What the “conservative” useful idiots have brought us: Week one.

The last election told us many things. One thing that stands out above all others is that the number of people who actually understand what is going on in our country today is frighteningly small.

Just half of Americans are registered to vote, so right off, we know that half of America doesn’t care what happens to itself or the rest of us. They live in a different world. You know who they are so it is not necessary to expand on this point.

Of those who are registered, on a good Election Day, sixty percent vote. That means that only thirty percent of Americans are heard, and even a large percentage of them are ill informed or willfully blinding themselves, even as they cast their ballots.

Of this thirty percent, about fifty percent vote Democrat and by doing so show us they do not understand that the Democrats are a party bent on surrendering our security to our terrorist enemies. To be sure not all who vote Democrat want this result, most of the others vote Democrat because they want socialism, gay marriage and dumbed down schools and/or open borders.

That leaves only fifteen percent, or about 1 in 7, of Americans who understand that we are the only hope our nation has.

This bares repeating: Only about 1 in 7 Americans seems to understand the true murderous intentions of our enemies and/or the destructive nature of socialism.

Nevertheless, in the last election, a certain percentage of America’s 1 in 7 voters, people who should know better, voted in a way that showed they were willing put their own demands for single issue purity over the safety of America. This is the reality of what these voters have brought about by their foolish demands that politicians suddenly toe their line totally or be thrown under a bus along with our nation.

The ill informed nitwits that vote Democrat in a knee jerk fashion, the socialists who, though born here, hate America – they are what they are. They must be fought at the ballot box every two years. They are almost like evil little children who will be what they will be, but the, “ I’m staying home because I’m so much more conservative than you, so much smarter than you..” 1 in 7 voters must be held to a higher standard. These voters can not claim ignorance. They willfully handed the reigns of power and responsibility for America’s safety over to the Democrats. There were just enough of these willfully “blind” “single issue purity” voters to hand the Democrats 16 of their 36 victories; this figure being derived from the fact that for the want of just 63,000 more votes spread across these races, America would not now be in the danger she is in.

These people should have known better. They took their own narrow agendas with them on Election Day. They played “make believe” with America’s future and safety. The bought into the Democrat controlled media’s lies that we can’t win the war, the economy is tanking, and open borders would somehow be less threatening if only the Democrats controlled both Houses.

Now these 1 in 7 voters are trying to explain what they did by wringing their hands and complaining about not wanting to “vote for the lesser of two evils.” Apparently it does not occur to this group that the choices we have are really just the choices we have. They don’t understand that failing to vote for the “lesser of two evils” guarantees that you will get the greater of two evils.

These people fancy themselves as so much smarter and so much more conservative than the rest of the 1 in 7. They are nothing more than “conservative” useful idiots.

They, and unfortunately us, now have to live with the disastrous consequences of their self delusions that they would somehow get from a Democrat Congress what they couldn't get from a Republican congress, but that would be the only difference. We will all now have to deal with Democrats who will be as disappointing on some issues, but terrifying on other issues, lots of other issues.

These are a series of headlines. This piece is not written to anyone who needs to have them explained. It is written to the “conservative” useful idiots among us who have joined the fools and socialists to “teach” someone a lesson. Here’s the first week’s “lessons”.

"SEARCH ON FOR TOUGH NEW WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL; expected avalanche of congressional committee investigations..."

"Pelosi's new image as Italian Catholic mom -- more than a 'San Francisco liberal'"

"(Mother") Sheehan Right to Demand Democrats Act on Iraq (Susan Estrich Barf Alert!)"

--Can you explain how voting Republican in the last election would have made America a stronger and more prosperous nation?--

Ways and Means: Charles Rangel, of New York, could replace California Republican Bill Thomas. Rangel is expected to wield his authority most forcefully in the arenas of taxation and foreign trade. He has opposed President George Bush's tax cuts, and seems unlikely to endorse a continuation of President Bush's fast-track authority—the president's power to negotiate trade deals without congressional oversight, which comes up for review in 2007.

International Relations: California’s Tom Lantos could replace Illinois Republican Henry Hyde. Lantos is the only Holocaust survivor to have served in the United States Congress. He has a history of advocacy on human-rights issues, and though he has strongly criticized Bush's Iraq War policy, his voting record overlaps significantly with Hyde's, including on issues of United Nations reform and U.S. policy toward Israel.

Financial Services: Barney Frank of Massachusetts could replace Ohio Republican Michael Oxley. Republicans have raised concerns about Frank as a committee chair, with Vice President Dick Cheney among others saying he is too liberal: "I don't need to tell you what kind of legislation would come," Cheney said of Frank and other Democrats poised to take over committees. But historically, Financial Services has been among the more bipartisan of house committees, and some analysts say radical change is unlikely. Among Frank's stated priorities is increasing oversight of hedge funds.

Armed Services: Missouri’s Ike Skelton could replace California Republican Duncan Hunter. Skelton comes from a military family—his father served in World War II, and he has sons in the Army and Navy (though he himself was ineligible for service because he once had polio). As the ranking Democrat, he has generally been cooperative with Hunter, but in 2002 Skelton personally wrote President Bush to warn of the possibility of "civil unrest and even anarchy" following an attack on Iraq. Skelton has said that as committee chair he would consider investigating wasteful spending on U.S. military operations in Iraq.

