Rumbling on the Hard-Right

Your cake feeding dad is a false analogy. Dubya is not our dad. He is a servant of the people and if the people tell their servant to serve cake, the servant better serve cake or he will be replaced with another servant. It was the ponytailed guy in the 92 who said we are "symbolically the children of the future president." I believe The people are Dubya's boss.

I believe the American public does want a Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit. So does Dubya. So does the AARP. So does a majority of Congress. When Dubya ran for President he promised it. When he was elected he made good on his promise. The next elections will decide if the American people think Dubya deserves another term. I believe they do.

I get my data with my own eyes. I certainly DON'T think Zogby is a reliable source. If I am a scary guy it is only because you are afraid of the truth. You don't want me to think for myself. You want me to think like you.

Read your last response to me. I'm not saying GWB is our Dad, I'm saying you are in my analogy.

Are you a pollster? Did you poll my kids and ask them how they felt about footing the bill for my meds? You are of the mind people want more and bigger government, and you believe that because of what you see.

Of course, if I told you that we'll pay for all your medical costs, and I told you that we'll pick up college and take care of you in yor retirement, you'd be psyched for more government too!

People don't generally see the connection between their wallets and the 'benefits' of government. If you kept everything you earned, and had to pay for government like you did your cable bill, you'd be at least a bit more reserved about what you believe I want.

You are a Democrat. You just don't know it yet. You don't even know why Madison and Jefferson would be so angry, or why the Constitution was written the way it was:

They believed that Government was the enemy. Not Democrat Government - all government. They believed that left to its own devices, government expands, taking freedom away as it does. Even the most well-meaning of governments, because that's the nature of power.

Government should be there to provide for the common defense and to PROMOTE the general welfare - to ensure the blessings of liberty. . . Limited. Very, very limited, because its a voracious pig - a tool for otherwise weak and non-industrious people to tell the others what they can and can not do.

How does a ban on political speech accomplish that exactly?

You are scary because you think its government that enables people, and not people themselves being the best custodian of their own personal destiny.

As a conservative, I'm being asked to sit at the back of the bus until the second term, where I'm assured GWB will finally reveal himself for the conservative he's supposed to be. At this point, sure, why not. The damage is already pretty extensive as far as I can see, how much more can be done in a year? Right?

What is precisely so frightening about you is that you will not even COUNTENANCE criticism of government. Criticising govenment, D or R, is your RESPONSIBILITY. It's not disloyal or immoral.

Strip everything away from CFR and at its base, GWB allowed SCOTUS to amend the constitution without a 3/4 vote of the states. This after promising, PROMISING that he wouldn't. I will ask a final time - does that not at least merit some criticism?

Forget criticism, can you at least see where some of us are coming from with respect to our dismay? If you can't then it is precisely this quality which makes you scary.

You have wasted several paragraphs explaining why limited government is good, because I'm a conservative and I agree limited government is good. I never said I thought a Medicare prescription drug benefit was good or that I want it. I never said these things because I think the PDB is more government socialism. I don't want government to do it. It is bad...is that monosyllabic enough for you? What I have said is that the American people want it and Dubya is a good servant for giving it to them. I do not fault politicians for doing what the people want. I fault the people for wanting it. Conservatives will never fix America by electing good men to office if the American voters don't want good men and kick them out after one term. You have a problem with the American people, but you blame Dubya. That is stupid.

How soon some forget what a bad man in the WH can do.
http://www.alamo-girl.com/
People knew Clinton was a bad man but they re-elected him because he promised lots of goodies.
I don't think Dubya does everything right, but I do think he is the best...THE BEST...President the American people are willing to elect. I am willing to settle for the best because there is no better alternative. Any of this sinking into that little ol' noggin' of your?

You make silly allegations that I am a democrat but I just don't know it. I voted for Bush Sr., Dole, and Dubya. Perhaps you are not really a conservative since you are criticizing a very effective and moral leader and this can only help elect a 'rat. I often hear the far right fringe repeat a quote from that that great racist far right fringer George Wallace "There is not a dimes worth of difference between the 2 parties." This is true if one thinks blacks should sit on the back of the bus.

