Posted on 11/07/2006 11:45:49 PM PST by Jim Robinson
We do indeed live in interesting times.
I believe our resolve is about to be tested like it's never been tested before and I pray we're up for it.
The Democrats and the leftist media see this election as a mandate against the president and the war. They are about to pull out all the stops in their mission to totally demoralize the American people. If they succeed to the point we pull out of Iraq before the Iraqis are strong enough to defend themselves, I'm afraid it'll be the Killing Fields all over again. Only this time much much worse and much closer to home.
Praying we have the national resolve to resist the enemy within. Praying we maintain the will to continue the fight against the global jihadists. Our very right to survive as a nation and a free people depends on it.
Our president and our troops are going to need our prayers and support now more than ever.
God willing, America will survive!
"Here in Virginia, for instance, we had a slam dunk on defining what marriage was...and Webb, like other red state Democrats--though misguided by political affiliation--at least have ties to the military and have distinguished themselves as patriots."
You're right. The sad reality, though, is that politics in the U.S. has become a game of four legs good, two legs bad (to paraphrase George Orwell). To suggest that there are any Democrats out there who are not the embodiment of satan incarnate is to go against the prevailing wisdom in conservative circles today.
The GOP is a political party. Political parties exist to elect their members to political office, hard stop. They will do what is necessary to get their members elected to political office. But to hear some conservatives talk, you'd think the GOP has taken on the status of a religion.
One thin shred of silver lining in this cloud is that I do think some conservatives might, just might, start working with the more conservative elements of the Democratic party to actually put some conservative policies into place. I'm not so naive as to think there will be any great numbers of conservatives doing this, but it will happen to some extent.
If conservatives actually want to see anything resembling conservatism, they're going to have to deal with the fact that there are a lot of Americans who do not agree with them on everything. There is also another political party that represents a significant portion of the population. You can call them demoncrats, rats or whatever you want, but it doesn't change that reality.
Virginia FRegards....
Of course not. They will put him in cold storage and drag him out again next time. Oh by the way, his brother was running for the Tn state legislature and he lost, big time. LOL
In 2008 there will be millions of new 'Rat voters thanks to the upcoming amnesty and path to citizenship. That will make it much more difficult to turn back the Democrat tide.
I didn't care for either one of them, period! I dislike Allen because of his arrogance and he ignored a lot of his constituents (me) when they sought his reasoning for voting on certain matters important to them (like CAFTA, senior prescription drugs) while oft-accused-of-being a RINO Senator Warner had the courtesy to write back and at least explain his position.
And though I originally was for Webb, I ditched him when he embraced the Clintons.
But Allen, whose arrogance and "the Senate moves too slow for me" attitude got just what he deserved...and, should he somehow pull this out, I trust he'll learn to pay better attention to those he represents.
bttt
Here's what your "teach the GOP a lesson" folks have given us.
Frighting photo gallery...unless you view it as a gallery of gridlock.
I trust Senator Webb will be paying better attention to you during the next six long dry years? And who knows how many more?
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
I said on several threads before Tuesday that poll numbers suggested that the Dems were screwed. Their margin in the generic polls wasn't great enough, I thought, to give them control of either house. However, I'm standing by my assessment: They're screwed.
Early polls (August/September) hinted at a bloodbath this year. That didn't happen. The Dems control Congress by the skin of their teeth. (And as I write this, the Senate is iffy.) This is actually worse for them than falling short. Their far-left, base supporters are going to be claiming responsibility for the Dems' win and they are going to expect results for their effort. This trap of high expectations is going to be their undoing.
The first, second, and third items on the Moonbat agenda are impeachment, impeachment, and impeachment. This is something that Reid and Pelosi cannot deliver and cannot afford not to deliver. They face the same dilemma with the next agenda item: halting the War on Islamofascism.
The Democrat majority in both houses is not monolithic. There are a number of Blue Dogs in both houses and there's no guarantee that they'll go along with a Moonbat temper tantrum. A drive for articles of impeachment will look to the American People like a childish outburst. The Blue Dogs know this and won't want to get caught up in the backlash that's sure to follow. It cost us in the '90s and it will cost them now.
Pelosi's problem is how to find a way to persuade her most extreme supporters that impeachment is a bad idea. They are utterly convinced that the entire country thinks and feels just like they do. Any attempt to avoid impeachment will be seen as treasonous by them. I don't think that Pelosi can dodge this one. Either she pisses off her base, and this is a deal breaker with them, or she chases the Blue Dogs into George Bush's waiting arms.
The Blue Dogs also support the war effort. One member of the Democrat caucus in particular, while he may not qualify as a Blue Dog, certainly has an azure tinge and bruising around his throat: Joe Lieberman. Joe will probably view is re-election as a referendum on the war; and rightly so since his Democrat opponent made this the centerpiece of his campaign. The Moonbats also saw Joe's defeat in the primary as a sign of their own greatness. Seeing him in the Senate will piss them off; seeing him nixing any effort to halt the war will really piss them off! But what can Reid do? The knife wounds in Joe's back haven't healed yet. If there's a one seat margin in the Senate, then Reid needs to plant some wet one's on Joe's backside; especially on this issue.
And therein lies Reid's problem: It's a real pain the arse trying to hold together a fractious coalition. This is something that we understand. (And on a side note, loosing DeWine and Chaffee will be a blessing in the long run.) Any one Senator can become a king maker when the majority leader doesn't have the votes to spare. If halting the war comes up early, and it will, and if Reid caves in to Lieberman, and he will, then Reid will spend the next two years kissing blue butts. (Welcome to our world Harry!)
