A well put six questions which should be taped to every congresspersons forehead! Thanks for the article.
To bad the question of if it's Constitutional doesn't even make it on the list. What a big govenment and government solve idiot that writter is.
bttt
But while Clinton denies that she's thinking beyond her Senate reelection this fall, the New York Post reports that "her political machine is so massive that it's more than four times" as big as Team McCain.
On the other hand, the Arizona Republican relies on just five staffers and a half-dozen consulting firms spread between his campaign and his Straight Talk America PAC, the paper says.
Mrs. Clinton's 20 troops are deployed to fundraising operations such as HillPAC and Friends of Hillary. Also on the campaign payroll, her Senate chief of staff, Tamera Luzzatto.
The former first lady's bloated operation costs her nearly $100,000 per month in payroll alone.
She shells out even more to a phalanx of "seasoned consultants" who handle media strategy, speechwriting, market research, direct mail and fundraising.
And although Clinton trails both McCain and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani in every national poll taken so far - and seems to be slipping in popularity with the liberal wing of her party - her one undisputed success has been fundraising.
The former first lady's campaign war chest has grown to $17 million - the biggest in the Senate.
Campaign spokeswoman Ann Lewis says that kind of cash flow means Mrs. Clinton's super-size operation is pulling its own weight.
"Considering the successful work that is being carried out by the FOH and HillPAC staff, including our extensive outreach to low-dollar donors, we think it's an appropriate number at this time," she told The Post.
Nothing quite like starting with a false premise, particularly as regards the courts.
This is not true.
Free Republic would certainly qualify as one of the best sources (and biggest) for the "feel and tone" of grassroots conservatives.
There is no debating this fact: if one were to check the thousands of threads here at FR about Bush/liberalism/socialism/spending etc. since Bush took office, you will find about 90% of the members here have defended the expansion of social welfare and defended the Bush agenda.
The majority here do NOT follow the mission statement of Free Republic, as expressed on the home page, about "rolling back government largesse", and the fact socialism is mentioned by Mr. Robinson as one of the key focal points we are fighting against.
Yes, 90% of the members here do not care about limited government nor of the creeping socialism (or surging socialism). About 10% do.
Again, there will be emotional hysterics, as usual, saying this is not true, but the FR archives shows clearly that the defense of the GOP has replaced the fight for limited government and the fight against socialism (by 90% here), even though limited government and fighting socialism is part of the the mission statement of FR.
I do offer a reason: I believe the reason is that so many here are outraged (rightfully so) against the RATs and the MSM, the Clintons, et al. That extreme hatred (well placed and right) does cloud the real vision of our purpose--limited government, anti-socialism, etc.--and makes these 90% defend the GOP simply due to the extreme hatred of all things RAT. t is too hard to swallow that our guy in the WH (a GOP Bush) and our guys in Congress (GOP both House and Senate) are allowing the move to the left (fiscally) to happen. The 90% are in denial. They defend the government expansion because they defend the GOP. In other words, the party has replaced the ideology (conservatism) as the item to fight for.
I welcome courteous discussion without the hysterics and flaming. But anybody who checks a typical "socialism thread" about some new entitlement or huge increase in social spending will see the point I am making--I am guessing roughly 90% are defending the indefensible for the reason I stated.
If FR is a good proxy for the rest of the nation (I believe so), that means this author is dead wrong about conservatives and "limited government". Bear in mind that this author said the "vast majority of Americans embrace limited government". That statement is lunacy. 50% of America is RAT infested and these 50% would welcome Marxism. I am restricting my comment to just the other 50% (Republicans). I say 90% of this 50% don' care about limited government either, based on the threads here at FR.
Bottom line--this author's statement is ludicrous. My hope is that FR members will reverse course and start fighting for what this forum was founded for (conservatism and limited govt.), not for a party label.