Free Republic

unfortunately, it ain't gonna be hard to tie the president to his biggest lifetime campaign contributor. We need Snow on the air ASAP denouncing Lay and saying the president will give those old campaign funds to charity. Or this is gonna stick and stick and stick.

true--it DOES seem safer. I want my party back, though, and there's no chance the President will be impeached. Still, I admit, a plan like this for real Conservatives to dominate for years to come doesn't come without risks. You're dead right about that.

Here's my reason---when losing one house temporarily forces our party back to its Conservative values (less government, less debt, less spending)--we (real Conservatives) place ourselves in excellent position to hold power for a very long time.
Now, if we hold both houses and the executive branch for the next two years, we are going to have to answer to voters for what many of them PERCEIVE as some consistent mismanagement of our country. Make the political calculation here. If one house has a dims majority at that time, it will be very easy to paint dims as responsible for it all.
I'm not swallowing all the polls here...but I don't want us to be so naive as to miss the end goal: not merely two years of government by a group who are only interested in acting like real Conservatives sometimes to appease us...but in longterm government by true Conservatives who would not forsake their base on spending, immigration, etc etc.

True enough...I should have written it will SEEM to the ordinary voter that they can't even organize a photo op. Meanwhile, we get to pile on the blame and consolidate under actual Conservative values. In my humble opinion, that's not a bad thing.

I'm with Tascott. A minor loss. The GOP gets Conservative after that, the Dims won't even be able to organize a photo op with a slim majority, AND they have to take a ton of blame for anything that goes wrong. Sets up a massive sweep in 08--one that keeps us--real Conservatives--in power for another ten years.

That may be true, regardless of security risks--but they won't be voting in this election. Nothing moves that fast in government.

I hope you're right. I'm worried US voters who are friends and relatives of illegals or just sympathetic to them won't favor tougher measures, like deportation or employer penalties for hiring illegals. It's the only reason I can see why the president hasn't been tougher on this issue. He's worried about losing a block of voters. Like I said, though, I hope I'm wrong, and this is purely a political calculation on my part--nothing to do with what actually IS RIGHT TO DO ON THIS ISSUE. That much is certain.

"I'm thinking it's time to nationalize this next election, using this issue."

With all due respect, I have to disagree. I can't believe they even put this issue on the table now. As a Conservative, I'm pissed the president won't do more. I'll still be voting, but this anger might turn off other Conservatives who've had it already. On the other hand, if he does more, he's going to piss off the Hispanic vote. And that's a political loser if that group stays home or votes dem.
I'm hoping it's just a distraction to preempt the liberal media's constant scandal-making. After that, I hope it goes away quick, or, in my opinion, it's a political albatross. This is all a purely political calculation on my part, and I'd love somebody to tell me why I'm wrong about this.

"OTOH if the government used my income tax records in order to slime me and "shut me up," I WOULD have a problem with that. That is exactly what the Clintons did....why do we not hear the outrage from the left?"

Because they're hypocrites.

And you have a very interesting posting record, too. Should I assume from your numerous posts on Mormons that you're trying to alienate one of the few states that still has favorable views of this adminstration? Should I assume that what you wrote in this post means that you'd spread disinformation if given the chance? (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1630097/posts?page=10#10) Should I assume you've already done so?

I don't. I assume you've written honestly and with the best intentions for this country. If you can't assume that about me, I won't try to persuade you. It's an impossible task.

So, yes, data mine away through my few posts. Fire away at me for not posting as much as most people here. Suspect me for finally being critical of an administration that in my opinion in this case is trashing Conservative ideals and American traditions. And then ask yourself why O'Reilly, Scarborough, and others have been critical of this administration, too--if not always on this issue, then others. Are they leftwing plants? Or is it possible that being a real Conservative isn't always the same thing as being pro-administration? Is it possible we should fear what the next president will do, if it isn't one of our guys, after what we do when we're in power? Is it possible we should expect more of our leaders for the very reason that they're OUR leaders with good intentions and not just some power-hungry leftists? Is it possible this all could prompt a longtime reader of this site to finally post?

"Another poster with interesting posting history. These supposed NSA "abuses" are bringing you guys out of the wood work."

ahhh...I see. If I don't support Stalinesque government, merely because our guys are engineering it, then I'm of questionable character. Let's see now...which is closer to being a good communist...parroting blindly whatever the Party line is, or standing up for Conservative American values and rights? Who did you take your loyalty oathe to today?
What happens, colorcountry, when the other side does the same stuff our adminstration is doing to American citizens now? You think the next democratic administration's motives are gonna be anywhere near as noble as ours? You think the democrats won't use this administration as an excuse for what they do? You think it won't be easier for democrats to take the NEXT step, to take away OUR rights?
You and I aren't gonna agree on this, obviously, but we'll be voting for the same guy in 08. So back off the innuendo.

