The Choice Could Not Be Clearer
By Speaker J. Dennis Hastert Posted in 2006 — Comments (124) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Back up top by popular demand.
It is common, if sad, that people sometimes dismiss American political debates because they see no great differences between the parties. But, as is often the case, those differences are far more easily seen the closer we get to Election Day. Candidates go out of their way to differentiate themselves from their opponents, the better to stand out in the voters' minds. This differentiation is usually healthy and sometimes insincere but always informative.
“[The Democrats] think, in short, that 9/11 was an aberration, not part of a pattern. This is nothing short of insane.”
That is especially true this year and more so on issues of national security than any other. Many have referred to the opposing ideas coming from the Democrats and Republicans as "pre-9/11" and "post-9/11" - Democrats advocating the policies that were in place during the lead-up to the terrorist attacks and Republicans advocating those America has pursued since. The characterization is eye-brow raising, but the closer one looks, the more accurate it seems.
To Republicans, the lessons of 9/11 are clear. We are at war with Islamist extremists and have been since at least as long ago as the first World Trade Center bombings in 1993. More to the point, they are at war with us. The goal of our enemies - global domination through murder, terror, and, at the earliest possible date, the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction - was stated long before 19 young men hijacked four planes five Septembers ago. They have no political agenda or list of grievances. Their perversion of a decent religion has left them with no incentive to pursue either peace or progress. They want, quite simply, to terror-bomb us and our values back to the Dark Ages. As far as we are concerned, our enemies present to us a choice not between war and peace but between war and chaos. They will fight us whether we choose to fight back or not. As far as Republicans are concerned we are in a fight for our freedom and even our lives.
The Democrats disagree.
Read on . . .
At a fundamental, instinctive level, Democrats think that there must be something we're doing to exacerbate all this; that there must be something they could do that would make Islamist suicide bombers pack up their bomb vests and stop threatening us. If only, they say, Republicans could address the "root causes" of their troubled psychology - if only we could sit down and talk to them -- they wouldn't hate us so much. If only America would abandon its tough-talking, uncompromising stance, we could immediately spark the dawn of a kinder, gentler jihad.
They think, in short, that 9/11 was an aberration, not part of a pattern. This is nothing short of insane. After the first World Trade Center bombings in 1993, America was terrorized in quick succession: the Khobar Towers bombings in 1996, the African embassy bombings in 1998, the 2000 attack against the USS Cole. All of these attacks - more brazen and costly than the one before - were launched against the United States while we pursued the weak, indecisive, pre-9/11 policies the Democrats still support.
Whatever else anyone can say about the Republican security agenda, it has achieved its objective. Despite all predictions to the contrary, we have not witnessed a repeat of the 9/11 attacks on American soil. The Afghanistan Taliban, Saddam Hussein's Baathist regime, and tens of thousands of their most dangerous leaders and soldiers around the world have been erased. Libya's terrorist regime has disarmed. Democratic movements have sprung up across the Middle East. Iran has been isolated. Three separate elections have been held in Iraq. We have taken the fight to the enemy before they can take the fight to American neighborhoods.
Our heroic troops are still in harm's way; more of them will be wounded and killed in action before the job is done. But our policy is clear and our resolve unbending: America will not abandon the Iraqis; we will not abandon our allies; and we will not go back on our word. Our national security policy will not rely on the kindness of terrorists. We are criticized for our lack of an exit strategy in Iraq, but our exit strategy has been clear from day one: winning.
The divisions between these ideas and those espoused by Democrats on the campaign trail could not be deeper. Democrats have called for the immediate removal of troops from Iraq. They have opposed any effort to seal America's borders from infiltration. They have voted to cut our intelligence and defense budgets and against a missile defense shield. They opposed the Patriot Act and recent legislation necessary to allow our troops to interrogate terrorist prisoners.
In short, Democrats do not believe in the Global War on Terror. I don't mean that they don't support it, though they don't. What I mean is Democrats don't believe the war actually exists. While Republicans believe the biggest threat to American freedom and security is the evil ideology that planned and executed the murder of 3,000 of our countrymen five years ago, and continues planning today, Democrats think the biggest threat to America is... Republicans.
The choice, as I said, could not be clearer.
« When Negative Ads Backfire — Comments (4) | The Gathering Storm — Comments (11) »
The Choice Could Not Be Clearer 124 Comments (0 topical, 124 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
It doesn't matter. I live in baton rouge, and Richard Baker is running unopposed. I'm just not voting this year because I see mounting corruption, even at the level of the Speaker. Get a load of this:
http://www.cq.com/public/20061027-spending.html
Two former House committee investigators who were examining Capitol Hill security upgrades said a senior aide to Speaker J. Dennis Hastert hindered their efforts before they were abruptly ordered to stop their probe last year.
The former Appropriations Committee investigators said Ted Van Der Meid, Hastert’s chief counsel, resisted from the start the inquiry, which began with concerns about mismanagement of a secret security office and later probed allegations of bid-rigging and kickbacks from contractors to a Defense Department employee.
