Gay Patriot Header Image

A Strong State of the Union Speech Could Make 2006 a GOP Year

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 2:32 am - January 31, 2006.
Filed under: National Politics

About a year ago, to paraphrase one of the great Ethel‘s signature songs, everything seemed to be coming up roses, this time for the GOP. Despite tens of millions of dollars spent distorting his record and trying to defeat him, despite an MSM engaged in similar endeavors, the president won reelection comfortably while our party picked up seats in both houses of Congress. The economy continued to grow while the successful elections in Iraq on January 30, 2005, were a sign of success that even the naysayers, try though they might, couldn’t deny. And the president’s approval ratings were well above 50%.

Some conservative blogs were forecasting GOP gains in the House and Senate in the 2006 elections, then nearly two years away. Perhaps, it was because of the sense of overconfidence — as well as the bitter 2004 elections that the president, as Fred Barnes put it last month “ wanted to soften the partisan edge of his image and be more statesmanlike.” After an acrimonious campaign, the president intended to focus of governing and decided to eschew divisive rhetoric.

But, as yesterday’s Senate vote to close debate on the nomination of Judge Samuel A. AlitoJr., to the Supreme Court showed, some Democrats would rather attack him, his policies and his nominees than put forward policies of their own and work with him and try to effect compromises on a number of issues. Those twenty-five Democrats behaved yesterday — as many of them had all last year — as if they were still campaigning against him and the voters’ verdict in November 2004 meant nothing.

While the president put forward a positive agenda, the Democrats continued to campaign against him. He proposed Social Security reforms; they accused him of lying about pre-Iraq war intelligence. He turned away from such divisive issues as the constitutional amendment barring gay marriage; Democrats accused him of racism in his response to Hurricane Katrina. By last fall, with his poll number tumbling, he must have realized that (again to quote Barnes) that his “nonpolitical strategy was a failure. Democrats picked up on none of his overtures.” So, after Senators (as well as bloggers and columnists) questioned his choice of Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court, he needed a bold move in order to change his fortunes.

Like King Theoden hunkered down in the Keep at Helm’s Deep, the president rallied his troops by tapping Sam Alito for the Supreme Court. A few days later, on Veteran’s Day, after enduring months of unanswered accusations that he lied us into war, he again went on the offensive, with a speech responding to those dishonest critics and defending his decision. George W. Bush always seems to do better when he’s down.

Perhaps had he not been so complacent at the outset of 2005, the year might not have been as rough for him. Given what he learned last year, expect him to stay on the offensive this year, beginning tonight in his State of the Union address. With a bold vision — and some positive policy proposals, the president will make clear that he intends to build on the success of the Alito nomination. If the president, the Administration, Congressional Republicans and the party faithful follow through on a strong speech with unrelenting efforts throughout the year, 2006 could prove to be a good year not only for him, but also for our party.

The president should be grateful that Howard Dean, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi lead the Democratic opposition to his efforts. For, instead of countering his proposals with a positive agenda of their own, these Democratic leaders have focused instead on obstructing them. Instead of offering policies to address our nationa’s myriad woes (that is, the woes that they lament), they have accused Republicans of creating a “culture of corruption” in Washington. Instead of addressing the legal arguments and national security concerns of the National Security Agency (NSA) program to eavesdrop on the international communications of suspected terrorists, Democratic leaders contemplate impeachment hearings.

Some Democrats believe that lobbyist Jack Abramoff’s guilty pleas were the silver bullet they needed to defeat Republicans. But, the media — and the liberal blogosphere — is more interested in this scandal than the American people. Not only did it appear that officials from both parties were recipients of Abramoff’s ill-gotten largesse, but so far not a single Republican officeholder has been indicted. Noting that fewer than one in five Americans were following the story, John McIntyre of Real Clear Politics wrote that instead of being a silver bullet for Democrats, “Abramoff might end up being the narcotic that lulls them into a false sense of confidence and pulls them back from making the type of aggressive move that would put them in the position for a big election day” (via Powerline).

Perhaps, Democrats are pinning their hopes on Abramoff because another scandal, Watergate, netted their party a huge increase in House and Senate seats in 1974. Because of Nixon’s wrongdoing, it seems Democrats believe scandal, not ideas, is the best way to defeat Republicans.