The Democrats are between a rock and a hard place. They will either split their caucus and lose their razor thin majority or they will have to cross their base. The Moonbat base has spent the last six years fuming over 2000. They want revenge and they want it now. "Go along to get along" is something that simply will not make sense to them. They will explode with rage if they don't get what they see as their rightful due. Nothing short of heads on pikes will satisfy them; talk and rhetoric won't do the job. But what satiates the Moonbats will horrify the Blue Dogs. What to do, what to do...
The Dems are screwed.
He won't be there long as a Democrat...he has a reputation of being a flip-flopper if you'll remember ... practically all of his stated reasons for even running this time centered around Iraq and the fact that his Marine son is over there (one of the few Congress members to be able to make that claim). I think he'd have been almost acceptable as a Zell Miller/Sam Nunn type of Dem if only he hadn't gone and hugged Beelzeblubber and his disgusting wife (two people I absolutely abhor), hence could not vote for him.
From Tom McClintock, penned in December of 1998:
For California Republicans, whose fortunes are lower now than at any time since 1958, there is the best of news and the worst of news.
The best of news is that eight years after 1958 Ronald Reagan swept the governor’s race, carrying virtually every constitutional office. The worst of news is that eight years is also the period between the election of the last Whig president and the demise of the Whig party. Both cases are important for Republicans to understand as they contemplate their party’s future.
Reagan often urged Republicans to "paint our positions in bold colors, and not pale pastels." There is an element in the Republican Party today that would have called – in fact, did call - this approach "divisive" and "polarizing." Indeed, it was. Reagan sought to draw a sharp distinction between two ideologies: one that embraced the bureaucratic state as the best provider of happiness for the prevailing coalition, and one that embraced liberty as the best guarantor of happiness for the individual.
He knew that until these two ideologies were clearly delineated, voters had no basis upon which to choose.
Reagan was divisive in precisely the same way that Abraham Lincoln was divisive. "It is the eternal struggle between these two principles – right and wrong – throughout the world," Lincoln said in 1858. One was freedom, the other was "the same spirit that says ‘you work and toil and earn bread, and I’ll eat it.’ No matter in what shape it comes…"
In the early 1960’s a great debate arose within the Republican party. On one side were those who sought to keep the party on a "moderate" path, closely mimicking the agenda of the ruling Democrats. On the other were those, like Reagan, who believed that the loyal opposition should stand clearly and forthrightly upon uncompromising principles of liberty.
Reagan’s wing prevailed, though not without serious obstacles. In 1964 Republicans learned anew that change does not come easily, especially when that change is from the security of the welfare state to the responsibility of freedom. "All experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed," the Founders warned in the Declaration of Independence.
But Reagan was undeterred and unafraid to speak for a cause bigger than himself. "We’ve come to a moment in our history," he said, "when party labels are unimportant. Philosophy is all important." To the Republican establishment, Reagan was an ideologue destined to drag the party down to defeat.
The same debate raged within the Whig party in the 1840’s and 1850’s. The moderates of that age were determined to distance their party from the polarizing questions of slavery. In 1848 the Whigs elected slave-owner Zachary Taylor, who quickly transformed the party into a pale reflection of the opposition. Fearful of controversy that might alienate one group or another, the Whigs did not even adopt a party platform that year.
Within eight years the Whigs had vanished, while a new party emerged made up of widely disparate elements united in a single principled and highly controversial cause.
Reagan’s genius lay in his willingness to embrace principled causes, though they might be controversial, while uniting those disparate elements around a central tenet: that free men and women can decide their futures better as individuals than government can decide for them collectively. This was the ideological pillar that held aloft the so-called Republican "Big Tent." When George Bush in Washington and Pete Wilson in California destroyed that pillar in the 1990’s by massively increasing taxes and regulations, the tent came crashing down and the diverse groups within it began brawling with each other.
Now a ruling party has emerged in California after sixteen years of stalemated government. It has the charter to govern. Its ideology is clear: to use the power of government to provide collectively for the demands of its constituencies.
The question is whether the Republicans understand the role of the loyal opposition: to offer a contrasting agenda of liberty and to take that agenda aggressively to the people.
Ronald Reagan and Abraham Lincoln understood that role. Zachary Taylor and George [H.W.] Bush did not. Which style of leadership the Republicans choose could well decide whether eight years from now the Republicans sweep the state as they did in 1966, or whether they go the way of the Whigs in 1856.
Amen!
Couldn't concur more...been up all night worried about the future but, as I see it, the Dems cannot afford to go after Bush in an impeachment try. First of all they'd have a bit of trouble with the "high crimes and misdemeanor" clause in the Constitution because the president, though mighty clumsy, has committed neither. Secondly, if they put him up on trial and are successful, they'd lose the issue to run against in 08 because they have no others to spark an angry electorate. Lastly, Bush would become a martyr in the eyes of most--hounded from office for simply doing his duty protecting his nation--and, when we're hit again, the protest regarding their failure of providing our security would run through this country like a million Katrinas.
But it wasn't just the punish the incumbent folks. A lot of blame needs put on the heads of the "stay the course, everything is alright" people. The crawl over glass folks when stupid stuff was done. The groups thinkers.
We pray with you.
And this is the place, maybe the only place, where we will find the diagnosis and define the remedy.
This is the same nation that sent the 1994 majority to Congress.
Why we sent them there, and what we wanted them to do, will be the place to start.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
It is plainly palpable that you're a good student of history and I agree with all but the implied (Bush 43). I don't believe he quite understands the leadership role necessary that Lincoln and Reagan took to heart and made work. I'd go into it more with you privately in mail as it relates to Lincoln's handling of Simon Cameron and Hannibal Hamblin and Reagan's handling of Don Regan but I've received a whole lot of vulgar words and other abuse doing it in public fashion by posting that opinion.
Bless you Jim Robinson for pressing on
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.