One would-be vendor complained that bid requests drawn up by the Army Corps of Engineers were drafted in such a way that only one contractor would be eligible for the work, Garant said.
Investigators said that in addition to allegations of bid-rigging and kickbacks, they were looking into allegations that some security upgrades would fail to work.
“The word was that what they were trying to do was physically or technically impossible to do but that they were spending a heck of a lot of money trying to do it,” said Garant.
The other investigator said he was told that “people are going to die” because the upgrades would fail to do the job.
“That whole organization was very, very secret and very few people even knew that it existed, but it was a great dispenser of money,” said Garant, who was dismissed in March from his position as a contract investigator.
Relevance... You say you can keep us safe, and I believe in the long run the GOP can keep us safer than the defeatocrats, but honestly, your own office blocking an investigation into corruption to keep Capital Hill safe? An a No-Bid Contract, claimed to be completely ineffective from the planning stage, and nothing more than a cash cow. Is this the sort of leadership our votes/hard work/dollars deserve? Myself, I'm looking for a new brand of Republican leadership.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
I was shocked when I read those allegations. The article points out that there is "sour grapes" at work, but no bid contracts that waste money and fail to protect really get to me. Is this how you would have our party to govern?
I prefer clean government, Honest Work, and Effectiveness. None of which is exhibited by this speaker.
to accept the word of someone who lost out on a contract and now says that it was rigged, and then a leap from there to "no bid contract".
That's just taking your story at face value.
--
Evil men hide from the truth, but good men stand upon it.
I prefer to not have Random Words in the middle of Sentances Capitalized Inappropriately.
[i]A poll taken 48 hours before the election showed Blanchard leading Engler by 14 points. ... Yet Engler eked out a stunning win by seven-tenths of one percent — less than 18,000 votes.[/i]
you need to use <> instead of [ ] to bracket your tags.
Instead of preaching to the choir, why not preach to the people who are undecided? We have already made up our minds; we do not need to be told that the Democrats will destroy this country in three days and that they will be unable to raise it up again. Tell the undecideds!
A Republican victory in the House is more dependent on a large turnout of "the choir" than it is on changing minds in the next 11 days.
"The maxim of civil government being reversed in that of religion, where it's true form is, 'divided we stand, united we fall." - Thomas Jefferson
With all due respect to the Speaker, under his watch, Republicans have presided over vast increases in spending, enlarging the size and scope of the federal government to record levels.
It's a real problem. Just using myself as an example. I am a former Executive Director of the California Republican Party, have worked on GOP campaigns and causes for two decades, and when I see a post from the Speaker, I get irate.
The War on Terror is very important. But to me, the House GOP Leadership right now stands for growth in government. It's hard for me to just 'put that aside' -- so maybe someone can give me advice on how to do that.
Winning the War on Terror abroad and winning the war for liberty at home are both important. Find me a spokesperson who is good on BOTH, please.
Jon Fleischman
The FlashReport Website on California Politics
http://www.flashreport.org
and it's probably not my place to say this, but here goes anyway: can't these concerns be expressed at a more appropriate time and place? I think it's great that politicians are reaching out to blogs and I think that should be encouraged. I'm not saying you can't disagree with their position but a flat statement that they aren't an effective spokesperson doesn't do much to advance the discussion or make them feel welcome.
Just my $0.02.
Our elected Republican Congress has not listened, have not acted and when they have acted they have done so in some cases to bring shame on being a politician.
If now is not the time, then when is? When will they hear the voices from within their own party that they have lost their way?
Tell me what the time is, when will they listen, they have not been listening for the last two years.
_______________________________
Another South Park Republican spouting off !
It is a strange thing that we express disgust with Congress, yet nominate the same joker term after term. Rather than ask for the Democrats to take over, we know the cost of that, we should be looking for viable alternatives to the representatives and Senators and have contested primaries. Safe district/state or not, the incumbents should not get a free pass unless they are performing as promised, and as desired.
Chuck
"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government." --James Madison
"Living Documents" suffer this distortio
Chuck,
Three things to consider:
Primaries are rigged elections at the congressional level with incumbents being turned aside very rarely. Last one I remember was Cynthia McKinney, can you name any others? Other than protest votes, the party machine puts up and stands behind the candidates who are incumbents, how often does this not happen? To say Primaries reflect the whole spectrum of the electorate is bunk.
Primaries are the playground of the bases of both parties which represent only a limited point of view, either Right or Left. Not the views of the majority of voters, most of who are in the middle of the road. You are seeing in this election, those middle of road vothers saying NO!
The really bad behavior of some of the elected class has only shown up after the primaries.
_______________________________
Another South Park Republican spouting off !
It is the base that screams, yet arent't they the supporters of the party machine? Yes, it would be something new, and would require concerted effort, but what worthwhile endeavor doesn't require concerted effort? Get active and involved. And immediately after this election is the time to do it. Quit shrugging your shoulders and shaking your head over the corruption and "rigged" primaries and work to correct the problem.
Chuck
"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government." --James Madison
"Living Documents" suffer this distortion.