The far right fringe is so far to the right that both parties are far to the left. That is why they say there is no difference between the parties. Still, these freaks of nature think they know where the center is and they will make statement like "The American people do not want CFR or PDB." Then they are amazed when the American people vote for a Democrat or Republican who promises them more "unconstitutional" legislation.

I didn't make the rules of this world, but I'm smart enough to face reality. Your post contains so many wrong statements about CFR and criticizing government, that I don't know where to start. So I believe I will allow you to wallow in your ignorance.

You didn't have the courage to answer my question.

Does GWB signing a bill that curtails the First Amendment without a vote of the states worthy of some valid criticism?

So, answer the question: Does GWB deserve some criticism for gutting the First Amendment? Yes or No?

Nothing ignorant about any of the above - I believe I'm in complete possession of the salient facts.

The "continuous expansion of conservative values in all branches of government" does NOT include signing bills that should be - and can be - vetoed. Ignoring the President's veto power is just plain "stoopid"...

Stoopid, maybe, but ignoring the realities of the situation is no better. If it takes acouple herniea's on the way,, count me in. Won't be fun, but, I'll try to do my part.

As good as can be expected. And as I'm sure you know, we agree on more than we disagree - 'Happy New Year' to you, my friend!

Of course we agree more, we wouldn't be so sprited in our debates if we didn't. I always apreciate a debate that makesme challenge my principles. Without that I'd never learn more.

Thanks, and may the best of your past be the worst of your future my friend.

You didn't have the courage to answer my question.

I have answered your question in great detail. Must I spell everything out for you?

Dubya is only expanding on the CFR proposed after Nixon. Where in the omnipotent (to you) and unrecognized (to the American people) Constitution does it say rich people may not give whatever money they want to a candidate. It doesn't. CFR is unconsitutional...it has been unconstitutional for over 30 years yet it is the law of the land.

Again, before you ASSume I like CFR, I don't make the rules I just recognize reality.

You may criticize Dubya all you want. It is a worthless exercise since Dubya will gain 2 votes for every vote lost on the issue. The American people demand CFR. You would have no matter if Dubya or Gore were President. No 3rd party candidate will win, in large part, because they refuse to give the American people what they want.

The short answer to your question "Does GWB deserve some criticism for gutting the First Amendment?" is no. I don't blame 60 Senators or 240 congressmen for passing it either.

I know, I know. You believe Dubya should show leadership, tell the American people to screw themselves, and let a 'rat win and do worse harm to our nation. I think that is unhelpful for me and my children.

You are scary.

So the constitution is just paper to you?

Where do you draw the line? If GWB decides that it makes sense to have everyone either register their firearms in a national database, or hand them over, what will you do?

If he decides the 4th amendment is sort of inconvenient, and that warrants are sort of optional before law enforcement can take your house apart looking for something you have no business knowing about, what's your position going to be on that.

What if, and this is a very real possibility Dad, he decides that he's going to require the services of your son, daughter, or both, and they should hustle into the post office to register for the draft, which is forthcoming. What then?

What if he decides that it would be okay to place your son or daughter under the command of a Polish general somewhere over in Syria in a forward combat position. What then?

Where's the line between blind trust and patriotism for you?

Now, you are out of gas in terms of logic or the facts, since you've decided that the Constitution of the United States is nothing more than a set of suggestions more than the foundation of our system of laws, and that very short term political calculation takes precedence.

At this point you will resort to your M.O. and hurl some insult at me and go play in someone elses sandbox.

I'm serious about this suggestion: reread the Constitution. Read the Federalist Papers. Especially the Federalist Papers - you'd swear they were written last week. The founders had looked back on 1000's of years of failed governance and wrote a new plan. So far it is worked, and it is massive arrogance to think that we have learned anything in 200 years or so that we didn't already know before.

Amending the Constitution without consent of the Congress is Judicial activism, and it is worth standing up against.

Another knock on GWB: All he had to do is say the word and Frist would have dropped the Nuke in the Senate to put a stop to the improper filibustering of Judges.

Your party is what it is because we are not willing to stand by and see it hijacked by guys like Clinton, or well-meaning ones like GWB. The rats are going to be on their ass for the next little while until they figure out that its okay to be against abortion.