What makes less sense, however, is their focus on the president’s defensible (on legal as well as national security grounds) of the NSA eavesdropping program. Although a number of leading Democrats have suggested the president violated the law, an overwhelming majority of Americans, including over 40 percent of Democrats support the program. By attacking the president on this, the Democrats make themselves appear even less serious on national security while reminding voters of one of the president’s strengths — where he polls well even when his other numbers are down.

If the Democrats were serious about governing, they would not challenge the president’s leadership on the War on Terror and would instead acknowledge his accomplishments there and thus make the issue a moot point in the 2006 congressional elections. Voters would not be worried that a Democratic Congress would undermine the president’s national security agenda, believing their representatives would support him there, while putting their efforts into a domestic agenda.

But, leading Democrats, their cheerleaders in the MSM and their scolds on the left-wing blogs, are so intent on attacking President Bush that they refuse to acknowledge that he was concerned with protecting our fellow citizens when he authorized the NSA program. And if the president offers a positive agenda tomorrow, the Democrats’ unrelenting attacks on this — and other programs — would stand in sharp contrast to the president’s leadership and could become the greatest boon for his party this fall.

As some Democrats ponder impeachment, John Fund (writing earlier this month in OpinionJournal’s Political Diary (available by subscription)) recalls how “the issue flopped for Republicans in the 1998 mid-term elections. . . . in part because voters felt Republicans were spending too much time attacking [then-President Clinton] rather than addressing other issues.” That year, despite predictions of GOP gains in the House and Senate, Republicans were the first out-of-power party to lose seats in a mid-term election in over seventy years.

A “smart insider” noted the potential similarity between 2006 and 1998 to National Review Online’s Kathryn Jean Lopez, writing that by focusing on scandal, Democrats “will repeat all of Republicans 1998 mistakes, but Republicans are on an earlier road to recovery than Clinton was at this point in January 1998.

That road to recovery began when the president tapped Judge Alito to fill the seat of Sandra Day O’Connor on the U.S. Supreme Court. Provided President Bush follows through on the success of that appointment with an aggressive agenda, remaining on the offensive and answering Democratic accusations, he could help his own party build on its electoral successes in 2002 and 2004. His efforts in the past three months have shown him to be a determined leader, capable of such follow-through.

If the Democrats continue to focus on scandal without offering a positive agenda of their own, the American people will seee them as they saw Republicans in 1998, a party focused more on attacking the president than in offering solutions to the nation’s problems. Provided the GOP offers a positive agenda, Americans should once again recognize the GOP as a party capable of governing and will likely renew the GOP lease on the Capitol. It wouldn’t hurt if House Republicans elected new leadership on Thursday.

If President Bush, following in the footsteps of the greatest Republican of the last century, focuses on our hopes and strengths rather than our doubts and fears, things could once again come up roses big time for the GOP.

-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com

UPDATE: Generation Why? offers a 16-word version of the State of the Union Address (via Michelle who has more).

UP-UPDATE: Polipundit‘s Lorie Byrd offers a list of what she wants to hear tonight — which happens to include some of the same stuff I want to hear. So, read the whole thing!

UP-UP-UPDATE: Echoing one of the points I made in this post, Glenn Reynolds (AKA Instapundit) notes that while the Abramoff scandal is “primarily” a Republican one, “the more the Democrats try to pretend it’s nothing but, the worse they look. They can’t seem to help overplaying their hand every time.” Now, as Glenn himself might say, read the whole thing!

Share

108 Comments

  1. What I want to know is:

    Let’s pretend the liberals do get back Congress and the WH. Without Bush around, they won’t know how to act. They’ll have nobody to oppose and lie about. All they’ll be able to do is surrender to everybody and twiddle their thumbs. That won’t be any fun.

    They’ve been geared towards attacking for so long and not having any plans or suggestions, they won’t remember how to run a country or even what the hell their agenda for running the country is.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 31, 2006 @ 3:09 am - January 31, 2006

  2. That is, assuming the liberals could find money that Howard Dean hasn’t spent and could get elected.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 31, 2006 @ 3:16 am - January 31, 2006

  3. You know what I see as the difference between the GOP and the Donks right now? They both have a serious problem with the voters. The GOP have a problem with the Abramoff scandal. The Donks have a problem that the extreme radical left has taken effective control of their party.