It's a painful process, because it generally means letting our guys lose for two years. That results in our leaders actually having to articulate something besides "terrorists are scary" to earn our vote.
Chuck,
I've very lucky, I have a great Congessman who has not been tainted by bad behavior, and is well respected for being a good honorable public servant, he happens to be a Republican and I will be glad to vote for him. By the way, I think he's like about 80 percent of the folks in Congress, from both sides of the ditch.
Having said that, there are some real marginal even lousy Republicans out there and they will be kicked out of office. The argument, and you've used it, is for local voters to hold their noses and vote so that a Republican majority will be held.
At the worst, Democrats will have a very slim majority in the House, and I think despite all the scare tactics, not all Democrats are nuts or want to cut and run or any of the other scare tactics being used. Yes there will be compromise, yes there will be some more accountability, would that be so bad a thing?
_______________________________
Another South Park Republican spouting off !
My district is hotly contested, often called the "Bloody eighth". So I will go and vote. I will be praying to my gods, that other Republicans go and vote, even if it means they have to hold their noses. Depending upon a slim majority of free spending Democrats when you are complaining of the free spending Republicans kinda sounds like we'll have a super majority of free spending congressmen. With the Democrats espousing repealing the tax cuts to fund their free spending.
We have only ouselves to blame for not raising a stink earlier. I got complacent. Even then, I've communicated with my Representative and Senators when I had concerns. I expressed my views. I just didn't start a letter writing campaign. We need to be better organized, rather than perceived as the "safe base" we need to become known for changing our "underwear" when it becomes necessary.
Chuck
"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government." --James Madison
"Living Documents" suffer this distortion
A fellow by the name of Joe Schwarz lost despite the establishment's backing.
[i]A poll taken 48 hours before the election showed Blanchard leading Engler by 14 points. ... Yet Engler eked out a stunning win by seven-tenths of one percent — less than 18,000 votes.[/i]
I'm in the Indiana 8th CD, my representative has been raked over the coals because he voted against aid for Katrina, (I agree with him.) He voted to cut funding on a number of programs, at least so say the Democratic adverts. I support him. So, I'm not speaking of contesting every incumbent, just the ones that haven't performed their duties as perceived by their constituents.
Chuck
"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government." --James Madison
"Living Documents" suffer this distortio
Vast increases in spending? Care to document that claim with specific numbers?
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
Sorry I don't have the numbers and don't have the time to look them up, but since they are new programs since 2000, every dollar is incremental spending.
Offset by... oh yeah, nothing.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
Don't bother with discussing this point with those that seem to believe that no amount of Pork is too much, no amount of spending is too much, as long as the agenda they care about is being advanced.
It's been tried, it's been discussed to death on the very pages of Red State and this is one of those issues where you ether see spending out of control or you don't. It's that simple and it's talking past each other to discuss the issue further.
_______________________________
Another South Park Republican spouting off !
Neil asked for specifics so I thought I'd toss him a couple. I added a couple of more someplace else.
Another point is that my quibble with folks who don't seem to be too concerned about spending is the argument that we need to look at deficits as a percentage of GDP not in absolute terms. That's the worst argument I know of.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
http://www.reason.com/links/links101905.shtml
"Total real discretionary outlays will increase about 35.8 percent under Bush (FY2001-06) while they increased by 25.2 percent under LBJ (FY1964-69) and 11.9 percent under Reagan (FY1981-86). By contrast, they decreased by 16.5 under Nixon (FY1969-74) and by 8.2 percent under Clinton (FY1993-98). Comparing Bush to his predecessors is instructive. Bush and Reagan both substantially increased defense spending (by 44.5 and 34.8 percent respectively). However, Reagan cut real nondefense discretionary outlays by 11.1 percent while Bush increased them by 27.9 percent. Clinton and Nixon both raised nondefense spending (by 1.9 percent and 23.1 respectively), but they both cut defense spending substantially (by 16.8 and 32.2 percent).
Bush and LBJ alone massively increased defense and nondefense spending. Perhaps not coincidentally, Bush and LBJ also shared control of the federal purse with congressional majorities from their own political parties."
Man, I miss gridlock.
The 'real non-defense discretionary spending' boogeyman: the moby's best friend.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
If you suspect that someone is a Moby merely because they are disgusted by the fact that they have waited so long to get Republicans in control of all the branches of government only to see them spend more than during the Clinton years they you will probably find a LOT of Moby's on this site.
Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them. -Ronald Reagan
Not everyone who goes Republican majority-bashing is a moby, but plenty of mobies have picked up on this whining for their Republican depression tactics.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
Sorry if I misunderstood. I guess that guy just hit a chord with me as it was echoing my own frustration.
Besides, would a Moby even know where to find reason.com? :-)
Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them. -Ronald Reagan
... If the tradesports.com futures contract holds up, we'll get it. As a side effect, we'll also get a new Speaker with worse politics, but a whole lot less baggage.