Mark my words, they are going nowhere else until they fix that problem. The moral high ground is off-limits to them until they do, and that means virtually the entire southern US.

So, have some guts and be willing to let your President and your Party know that you think he can be wrong. This is the arena of ideas - the very thing that rats have forgotten. They have no idea what they stand for anymore.

If we follow your lead, neither will we. We'll simply do anything we have to in order to retain power. That is exactly what you are suggesting we do.

One more thing: Stop telling me what the American People demand. You don't know anymore than I do. They don't demand anything except to be safe in their person and their property - that we know. That much we have figured out. You are just pounding the table when you do that - invoking some imaginary crowd swelling behind you as you make your pronouncemnts.

Clinton has been excellent for you and for your party. He has made possible what was impossible for 40 years - an R Congress and R Presidency. Anybody more effective, and where do you think we'd be right now?

By the way, it took Newt Gingrich invoking the party to stick to its principles in order to take the country back.

Don't sacrifice your principles on the altar of fear and expediency.

What was that line? - "A people willing to trade freedom for safety deserves neither."

Where do you draw the line? If GWB decides that it makes sense to have everyone either register their firearms in a national database, or hand them over, what will you do?

That is where I draw the line. If Dubya even suggests this, ping me and I will admit you were right. I don't think it is going to happen.

What if, and this is a very real possibility Dad, he decides that he's going to require the services of your son, daughter, or both, and they should hustle into the post office to register for the draft, which is forthcoming. What then?

What if...what if...what if. It is not a real possibility.

Where's the line between blind trust and patriotism for you?

It's not blind trust. I trust Dubya based on his performance so far as President. How about a question for you? Where's the line between paranoid delusions of persecution and rational caution for you?

Now, you are out of gas in terms of logic or the facts, since you've decided that the Constitution of the United States is nothing more than a set of suggestions more than the foundation of our system of laws, and that very short term political calculation takes precedence.

I am misunderstood. The Constitution retains all the power that the people of America instill it with. If the people believe the Constitution allows a right to privacy, and therefor a right to abortion and buggery, then that is the law. If the people believe that the right to free speech does not include campaign money then that is the law. We have had Social Security for 70 years. Can you find the clause in the Constitution that provides for a government controlled retirement account? I hope SS isn't "unconstitutional" because I've been paying into the damn thing since I was 18.

Even in dictatorships, power is in the hands of the people, no matter what official looking declaration of legal control the dictator has written up. When the people of the USSR got tired of communism they rose up and took power, and a new constitution was written. It is not the paper...it is the people.

Another knock on GWB: All he had to do is say the word and Frist would have dropped the Nuke in the Senate to put a stop to the improper filibustering of Judges.

Why do you suppose Dubya hasn't done this? You say it is easy. You say all he has to do is "say the word." Why do you suppose Johnson didn't do this when Chief Justice Earl Warren retired? Johnson offered up Justice Abe Fortas to be Chief Justice and the Senate filibustered the nomination. Because of this Nixon got to choose the Chief Justice in 69. Maybe President Johnson, President Bush, and all the other Presidents who have ever faced filibusters throughout our history just ain't as smart as you.

We'll simply do anything we have to in order to retain power. That is exactly what you are suggesting we do.

You must first have power to change anything. Goldwater stuck to his principles in 1964. Mondale stuck to his principles when he told the American people he was going to raise taxes. Principles are important, don't get me wrong, but losers with principles are still losers and they don't change things. I have principles and where I come from (Wisconsin) many people think I'm a far right conservative. I swallow my principles when I go to parent/teacher conferences. If I spouted off and told the teachers what I think of the curriculum my children would pay the price. There are times when principles must take a backseat in the name of actually accomplishing something. In order to get testing and standards for education Dubya had to sublimate some principles. If Dubya said "I want everything and I want it now," he would get nothing. That is exactly what you are suggesting we do.

One more thing: Stop telling me what the American People demand. You don't know anymore than I do. They don't demand anything except to be safe in their person and their property - that we know. That much we have figured out. You are just pounding the table when you do that - invoking some imaginary crowd swelling behind you as you make your pronouncemnts

People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid. - Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (And the crowd swells behind me once again!)