Appropriations: Wisconsin’s David Obey could replace California Republican Jerry Lewis. Obey was Appropriations chairman for less than a year, in 1994, before Republicans won control of the House. His legislative emphasis is on labor and education issues. Experts expect that Obey will ramp up oversight of appropriations directed to the executive branch.

Government Reform: California’s Henry Waxman could replace Tom Davis of Virginia. Waxman has been a consistent and vocal opponent of President Bush's agenda. Many Republicans have raised concerns about him as chairman of the committee in charge of launching investigations—in particular, about whether he would target the president. One of Waxman's chief legislative interests has been regulation of the pharmaceutical industry and prescription drug prices.

Intelligence: California’s Jane Harman is the ranking Democrat in line to replace Republican Peter Hoekstra, though insider reports suggest Pelosi could pass over Harman, instead assigning the post to one of the next-highest ranking Democrats on the committee, possibly Alcee Hastings of Florida. Harman was one of a small number of Democrats who attended secret house briefings on domestic surveillance policies, and some Democrats have criticized her for being too moderate and too willing to cooperate with Republicans.

Judiciary: Michigan’s John Conyers could replace Republican chairman James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin. Conyers is expected to take an active role in pushing for broad immigration reforms. He has also said he is eager to reexamine the Patriot Act to address Democratic concerns over the act's alleged civil liberties violations.

Homeland Security: Mississippi’s Bennie Thompson could replace Republican chairman Peter King of New York. Thompson has urged congress to more thoroughly follow through on the 9/11 Commission's recommendations for homeland-security reform. Democrats have also said they may also revisit concerns raised during the Dubai Ports World controversy over foreign ownership of U.S. infrastructure.

www.msnbc.msn.com

--Can you explain how voting Republican in the last election would have made America a stronger and more prosperous nation?--

Auto industry braces for environmental clash in '07

Richard Simon / Los Angeles Times

WASHINGTON -- Steps to curb global warming. Tougher fuel economy standards for automobiles. Repeal of massive tax breaks for the oil industry.

Environmentalists are busy these days crafting their holiday wish list, giddy about the prospects for success in the new Democratic-controlled Congress. But industry groups are gearing up to fight, and their forces may include more than the usual Republican allies.

"We're confident that there are plenty of Democrats who know and understand us," said Charles Drevna of the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association.

Drevna's confidence is probably well-placed. The politics surrounding environmental issues have proved hard to predict, largely because the potential economic impact of stronger regulation tends to scramble partisan loyalties. Democrats from auto-making states, for example, have fought efforts to mandate stricter miles-per-gallon rules for vehicles.

These crosscurrents could cause the push for an aggressive environmental agenda to become an object lesson on the limits of what can actually be achieved in the Congress that will convene in January.

Key to the enthusiasm among environmentalists is the impending change at the helm of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., who's called global warming "the greatest challenge of our generation," will replace Sen. James M. Inhofe, R-Okla., who's dismissed manmade climate change as a "hoax."

Perhaps no other transfer of committee chairs is as dramatic. Boxer drives a hybrid Toyota Prius. Inhofe drives a Jeep.

Boxer says California's new global warming law -- with a goal of reducing emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases by 25 percent by 2020 -- should be a model for the nation. Inhofe derides it as a "job killer."

Boxer received a perfect score from the League of Conservation Voters for her Senate votes this year. Inhofe received a 0.

Environmentalists say that after years of fighting GOP attempts to roll back environmental laws, they now can go on the offensive.

"It's as if the winds have shifted and proponents of environmental controls finally have the winds at our backs," said Frank O'Donnell of Clean Air Watch.

The precarious nature of this shift was driven home recently when Sen. Tim Johnson, D-S.D., underwent brain surgery. Should Johnson die or resign and be replaced by a Republican, the GOP would regain control of the closely divided Senate, denying Boxer and other Democrats committee chairmanships. With Johnson's condition improving, however, plans for the Democratic takeover are proceeding.

At least Reagan never changed his mind on his core values

You're wrong again, OldFriend. Reagan changed his core values from opposition to the unconstitutional drug war to support of the unconstitutional drug war. His reason may have been political, to gain the support he needed to win the Cold War, but it was still a change of his "core values".

Never mind that Goldwater came to the conclusion that gay marriage was a good thing.

Goldwater believed that marriage, gay or straight, was the responsibility of the states, not the federal government...as the Constitution so clearly delineates.

Senile old fool married a young bimbo, had a gay son and suddenly all his principles left the scene.

ROTFLMAO...You're a crotch voter!
Susan was 51 when she married Barry Goldwater...you call that a young bimbo?
You condemn Goldwater for his gay son. Do you also condemn Cheney for his gay daughter?
The RP for Foley?
The Christian Coalition for Ted Haggard?
Would you vote for a Democrat if he promised to get rid of homosexuals?
.

Suburbs are facing downsizing of a different kind. Many software companies are outsourcing jobs overseas and hiring cheap H-1B guest tech workers to replace US workers. In fact during a testimony in Congress, an American of Indian descent described how she almost got a job with a software company because the interviewer assumed she was from India and balked when he found out she was an American citizen. Suburban workers in servie and high tech industries face job uncertainty knowing that if they reach their 40's companies will lay them off for college hires, or their job can be outsourced overseas or subcontracted out to guest workers at a cheaper salary. The dynamic free trade economy has caused uncertainty in the working/labor class (which includes hi tech workers), and the Dems were able to capitalize on it.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.