"The maxim of civil government being reversed in that of religion, where it's true form is, 'divided we stand, united we fall." - Thomas Jefferson
Again, with all due respect to the Speaker,
If Speaker Hastert's intention is to argue that the only reason we should not stay home this time around is that terrorists will attack us if the Dems seize power, then I'm sorry, but I you're going to have to do better than that. The Democrats thrive on scare tactics: "If you elect Republicans, they're going to starve your grandma!..." so let's try not to emulate their methods by saying we're going to be attacked by terrorists in the next two years if Dems take the House.
I would like to see Speaker Hastert actually engage us in a discussion and articulate what they intend to do about government spending, corruption, etc. And I would like to see him defend his attack on the FBI for investigating Rep. Jefferson for corruption.
If you want to engage us conservatives, Mr. Speaker, then we certainly welcome that. But let's get serious.
The Dems say what they'll do: cut and run, hold hands and sing songs. National security is the one area on which almost all Republicans more or less agree: stronger is better, and don't leave an ally at war.
I'm pleased as punch that the Speaker took time to "engage" us.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to sharpen my harpoon for your next comment.
--
Evil men hide from the truth, but good men stand upon it.
I know, that sounds like a line in a James Webb book, and I hope I don't get banned for it.
A Democratic House cannot bring the troops home. The speaker of the House cannot "cut and run," because he or she is not the Commander in Chief. The only authority they have over the war would be budgetary, which you might argue is essential for the war, but I don't believe for a minute that they would pull the funding for the war out of the next defense bill. That is just not going to happen.
I'm glad you're "pleased as punch" that we just received a scare from the same man who railed against the FBI for investigating Democratic corruption in Congress. If the only thing you expect of your Speaker is that he drop in once in a while to make scary statements about terrorists, you definitely have the speaker you deserve...
Oh yes a Democratic Congress CAN cut and run...
You can't fight without money for body armor, bullets, extra pay for combat, and the rest of the costs of war.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
And I'll concede your point on the budget. But do you honestly think the Dems would defund the Military? I just don't see that happening, no matter how nutty some of them are.
And if the Republicans are so principled on Iraq- if they are so intent on staying the course, then why would they go so far to alienate the base that allows them to maintain that principled stand on the war? From what I can gather, here is their message to the rest of us:
Border security- Mexicans coming over the border? Narcotrafficers? Middle Easterners? Who cares?
Port security- who cares?
Spending- no earmarks will be refused!
Corruption- don't you dare let the FBI into the offices of indicted congressfolk!
Accountability and responsiveness- if you have enough money to make huge donations to our campaigns, we will be accountable and responsible for whatever earmark you would like to see funded.
War on Terror- all of a sudden, we're really principled and Democrats are irresponsible. Be scared!
Do you buy that?
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
They've stated that publicly. That is their plan to get us out of Iraq if they happen to take control of the house.
They live for it.
Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them. -Ronald Reagan
this picture was taken when there was a Republican Commander in Chief.
"The maxim of civil government being reversed in that of religion, where it's true form is, 'divided we stand, united we fall." - Thomas Jefferson
The Republican President asked for funding to aid South Vietnam, and the Democrats refused.
The picture shows the results of letting the radical left, who controls the Democratic party today and who dominated that 1974 Congress, get in control.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
Not the generally accepted version of Vietnam history, but, Hey - whatever blows your skirt up. If you are open to the possibility of another perspective, you may want to consider this conversation:
Transcript of actual taped conversation between Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger in the Oval Office in August 1972.
Kissinger: If a year or two years from now North Vietnam gobbles up South Vietnam, we can have a viable foreign policy if it looks as if it's the result of South Vietnamese incompetence. If we now sell out in such a way that, say, within a three- to four-month period, we have pushed [unclear] [South Vietnamese President Nguyen Van] Thieu over the brink-- we ourselves-- I think, there is going to be-- even the Chinese won't like that. I mean, they'll pay verbal-- verbally, they'll like it--
Nixon: But it'll worry them.
Kissinger: But it will worry everybody. And domestically in the long run it won't help us all that much because our opponents will say we should've done it three years ago.
Nixon: I know.
Kissinger: So we've got to find some formula that holds the thing together a year or two, after which-- after a year, Mr. President, Vietnam will be a backwater. If we settle it, say, this October, by January '74 no one will give a damn.
Saigon fell on April 30, 1975.
Thank God, Henry Kissinger is still around to advise the current administration on Iraq.
"The maxim of civil government being reversed in that of religion, where it's true form is, 'divided we stand, united we fall." - Thomas Jefferson
... that Democrats controlling the Congress pulled the rug out from under the South Vietnamese and Cambodians, guaranteeing the bloodbath that Democrats had scoffed at as Rebublican fear mongering. Millions exterminated by the Communists in Cambodia, which made the post war death count inflicted by the Vietnamese Communists seem like a "gentler touch" in comparison, along with their concentration camps and persecution of ethnic minorities.
It's possible that the Communists would have succeeded in their goal of mass murder and oppression because of "South Vietnamese incompetence," even if we had continued supplying aid to Cambodia and South Vietnam, but we'll never know the answer to that hypothetical. The Democrats guaranteed the victory of the butchers by massively reducing military aid to their victims.