Clinton has been excellent for you and for your party. He has made possible what was impossible for 40 years - an R Congress and R Presidency. Anybody more effective, and where do you think we'd be right now?

By the way, it took Newt Gingrich invoking the party to stick to its principles in order to take the country back.

Wow. I can't believe you actually put these 2 paragraphs together. Which is it? My party is the majority party because Clinton stuck to his principles or was it Newt? Or did Clinton not stick to his principles, signed welfare reform, and lost the election for Gore? In 2002 the Republican party gained 3 seats and the majority in the Senate, more seats in the House, more state legislators, and control of more state legislatures...bucking the historical trend for off year elections. Could it be that the voters were voting for the Bush tax-cuts and military success? Or was it still Clinton - 2 years after his term ended, or Newt 4 years after he resigned for sticking his principles in his secretary.

It takes a pretty disjointed mind to have 2 completely opposing assertions in just 4 sentences. That has got to be some kind of record even for a paleo-con. You are lucky this thread is mostly dead. I'm embarrassed for you.

Clinton was a bad and very liberal President. He was not nearly as awful as Johnson who gave us the Great Society. Clinton failed to socialize medical care, and his great achievement was welfare reform. We both know Clinton didn't want to sign welfare reform but the people demanded it(crowd swelling again!) So what is the real difference between 1964 and 2004? The people have slowly gotten more conservative. The people sometimes make the wrong decision. Sometimes they want CFR and prescription drug plans. Eventually the people correct their mistakes...like slavery or welfare reform. I would rather put my faith in the American people then a principled dictator. Dictators follow their principles and ignore the will of the people. People like you pray for a strong dictator to do what you want over the objections of the majority, but if your opinion ever strays from the opinion of your savior tyrant you will be the first against the wall. To paraphrase you "People like you scare me." I will always choose a servant of the people like Dubya over a strong despot.

"We the people"

President Bush is beginning to anger certain hard-line conservatives, particularly over fiscal issues, the way his father did in the year before he lost to Bill Clinton in 1992.

Gimme a break - - the Washington Times wrote this crap?
George the Elder went along with the scumbag Democrats' record-breaking tax INCREASE.
Dubya, on the other hand, CUT taxes.

Sorry, Washington Times - - no sale. No valid comparison, either.

An 'excellence in posting' bump for your #46.

"Wow. I can't believe you actually put these 2 paragraphs together. Which is it? My party is the majority party because Clinton stuck to his principles or was it Newt? Or did Clinton not stick to his principles, signed welfare reform, and lost the election for Gore? In 2002 the Republican party gained 3 seats and the majority in the Senate, more seats in the House, more state legislators, and control of more state legislatures...bucking the historical trend for off year elections. Could it be that the voters were voting for the Bush tax-cuts and military success? Or was it still Clinton - 2 years after his term ended, or Newt 4 years after he resigned for sticking his principles in his secretary.

It takes a pretty disjointed mind to have 2 completely opposing assertions in just 4 sentences. That has got to be some kind of record even for a paleo-con. You are lucky this thread is mostly dead. I'm embarrassed for you."

I'll be fine, thanks. This kind of ad hominem is par for you when you get backed into a corner. You wouldn't even sniff the logic of the two paragraphs - that Clinton HAD NO PRINCIPLES, and as such Gore and his party were swept away by a party with an agenda that put some accountability back into government, starting with Congress in 2002 leading up to GWB's win in 2004. Why should I have to explain this to you? Even Carville, in Stephanopolous' book once drew an empty box on a table with his finger and asked, "What's in here with Clinton, What does he stand for?

As far as SS, there is a court case going on right now that is challenging the legal basis of the Federal Income Tax, and yes, as you probably know there is an amendment providing for an Income Tax. As far as SS, I couldn't tell you, and I'm not sure its even relevant to this discussion.

