace term limits, which most of them quietly abandoned after gaining control in 1994.

Let's punish the pubbies and elect a bunch of Cynthia McKinnies to Congress! That'll show those arrogant pubbies who's boss, eh? Let's see how much damage two years of Cynthia McKinnies' can do to the world? Punish those Pubbies for their hubris and see how much damage we can do in the process, heh?

The Democrats were entrenched in power for practically the entire 20th century, so it'll be quite a while before Republicans catch up to them. Putting Democrats back in power in a pique about so-called over-spending could be very risky to our safety

Congressional spending is only a sidebar. The deficit is a very small fraction (I think less than 2%) of our total GNP and is being whittled down by economic growth. Nobody likes the pork thrown into every bill, but it's the way business has been done for years and seems to work. In any case it's small potatoes. What really matters is our security.

You say our institutions are strong enough to withstand a change every few years and that may be true, but remember that it was Clinton's disarming and the left's politics of appeasement and deference to the UN to set our foreign policy that led to 9/11.

A very disturbing trend that I've noticed over the past months is that some of the most influential bloggers have been moving from center right to center left. It's disturbing because it was these bloggers who were responsible in large part for defeating Kerry.

I think that being taken for a conservative is personally embarrassing because their natural cohort are the liberals who are their colleagues and associates. Glenn Reynolds, whose posts usually have no more comment than his patented "heh!" added a "Not me, for sure!" to his post linking to Jonah Goldberg's thoughts about who's a real conservative.

Amen, Stephen. I would like to add something but you nailed it.

TimP has a good point, how much of this is due to disgust with the DUmmies' obstructionist tactics? And just how much danger are the Repubs really in? My guess would be: not much. And here's why. Every ideological electoral shift of the last century, Presidential and Congressional, has come about as the result of perceived major malfeasance on the part of the incumbent, COMBINED WITH a viable alternative offered up by the challenger(s). As of now, the Democrats can offer up no alternative for next year. Unless and until they do, the Republicans are safe.

Sorry, Stephen, I disagree hugely with you.

Or do you really want more Kelo decisions? That's what voting for Democrats will give you.

The problem with polls like this is that you don't get to vote for "Congress." You vote for 2 Senators and 1 Representative, and I would venture to say that the approval ratings of each individual member are going to be much higher than for Congress as a whole.

I find the arguement, expressed by some here and by others in the Harriet Miers fight, that we shouldn't put pressure on the Republicans because the alternative is so much worse to be shortsighted. How is the party supposed to represent the will of its constituents if the information flow only travels in one direction--from them to us? You can call and email your rep all you want, but the only way to apply true pressure to a politician is in the voting booth.

BTW, Glenn Reynolds has always rejected the conservative label; it's nothing new.

Divide the gov't so that the thieves can keep an eye on each other. Touche.

You can blame the 'head in the sand' 90s on Clinton if you wish but we are all responsible to some extent. We all saw the news about the first WTC bombing, the African embassy bombings, the Cole - I don't recall either party talking about invading Afghanistan at the time. We were all soft. Point being - if the Dems regain a smidgen of power I think they will grow up. Surely there are lessons in the elections of 2002 and 2004 that will give them the incentive even if it isn't in their 'hearts'.

Republicans have been propped up by the malignancy in the Democratic party for the last two Congressional election cycles. If the Dems just shut up and stay out of the way 2006 is going to be a problem.

TO: Stephen Green
RE: Sins??!?!?!?

"If the Republicans need to pay for their sins, then so be it." -- Stephen Green

For someone who doesn't believe in God, you're beginning to sound like a bona fide {HORROR!!!} bible-thumper.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

The problem is, no matter who you vote for the government always gets in.

I'd like to take the current crop of pubbies and hang them by their toes. But if that means letting Nancy and Hillary take over, then it's hard to vote for.

The Republicans would pretty much have to open slave labor camps to get me to vote to give the Democrats the power to run committees and issue subpoenas again. I don't think I could remain sane if Ted and Joe and Chuck had the power to "investigate" everything the Bush Administration has done. No. No. No.

I want to be a little more moderate, and throw Republicans out of the House of Representatives only. I have dubbed this program "Mi Casa Es Su Casa"... can I count you in, Mr. Green?

I like that approach, sammler. If they can handle the 'training wheels' in the House for two years the populace can consider buying them a 'big boy' bike (Senate or Presidency).