And you get to come back when you correctly identify (1) who was the President when Saigon fell, (2) who was the Speaker of the House, and (3) who was the Majority Leader in the Senate.
Good luck.
-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.
De Opresso Liber
A Republican C-in-C presiding over the irreversable results of more than a decade of Democratic Presidential and Congressional military/political malfeasance, lies, public deception and continuous and complex cowardice in the face of the horrors for which they alone were responsible.
Look at the photo again . . . visualize the evacuation taking place atop the National Park headquarters building in Yellowstone - the last point of national retreat after the next ten years of Democratic appeasement of those sworn to kill us, and persecution of those sworn to protect us.
Visualize you and yours at the very bottom of the queue.
Republican C-in-C, indeed!
that is exactly what happened in 1975. To say that it can't happen again when Charlie Rangel has promised to cut off spending on Iraq is just silly.
"that is exactly what happened in 1975. To say that it can't happen again when Charlie Rangel has promised to cut off spending on Iraq is just silly."
Absolutely!
It's not 'scaremongering' to point out the obvious historical parallels at work here. Democrats will raise our taxes and will fail to properly fight the global war on terror. Their votes are on the record. And if anyone thinks the President can pursue successful policies in Iraq and war on terror while Democrats yammer about impeachment and war crimes, they're on crack.
Don't be a Nancy boy, Vote Republican!
Wonderful slogan! Too bad we can't use this one on a national campaign banner. The Dems and the MSM would have a field day with this "homophobic" slogan, though it obviously only refers to the Dem front runner for speaker.
by democrats and death counts don't mean a thing. It's the Dems who invented the term "peace dividend", a odd dividend that caused me to wait fruitlessly by my mail box for the check.
Where is the inter-party criticism of Tom Murtha for his comments? Timing may be an issue but the result is not questioned. And Okiniawa is quite a horizon away.
Don't expect any belligerent about faces if there is a change in Congress or the White House, the Party has painted itself into a corner and there will always be the irresistible lure of domestic programs and spending, peace dividend redux.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
You're just wrong on that one. Death counts are everything to the Dems. See what happens when a dozen "civilians" get caught in a crossfire and are killed with M-16s (not AK47s). Listen to the howling when they predict 10,000 to 50,000 casualties in the Iraqi invasion and we've had less than 3,000.
The only time death counts don't matter is when Saddam is murdering 300,000 of his own people. Or the Vietnamese Communists are murdering a million or so Vietnamese. Or the Cambodian and Laotian Communists are butchering 1/3 of their populations. Millions don't matter. They're brown or yellow foreigners, they can't vote for a Democrat (and probably wouldn't if they could vote) so they don't matter.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
The terrorists don't actually have to attack on US soil to do us great harm. If we allow the cut-and-run-dems to seize control of the U.S. Congress by staying out of the fight, we effectively cede control of the Middle East to the terrorists. No moderate Middle Eastern government will be able to stop the advance of militant Islam without our help.
- Is this serious enough?
- The Iraq phase of the global war on terror will be defunded.
- The NSA Terrorist Surveillance Program will be defunded.
- Guantanamo will likely be defunded and forced to close.
- Repeated attempts to appease Iran by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will undermine our current foreign policy and will actually embolden Ahmadinejad, putting the entire Middle East region at risk.
- Hezbollah will succeed in returning control over Lebanon to Iran through its proxy, Syria.
- Pakistan's nuclear weapons will be at greater risk of falling into the terrorists hands because President Musharaff will likely be deposed without our strong support.
- The Saudi oil fields will likely suffer enormous damage from repeated terrorist attacks, resulting in a world-wide recession.
There's more, but that should be enough to document the seriousness of the terrorism issue.
Regarding the domestic policy agenda that is dear to most conservative's hearts:
***
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
but do you have quotes from the prospective Dem leadership to back up your assertions? Have they committed to defunding any or all of those programs?
And exactly how would the foreign relations committees conduct foreign policy towards Iran? That is a function of the Executive branch.
You're right about the primaries being the place where these party policy battles are fought. And we will not have real primaries until the incumbents (who are loaded with lobbyist cash) are gone and we can start over again with people who are less concerned with spending whatever taxpayer money they need to in order to keep their lucrative careers in Congress.
But I watched Charlie Rangel on Fox say something along the lines of..."Well, of course when the Democrats take control, George Bush will still be the Commander in Chief, but funding for the war has to start in the House." I believe he would be the Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee. That is serious enough to make me nervous.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
firmly in hand, it's actually quite simple to decipher the meaning of "A New Direction." Pick your favorite candidate. That phrase is at, or near, the top of the current list of "Democrat Talking Points.™"
"And exactly how would the foreign relations committees conduct foreign policy towards Iran? That is a function of the Executive branch."
Exactly, foreign policy is a function of the Executive. You may wish to inform Sen. Biden that the U.S. Constitution requires the separation of powers. Honoring the constitutional authority reserved for the Executive is not one of his strong points.
