[MACVSOG68]

If our Founding Fathers followed the same strategy of compromise you advocate, we would be mailing our income taxes to London, or perhaps a British Commonwealth type capital named for General Howe, George III, or the Duke of Wellington. If Roosevelt and Churchill followed this strategy against the Nazis, the Third Reich would be celebrating its 75th anniversary next year.

In fact, our Founding Fathers tried desperately to negotiate with England. They did not want to separate. It was George III who would not negotiate. As for the silly analogies to World War II, you do not negotiate with the enemy unless you are losing. Nor should we negotiate with Al Qaeda or Sadr.

But our Nation is not at war with the Democrats, who now control the Congress. Americans expect collaboration and negotiation to those major issues of importance including social security, tax reform, immigration reform and others. It is not a sin (except to the RR) to sit down and play the give and take game in order to achieve a goal.

The only cure for America's political problems is to return to the philosophy of our Founders - limited government, personal and financial liberty, and strong national defense. There is no substitute for victory.

No substitute for victory, and yet you decry the very war on terror we are fighting as "no-win". But to your main point. Our Nation and government are where we are, not where some would like us to be. Limited federal government simply means transferring more responsibility to state governments, which is fine. But if you believe that anyone in the office of the President can suddenly get rid of social security, the Department of Education, HUD, Agriculture, you are dreaming. In any case, Congress created them, and no Congress is going to spend its capital trying to eliminate them. The best that will happen is a slowing of the growth of government, and some transfer of power back to the states where it belongs. But only a Republican would even consider that.

Those here though who are against Jiuliani are not against him because of his fiscal conservatism, but his social conservative values.

And where were all of those limited government conservatives here on FR when Terri Schiavo, and the marriage amendment debates were taking place? Seems like they all wanted the federal government to step in and enlarge its control over the Country.

[Wallace T.]

In 2003, after the mid-term elections, President Bush had a unique opportunity to reshape the political landscape. For the first time since 1928, the GOP held the Presidency and both houses of Congress. We had won a military victory over the Iraqi Army and the President's approval ratings were extremely high. However, the next three years were marked by little pursuit of limited government goals, for which both the Administration and the Congressional leadership share the blame. Rather than strongly supporting privatization of Social Security, a good initiative by the President, the GOP led Congress deep sixed it while pursuing pork barrel projects. Speaker Denny Hastert may be gone from Congress, but his pet project, the billion dollar Prairie Parkway, a north south highway past the outer limits of the Chicago suburbs, is well funded and scheduled to begin construction. GOP led Congresses gave us huge budget deficits, an "accomplishment" that made the liberal Clinton administration look like tightwads. President Bush and the Republican Congress gave us another Medicare entitlement that will no doubt add to the tide of red ink. Furthermore, the President never used the veto pen to attack the huge deficits.

Note that what I have listed are economic and not social issues. The policies of the Administration and Congress gave economic conservatives little incentive to support the GOP. At least the social conservatives got two socially conservative Supreme Court justices and a ban on partial birth abortion. Economic conservatives got little more than a temporary tax cut. The Republican Party cannot afford another President who has a proven record of weakness in this area, as is the case with Rudy McRomney. Economic conservatives need to reject the frontrunners, even more so than the social conservatives.