Unfortunately, I can't do that here in Raleigh, N.C in 2006. Dole (R) was elected in 2002 and Burr (R) in 2004, and my representative is Brad Miller (D), who was involved in the latest N.C. district mappings.

I'd love to throw Miller out, but I don't see that happening, I think he was voted in with about 60% in 2004.

This kind of reasoning drives me crazy.

There are cases when people have somewhat shrewd or clever plans that turn out to backfire. Not here. This plan is guaranteed to backfire. In the name of smaller government, you'll give power to the party that wants to make government bigger, and they will make it bigger. Duh.

The Democrats are sounding more statist, more reactionary, more wretchedly paleoliberal right now than they have for a generation. But according to your logic, that doesn't even matter. You want to punish the Republicans. The character of the opposition party apparently makes no difference. Would you vote for Communists? Nazis?

There's a conservative revolt underway already, Steve. It's being led by Republicans. Give them some credit. Better yet, join in. In 1994 there was a Republican revolt against a Democratic president. Now a Republican revolt against a Republican revolt is brewing. It could be beautiful, if pundits like you keep their clown suits in the closet.

You seem like you've got a good brain, Steve. Please use it.

I mentioned this already, but I rec'd afundraiser survey from the RNC. 1 ? was whether I intended to vote in the 06 and 08 elections.

I told them if it takes being permanent minority status to rediscover their principles, then so be it.

I dunno, Lancelot, when I see the party of small government spending shitloads to implement such Constitutionally-mandated functions as the war on drugs, I see the small-government descriptor as being a wee bit fraudulent. And when I see the Republicans diving into the pork-feast with manic glee (ref: Bridge to Nowhere) I just have to laugh at the idea.

I say these things as a guy who, up until a month ago, had been a registered Republican his whole life.

What's with this morbid fascination with "smaller government"? Has any president left office with a smaller government than the one he started with?

Clinton?
Bush I?
Reagan?
Carter?
Ford?
Nixon?
Johnson?
Kennedy?
Eisenhower?

...

Anyone?

You guys do smoke something great.

To continue with my note from above, every candidate runs on a promise of cutting spending, and you guys lap it up. Nobody has ever given you a government smaler than what he started with, but that fact still does not open your eyes.

Legislators don't like pork for its own sake. They like it because they're using the taxpayers' own money to buy the chumps' votes.
In the old days, the politician had to front some of his own money in terms of bribing the voters. Now, he uses the voters' money and the chumps haven't figured it out.
Pork gets legislators re-elected.
What we need are smarter voters.

This Coburn kerfuffle might get people thinking. If a sufficient number of people write to their own representatives promising to vote and work against them if said congresscritter says as much as one word about bringing government money to the district, we might make progress. It doesn't have to be everybody. Just enough to threaten to swing the next election.

The Republicans have been horrible at appointing judges, spending, and illegal immigration. If Bush doesn't appoint all judges who will overturn unconstitutional precedent like Roe v. Wade, I will flush the Republicans in 2006 and 2008.

All my friends will say I'm lying to make this statement, but "BOY, do I not want to sound preachy..."

As much as I agree with your discontent, much more do I oppose returning to power the same delusionals that ran things for 8 years before the current incumbent. Remember: these are people who think that terrorism is a LAW ENFORCEMENT problem; that a signature on a piece of paper from North Korea is a guarantee of civil behavior; that Saddam would have behaved himself if we’d have just trusted him; that the UN actually works; et cetera.

If you need an example of just how seriously Clinton takes the issue of terrorism, remember that in 1999 he used his Presidential authority to pardon eleven Puerto Ricans on the eve of the senatorial election in which the Hispanic vote in New York City was expected to be crucial to the chances of Hillary’s win. Those he freed were FALN terrorists, and had been convicted of participating in hundreds of bombings, robberies, and other crimes in the U.S. resulting in the deaths of six victims, and maiming of scores of others. The various crimes were part of their efforts to advance the cause of Puerto Rican independence from the U.S., which cause enjoys the support of less than 4 percent of Puertoriqueños on the island.

Hillary won that election, you may have heard.

"If the Republicans need to pay for their sins, then so be it."

Okay, if you aren't voting for a Republican, who will get your vote? Hopefully not one of the brain-dead leftist Democrats who want to turn our country into one big gulag or mosque? Short of abolishing the entire Federal government, I don't see a way out of our big government dilemna.

Big surprise, I find myself agreeing with you again Steve. If the Republicans still sounded like they did in 1994, I'd be a lot happier with things... If we saw social security reform, term limits, and a reduction in wasteful government spending - why, then I'd have the government I voted for. The one the Republicans promised and forgot all about once they got in to power. Absurd.