I agree, the power of incumbency is very strong. That said, it's up to the conservative base, the vast majority of primary voters, to hold their representatives responsible and accountable. According to research conducted by Pew, the conservative base is the most well-informed and most intelligent consumer of news. Candidates with moral clarity and an un-yielding, principled stance on the issues can successfully persuade that section of the electorate and win their support.
***
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
"but do you have quotes from the prospective Dem leadership to back up your assertions? Have they committed to defunding any or all of those programs?"
Nancy Pelosi (D – California) will likely be the new Speaker of the House, if polls and prognostications are
to be believed. If so, our Congress is about to take a sharp left turn.
The San Fransicso Liberal has a very left-wing record:
• Pelosi voted against every Republican tax cut.
• Pelosi voted for the largest tax increase in history.
• Pelosi voted 19 times against eliminating the death tax.
• Pelosi voted five times for raising gasoline taxes
• Pelosi is so pro-high taxes she was one of only 27 members to vote against tax relief for poor neighborhoods in the inner city (presumably including her constituents in San Francisco ).
• Pelosi voted against the historic Welfare Reform Bill and later voted against its reauthorization.
• Pelosi voted against protecting the right to say "one nation under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.
• Pelosi voted against requiring that voters be identified so we could ensure only legal citizens are voting.
• Pelosi voted against requiring English on ballots.
• Pelosi refused to side with homeowners against the Kelo decision that allows cities to seize private property for profitable ventures, even though 365 members voted to stop cities from taking private property.
• Pelosi has voted at least 12 times against the death penalty.
• Pelosi was one of only 67 House members to vote against the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
• Pelosi has voted at least eight times against banning partial-birth abortion, at least three times against the Unborn Victims of Violence Act (Laci's law), and scored a perfect 100 percent rating from NARAL Pro-Choice America.
• Pelosi voted against a bill that would "[b]ar the transportation of a minor girl across state lines to obtain an abortion without the consent of a parent, guardian or judge."
• Pelosi voted at least 31 times for using local or federal taxpayer dollars to fund abortions.
• Pelosi voted against building a fence on the border to protect America from terrorists.
• Before 9/11, Pelosi repeatedly voted to cut intelligence (in 1993 by $500 million) and after 9/11 she has still voted to cut intelligence (in 2004 she voted to withhold 25 percent of intelligence funds).
• When you ask why we were not more prepared for 9/11, remember that six months before Sept. 11, 2001, Pelosi voted to decrease proposed defense spending by $65 billion.
• The next time you think about North Korean nuclear tests and North Korean efforts to develop an intercontinental ballistic missile to reach the United States , remember that in 2002, Pelosi voted for an amendment to the FY 2003 Defense authorization that would block FY 2003 funding for space-based missile defense programs.
• Pelosi led a faction of 124 House Democrats who voted against final passage of the Patriot Act's reauthorization.
• Pelosi voted against the $87-billion Iraq/Afghanistan supplemental that included extra money for body armor for our soldiers.
• Pelosi voted against creation of Homeland Security Department.
• Pelosi was one of only 33 members to vote against prohibiting U.S. citizens and companies from conducting any financial transaction with countries that have been identified by the State Department as active sponsors of terrorism.
• In 2004, Pelosi voted against House passage of the intelligence overhaul bill, which reorganized 15 intelligence agencies under one Director of National Intelligence.
I too am disgusted with the explosion in government. I have patiently awaited the fiscal conservatives to exercise their power.
Unfortunately, the attempt of the president to demonstrate that he is a uniter not a divider, has prompted fiscal irresponsibility in attempting to appease the screaming left. (No child left behind.)
Also, we have a war to fight, and our government has refused to require the populace to pay the price generally paid when our country is on a war footing, as opposed to a police action. Where is the rationing of gasoline, no instead our Navy contracts with an enemy state for the provision of oil and gas. (Navy contract with CITGO) Therefore, spending has gotten way out of hand. I refuse to bow down and let the Democrats back in. We've seen what they do, they choose to increase non-defense spending, while attempting to weaken our military. I could not allow that in good conscience.
Therefore, I ask you to 'put that aside' at this time. Once the election is complete, then raise all sort of Cain with your Senators and Representative. Contact Mr. Speaker then. Enlist your friends to do the same. The war is a serious one, and needs to be considered such. Heck, we are still attempting to identify all of our enemies in this war. Unfortunately they don't wear uniforms and carry flags.
Chuck
"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government." --James Madison
"Living Documents" suffer this distortio
for the legislation formulated by his Republican congress? I hold him accountable for not using his veto power, but the obscene spending increases came through legislation enacted by Congress, led by Mr.s Hastert and Frist. The number of lobbyists in Washington has more than doubled during Mr. Hastert's term, and some of us would like to ask him why that is so.
As for the War on Teror, all of us believe very strongly in this war. I, myself, just got back from a year in Baghdad. This conflict is more real for me than you can imagine. But "Democrats are soft on terror" is not a compelling reason for us to keep incompetent, corrupt, careerist Republicans in power. The GWOT would be much better served by principled Republicans who don't view their seats as permanent sources of income to be defended at all costs to the taxpayers.