Thank you. It's beyond me how so many of us can delight in a program that puts the capital B in Big Government and erodes our traditional rights at the expense of traditional values. You're a patriot.

exactly.

you, my friend, have far more faith in the Hillaries of this world than I do. Let's hope you're right.

Blind faith in anything is the path to destruction.
My distinction is this, if we view it so broadly as to include everyone on "this aircraft called the USA," what, then, could possibly be an unreasonable search or invasion of privacy?
Government isn't getting smaller. No matter who's president, our tradtional rights as US citizens are our only protections and they make this country the envy of the world. Sure, this president has good intentions. Will the next, when our traditional rights are long gone? This used to be a concern of Conservatives.

Ahh, but they are tracking you and me. Our conversations, our phone records. And when you're searched at the airport, it's for the sake of protecting the aircraft and others. When my phone records are searched, it doesn't protect anyone when they dial. When the police search your car for reasonable suspicion, there's reasonable suspicion. When the government searches your phone records and/or listens in to your call...there's not.
This is in no small way about scope. There is no way millions of Americans--and, yes, again, including you and me--are worthy of reasonable suspicion. And there's no way you can make finding a needle in a haystack easier by making the haystack bigger and bigger.
The motives of the communists were obviously far less pure, to say the least, but as far as tactics go...this is right up their alley. And, for that matter, as far as the bureacratic mentality goes, it is, too.

Here's the thing...the letter-reading did not stop. This is the modern version of it, being supported on the basis of what a democratic president did sixty years ago and what Clinton did just a few years ago. What sort of basis will the next president need to search every home in the US, because government already invaded our lives during this president's term? What happens when Hillary, God Forbid, trumps up some cause far less noble than the War on Terror in order to take away even more rights? What sort of nation are we defending when we give up traditional American freedoms and values?
You're partially right, though. I don't know for certain that Bin Laden isn't living in America. I do, however, have faith in my leaders, however misguided the NSA intrusions are, that they're competent enough not to allow Bin Laden to hide in our own country. If you genuinely suspect otherwise, how can you defend anything the this White House authorizes--ever?
And yes, I'm willing to help. I don't know you, but maybe you're on the front lines, serving our country in Iraq or elsewhere. If so, God Bless you. Or, perhaps, you defend our country by contributing to the patriotic discussion on this board. As do I. And in my case, defense of the country must include defense of its traditional values and freedoms. God help us if we allow their erosion before a power hungry democrat takes power and does away with the rest of them.

I don't know enough about WW2 to tell give you an answer...but if the surveillance was done with warrants, then, yes, I support it, or if it was done on non-citizens living in the US, then yes, I support it. And, of course, if it was done outside our borders, then, yes, I support it. None of that strikes me as un-American or as Big Goverment invasiveness. Compiling records and screening millions of phone calls of ordinary American citizens do. Why are they tracking YOU AND ME?
IMHO, this is a tactic old leftist/communist regimes would have been proud of.

yeah, I suppose I deserve that by the tone of what I wrote. I feel strongly about it, though...and it's not a knee-jerk reaction. It's just based on my core values, which tell me this king of government intrusion is un-American. I apologize for the way I said it before, but as a Conservative I can't support such a colossal old-style communist government-type operation. If we have an honest disagreement on this, then that's how it is...but it's not because of a kneejerk reaction.

good points, and, to be honest...yes...I don't like filing income tax. Yes, it was wrong for FDR to read and censor the mail. Yes, prosecutors probably should pull medical records. But you and I are ordinary citizens...interested in contributing to our country. Not criminals. Not suspects. Not terrorists.
Is it really a defense of NSA intrusions into our homes--and make no mistake about it...when the records are this vast, it includes us, too, you and me--is it really a defense that a democratic president who founded the massive welfare state also abused his power? How can that possibly justify this? How do we stop more government invasions into our lives if we give in to them just because we know government already invades our lives?
Maybe you're right...maybe we just have to accept it for what it is, in this day and age. But can you imagine where we'd be if the resources spent on compiling records on millions of average Americans actually were devoted to finding bin Laden? He's the ONE person we know who isn't calling the U.S. on his cell.