The current choice seems to consist of picking a ride in a car heading for a cliff at 30mph versus a ride in a car heading towards a cliff at 90mph. Neither is an acceptable choice. If some time in the wilderness is what it takes for the party leadership to clear out some of these RINOs, fine.

Unfortunately, it seems the current batch of Republican leadership seems to think "conservative" means spend all you want and don't forget to go to church on the weekend. And the religious right is just eating it up.

These are dark times for the small-l libertarians...

Doug Dever: which basically tells you that the US is not a small-l libertarian country...

WHat cracks me up is the people who say "sure we had a huge surplus under Clinton, and now we have record deficits and a president who spends like a drunken sailor, but imagine how much worse things would have been under Kerry?"

LOL. Fiscal discipline is a thing of the past. The best we can hope for is an R legislature and a D executive (or vice versa) and then we will get gridlock.

Oh boy, a D executive!! That should really help the war against terrorism. Just think, Hillary as the commander in chief. That should motivate our military - to resign.

Well it seems to me that we have four options:

1) Keep voting for the current Republicans, in which case things will keep getting worse as the power structure ossifies until we reach a crisis point.

2) Vote for a Democrat, which given their current stable is probably going to just accelerate the timescale above.

3) Vote for nobody. Since decisions are made by those who show up this is somewhat less than ideal. Ask any Sunni Iraqi.

4) Register as a candidate in the primary. The incumbent can't keep his seat if he's not on the ballot.

It's not like we'd have to actually win, a large enough number of primary challenges focusing on cutting spending would be enough to shock the party leadership into some action. A great deal of motivation behind the Contract with America was Perot's (relativly) strong showing in 1992. It's time to remind the republican leadership that the "tight-wad" wing of the party is really unhappy.

Folks, get real.

No one is ever going to "cut spending". Has never happened.

Entitlements and military spending are the biggest part of the budget ($1.8 tr out of $2.3 tr together) and the fastest growing (8% and 12% annually). Any cut in the rest of the federal budget is too miniscule, and is easily dwarfed by the growth in the military and entitlement expenditures. If you want any meaningful "cuts", you have to start where the biggest expenditures are.

And this is getting uglier every year. Entitlements will mushroom in the next 10 years, and will choke off everything else. Ask Delphi and GM.

Don't vote for Democrats unless you actually want Democrats to appoint judges, on the SCOTUS and elsewhere.

And if you think judges cannot do long-term damage, you haven't been payin' attention.

Oh boy, a D executive!! That should really help the war against terrorism.

-------

You're absolutely correct.

Bush's color-coded terror alerts, constitution shredding Patriot Act and wild goose chase hunt for nonexistent WMDs have been breathtaking success.

And yeah, he really beefed up FEMA too, didn't he! LOL.

-
Oh God please don't elect Democrats. In Canada we have democrats in power (Liberals) and we have no military.
.

"Entitlements and military spending are the biggest part of the budget ($1.8 tr out of $2.3 tr together) and the fastest growing (8% and 12% annually)."

In the 1950's, military spending was 50% of the budget and 10% of GNP. Today, it's 14.6% of the budget and 3.5% of GNP

As a portion of the budget, it's been dropping for over 40 years, even during wars.

The biggest federal budget busters are welfare/entitlement spending, all of which is UNCONSTITUTIONAL (read: illegal...yes, the US Constitution is THE LAW, not a suggestion).

And welfare/entitlements doesn't include how much it's grown at the state and local levels.

One has to remember that every politician, from Ted Kennedy and the moonbats to Ron Paul at the other end, were ELECTED by your friends and neighbors. These are the people (certainly not YOU,right?) that are lining up at the feeding trough.

The decision by the elites in the GOP to split the party and embarrass the president over Miers is Perot all over again. The senseless infighting is going to convince a lot of republicans to stay home in 2006 or vote for some dems.

I know I'd rather have Harriet Miers and John Roberts on the bench than any of Kerry's candidates. The voter margins in this country are very thin, and the hysterical posturing does nothing for the republicans in light of the other problems like spending, immigration, etc.

What I'd like to see is "none of the above" on every ballot. And the election laws should state that if "none of the above" gets the majority in a given race, that race is nullified and the politicos have to start all over again. Back to square one, suckers -- and the next time around, run someone palatable.

It would be one way to send a message that we don't like anything the parties offer up.