The majority of the programs that have caused spending to explode are his. NCLB, prescription drugs, the highway bill and the farm bill for four. Sure he blathered about pork and bridges, etc but he didn't DO ANYTHING about it.
Democrats are soft on terror is unfortunately enough for me to vote for every Republican out there with the sole exception of Chafee. I don't like "incompetent, corrupt, careerist Republicans" any better than you (probably less) but the alternative is scary. If you don't like the incumbent R's, find someone better and make a primary fight out if it.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
I have not been to Iraq, never served in the military. However, I am grateful for those who do serve, and recommend serving to all with whom I discuss future prospects. The discipline learned in the military is truly bankable in business.
That being said, I must dispute your contention that we blame congress for their spending habits. One of the reasons for the veto, is to permit the president to back up his desires when congress ignores him.
We need to vote, and get all of our friends to vote this year. Then start raising Cain to get the "incompetent, corrupt, areerist Republicans in power" to pay attention to the people they represent. The primary contests need to reflect our disappointment. Find someone to contest their seat in the primary.
Chuck
"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government." --James Madison
"Living Documents" suffer this distortio
The number of lobbyists in Washington has more than doubled during Mr. Hastert's term, and some of us would like to ask him why that is so.
Lobbyists are not employees of the the Speaker, or of the Federal government. Why don't you ask their employers why their numbers have doubled?
But "Democrats are soft on terror" is not a compelling reason for us to keep incompetent, corrupt, careerist Republicans in power.
I'm not aware of any "incompetent, corrupt, careerist Republicans" currently in power, and you decline to name any names, so I suspect you are not aware of any either.
From CATO Dispatch: CBO Releases Latest Deficit Numbers
Stephen Slivinski, the Cato Institute's director of budget studies and author of Buck Wild: How Republicans Broke the Bank and Became the Party of Big Government, comments: "The CBO report shows that the economy is rapidly expanding. Unfortunately, it shows that the budget is, too. Total government spending is expected to grow by a dramatic 7.7 percent this year -- that's faster than the projected economic growth rate (6.6 percent). And the federal budget is projected to hover at 20 percent of GDP until the end of Bush's presidency. Contrast that with the 18.5 percent of GDP that government consumed when the Republicans took total control of both Congress and the White House. It's a stark example of how the GOP has taken on the role of the party of big government."
"The maxim of civil government being reversed in that of religion, where it's true form is, 'divided we stand, united we fall." - Thomas Jefferson
terror is over and has been won because al Qaeda has been reduced to a production company for promotional vid. This is, as you put it, insane. Al Qaeda may have been behind the 9-11 Plot, and we may have gotten whatever revenge we wanted, but terrorism is much larger than this one sick group.
And while al Qaeda is making their promotional vid, what are they promoting?
The War on Terror is about big ideas. It is dangerous that the Democrats might succeed in making our Congress small-minded about it.
We do not want this to happen.
(Other issues we might have, we'll take them up with you after the election, Mr. Speaker. They are tiny compared to this one.)
The War is THE issue this country faces (and will continue to face for years), there are many on the other side of the aisle who don't even view it as a war. I disagree that it started in 1993. The festering boil of Islamofascism has been growing since the 1979 Iranian overthrow of the Shah (even earlier if you include the 1972 Olympics), but we viewed the Soviet empire (correctly) as a bigger threat at the time. We paid the price for not dealing with it sooner, and will pay a much higher price if we do not finish the job. It has not been easy and will not be easy, but that does not mean that is should not be done.
I live a bit south of you in IL-18 so I can't vote for you (I wish I could), but I will be supporting Ray LaHood.
Please continue to publish and speak statements like this. It's a message that needs to get out to more of America.
and post something on the priorities of the new Congress. It would be enlightening.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
The DCCC has already talked about what their first 100 hours of misery would be like. They want to balance the budget on the backs of the 'middle class.'
What would Republicans do in their first week in the new Congress?
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
what the legislative priorities are. Immigration & what kind of legislation (amnesty, employer enforcement, etc.), stuff like that.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
It doesn't make sense for Speaker Hastert to come here and say "Hire us first; then we'll explain what we will do for you." I would rather he articulate exactly what the plans are, so we can choose for ourselves whether he deserves to be hired or not. Have you ever seen a Fortune 500 company- or any company, for that matter, hire a CEO without both grilling him on his record and giving him a chance to articulate what he would do with the job?
I wonder if some of these folks on the hill have forgotten who they work for.
Take this message to the broader spectrum of the off-line electorate and we can keep the House.
LMAO.
What conservative can actually listen to this clown? Talk about a scapegoat who deserves every bit of it.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
He's the Speaker of the House. Elected by the folks we send there. Until he's NOT the Speaker anymore he's the guy we've gotta work with try to get something done.
I'm not particularly fond of his leadership, I would prefer Shadegg (my Rep), but right now Hastert is the man. And while I could pick bones with lots of what goes on in the House, he's right on with this blog.