I'll tell you some things that are, however:

Where in the constitution does it say that woman have a right to abort their children? It doesn't THE COURT said there is. Where does it say that people have a right to sodomize each other, in the privacy of their bedroom? It doesn't, THE COURT said there is. Same with CFR. The ban on political speech was language inserted into the bill, it passed both houses because nobody making a career in politics would think of whacking something so sweet. Bush gets it (the only president since John Quincy Adams to not use his veto) and passes the buck to the SCOTUS, who he believes will do his work for him and spare him the political cost of the veto. Wrong guess. SCOTUS doesn't bat an eyelash, and the recourse 'we the people' have in this case - zip.

And there is the line for me - gutting the first amendment. CFR wouldn't have got him booted from office, and it would have been principled to boot. Moreover, it would have said, "Look, leave it to Democrats to filibuster in their advise and consent capacity and other weak tricks - we will not amend the constitution by judicial activism. I'm all for CFR, but not if there is a real ban on speech, especially political speech - what could be clearer than "Congress shall make no law . . . ""

That he signed CFR with BOTH HOUSES in R CONTROL leaves him zero excuse. He could have sent a clear message to the conference committee that the final version should be without the 60 and 30 day rules.

As far as filibusters, no Congress has ever used filibusters to stop judicial nominees from getting a floor vote. Democrats are perverting procedure to do this, and GWB can correct it by simply instructing Frist to do so. I'm not claiming to be smarter than anyone before or after me.

Your Kirkegaard reference - What?

Your stance is that the people have the power, and eventually get it right (1000's of years of history don't back you up on that regard - and the Electoral College was designed to protect against 'the people' concentrated in one part of the country being able to tyrannize people in less populous parts).

Kirkegaard's comment essentially says that people speak before they think. While many times true, so what? Are you trying to say the freedom of speech is overrated?

The erosion of rights is a gradual process in government, and its inexorable unless guys like you decide that the Constitution has very deliberate methods by which you can make changes to it. The framers left the amendment process in place so that it can change with the times, but they made sure it was tough to do. Guys like you have to say, "Sorry, I love you GWB but the 1st amendment is a sort of important one, and it ought to be up for a 3/4 vote of Congress before we change it."

SCOTUS has changed all of that. Of all the branches, they represent nobody. They are just there to tell us what is constitutional and what isn't, and even on that score they are doing a poor job.

Everything I laid out there are real possibilities. As far as answering your question to me, I have a simple answer:

The line for me is when speech isn't free anymore. It's been crossed, and it isn't paranoid delusions either. The ACLU and the NRA are IN AGREEMENT on this one. So is George Will and Alan Colmes.

You are one of the first people I've come across that thinks its no big deal.

Hey for you, its all relative I guess.

Richard Viguerie, Edward H. Crane, Pat Buchanan, Don Devine, and Michael R. Long are ALL absolutely right regarding both this article's premise and the various context of their statements to the Washington Times.

I, too, have attended meetings with grassroots conservatives over the last four years. Many of them had worked very hard on the 2000 Bush Campaign. With the exception of hardcore Christian fundamentalists, Zionist neo-cons, most of the OTHER, rather diverse, groups of conservative activists do NOT plan to rally their base activist groups or bring over other conservative swing voters (ie. Dems, Independents, etc.) to the Bush camp, as they did in 2000.

And don't anyone here forget that even Algore got 20% of the "conservative" vote in 2000 (Bush got almost 80%). And all it would take for Dean to beat Bush this November would be as little as a 1% or 2% swing of conservative Dems, independents, or even Republicans, to Dean, in what is predicted to be a very close election.

I see no point in continuing this one-sided debate. You say "no Congress has ever used filibusters to stop judicial nominees from getting a floor vote" when I gave you an example, Abe Fortas, in my last post. I ask you for the constitutionality of SS and you talk about the income tax. I give up. You win. You are too smart for me.

How many enforced supreme court decisions will it take until fools figure out that it is of no importance what the words in the constitution say or mean to anyone.

To begin, "enforced" supreme court decisions signify only that the executive branch is doing it's job - and doing what the judicial branch tells it to do. Carting any other understanding around might cater to other fools, but not this fool.

It only matters who gets to be the justices.

GWB deserves credit for his recess appointment of Charles Pickering. And if he was as smart as you indeed are, he'd be looking for the next Rhenquist, Scalia and/or Thomas, and he'd find him/her.