Bottom line, take your clown comments and scapegoat crap down the road.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
...don't post at all.
You will now apologize to the nice Speaker of the House. Properly, without sarcasm and without weaseling.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
but I will wait for the Speaker to apologize for me. You see, in 2002 he and the others promised me restrained spending. Restrained entitlements. Restrained regulations. Restrained ... you get the idea.
He owes me and every other conservative an apology. Maybe I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt, but I still think that includes you, too. (And by "true conservative" I mean Mark Sanford. Not Pete McCloskey and not Jacob Javits.) The record of the House that Hastert let rot is an insult to people like me, who registered as a Republican on my 18th birthday and tracked every race to help my parents direct money to the right people.
Hastert was busy directing pork to areas that just happened to be near real estate that he'd purchased. He was not watching spending. He was not watching entitlements. He was not watching jack.
I may not know what the solution is, but I do know where the problem is. The Democrats winning today are mouthing the same principles that animated the 1994 revolution. The country isn't sick of Republican ideals, it's sick of the crowd that has manipulated Republicans ever since 1998. Hastert and his Ohio/Texas axis of sleaze free-rode on the Gingrich legacy straight to oblivion, and they don't give a damn.
By the way, you did see, didn't you, that Hastert's going to run for Speaker again if the GOP wins?
Dems like Dave Freudenthal, Brian Schweitzer, Heath Shuler...
The Dems who will topple the GOP House majority are Blue Dogs. If they act liberal, they're goners in 2008. And as for "cut and run," just wait for Baker. He's bipartisan cover for the GOP to cut and run, along with the Dems. What did you think he was there for, anyway?
but I really missed something in '94. The Democrats winning today are mouthing the same principles that animated the 1994 revolution.
I missed Newt and the folks advocating surrender to terrorism. I missed them advocating higher taxes. I missed them advocating an expanded federal government. I missed them advocating giving the UN a larger role in US policy.
I spent all of the '60's and a chunk of the '70's experiencing "different realities", but I was sure that I was OK by '94. Obviously I was wrong.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
bye bye.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
Are you distracted? Are you not wearing your beeper? Are we going to have to put you on a buzzer? It's boom-boom time.
If that was an apology, I'm a grandma from San Fran.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
Hot cocoa was involved.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
Perhaps they are anti-ageing as well, considering the juvenile nature of your post.
"Now that your gasbag is full, why don't you blow away" - the Honeymooners
your calliope is playing.
When you learn the meaning of "polite," or "class," or "breeding" use the contact tab to discuss your readmission because right know you are doing a helluva imitation of an immature, rude, ill-bred bore.
The Democrats are not a credible governing party. Period.
I am following with great interest what happens to countries with liberal policing of illegal immigration. France and other European countries are feeling the pain of allowing large bloc's of illegals in their midst. Please take heed, we are facing a real crisis and I am a bit alarmed that it took extreme measures from the Minutemen and the Republican base to force the issue. Think about it, concerned citizens taking it upon themselves to have to watch the border when the primary role of government is to protect it's citizens. I hope the fence is just the beginning.
The longer we dwell on our misfortunes the greater is their power to harm us - Voltaire
Reagan's speechwriter is saying what many of us are feeling:
"And Republicans, most of whom are conservative in at least general ways, and who endure the disadvantages of being conservative because they actually believe in ideas, in philosophy, in an understanding of the relation of man and the state, are still somewhat concussed. The conservative tradition on foreign affairs is prudent realism; the conservative position on borders is that they must be governed; the conservative position on high spending is that it is obnoxious and generationally irresponsible. Etc.
This is not how Mr. Bush has governed. And so in the base today personal loyalty, and affection, bumps up against intellectual unease.
The administration tries to get around this, to quiet the unease, with things like the Republican National Committee ad in which Islamic terrorists plot to kill America.
They do want to kill America, and all the grownups know it. But this is a nation of sophisticates, and every Republican sipping a Bud at a bar in Chilicothe, Ill., who looks up and sees that ad thinks: They're trying to scare the base to increase turnout. Turnout's the key."
Noonan is right, people are not that stupid, and Lincoln got it so very many years ago.
If all you have to say that your party should be kept in power is use fear of what the other guy is going to do, and not what you are going to do, then you are doomed to fail, you have ceased being a party of ideas and values.
"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time."
Abraham Lincoln,
_______________________________
Another South Park Republican spouting off !
As you say, you can't fool all the people all the time.
Jon,
Here's you a one time good deal.
You've been advised before and publicly not to turn folks views which differ from your own into personal attacks, you should reflect a bit on that admonition.
_______________________________
Another South Park Republican spouting off !
you're not in a position to be offering deals, one time or otherwise, to people.
If you've got a problem with this "admonition" let me know.
Sense we are now on pet name basis, replying to you in private is rather hard to do, you're account is not receiving emails.
But there is one in the general contact area if you choose to read it.
_______________________________
Another South Park Republican spouting off !
do you pronounce Chilicothe?
That has always bugged me.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
Consider your head directly hit.