    The Republicans seem to be confronting their problem. There will probably be some largely symbolic Lobbying Reform legislation passed this year. The worst of the scandalized … Tom DeLay and Bob Ney… are being marginalized by the party. And let’s not forget that despite the Deaniac’s spin (i.e. Taking money directly from Abramoff — bad, Taking money indirectly from Abramoff — good) the Donks are going to end up looking pretty tainted before this is over too.

    Now the Donks, on the other hand, seem to be in denial about their problem. Or, at this point, they are in such lousy shape with mainstream voters that cash infusions from George Soros, the Hollywood Left, and the Unions (wholly-owned subsidiaries of the DNC) are all that keep them from extinction. The Donks vulnerability makes them ripe pickings for the reality-challenged jackals at Move-On and Kos. However, it puts them in a box where the Donks can not formulate any policy alternatives. Centrist policies that appeal to the mainstream will infuriate their financiers and rabid Kos base; who want nothing less than pure socialism. Radical policies that please those groups will alienate the mainstream. Instead of addressing these problems, the donks pursue the only “safe” route; constant attacks on Bush and Republicans to keep the base in line. This may be a valid strategy, especially if the Republicans screw up… actually, when the Republicans screw up … but it does not address the core problem.

    Comment by V the K — January 31, 2006 @ 7:51 am - January 31, 2006

  4. VK,

    I would say both parties have the same problem. Both parties are lead around by their extreme bases, the GOP by the religious right and neo-conservatives and the Democrats by the neo-communists. At the same time both parties are awash with both illegal and legal, in the form of campaign contributions, bribery money. Abramoff’s illegal activities pales in comparison to the hundreds of millions of legal transactions between each party and their fringe bases. Democrats have a second problem in not being able to get their message out.

    I hate seeing one party control both the executive and the legislature. The blank check has proven time and again to be too irresistable for either party to maintain control over their appetites for power and money. We saw it in 1992-1994, we see it again in 2000 through the present day. Only when both branches are forced to compromise, and thus actually govern on sound analysis principles, rather than continually running for thier fringe bases, do we get good government.

    Comment by Mr. Moderate — January 31, 2006 @ 8:41 am - January 31, 2006

  5. oh, I forgot to add peaceniks to the fringe that the Democrats pander to.

    Comment by Mr. Moderate — January 31, 2006 @ 8:43 am - January 31, 2006

  6. I don’t think the Republicans have as much of a problem with the fringes of their party as the Donks do. Mainstream American, generally, is more comfortable with prayer in schools and restrictions on abortion (the agenda of the religious right) than they are with unlimited abortion, same-sex marriage, socialist redistribution of wealth, environmental extremism, judicial supremacy, internationalism, and the rest of the radical left agenda.

    Comment by V the K — January 31, 2006 @ 8:54 am - January 31, 2006

  7. oh if only the religious right was concerned with “limiting” abortion. The religious right wants it outlawed completely, and you know it. It goes even as extreme as Mr. Coburn stating that he wouldn’t mind seeing the death penalty applied for praticing abortion providers in a post-Roe world. The other elements of the religious right agenda like regulating private concentual adult sexual activity, government interference in end of life decisions, government moral monitors telling adults what they can and cannot see or hear in paid for private media and the flirtation of merging of church and state are also not high on the average American’s list.

    Comment by Mr. Moderate — January 31, 2006 @ 9:12 am - January 31, 2006

  8. I think that’s a left-wing caricature of the Religious Right. My own church is regarded as very conservative, and doesn’t embrace those positions, but if you can provide links to mainstream religious conservative organizations where such positions are directly advocated, I will consider them. Barring such, I think it’s necessary for the left to caricature the Religious Right as a boogeyman that wants to outlaw sex in order to keep the money flowing in.

    Comment by V the K — January 31, 2006 @ 9:24 am - January 31, 2006

  9. As much as your characterization of the left is a boogey man. It always amazes me how much Repbulicans can ignore both the power and motivations of their own fringe group while wagging their fingers at the fringe groups of the left. Again, if you want evidence of any of those points look at their horror at the removal of anti-sodomy laws, both by legislature and by court, at Coburn’s comments on the death penalty for abortion doctors, not to mention the proliferation of Roe challenging anti-abortion laws making their way through the legislatures, Mr. Brownback’s thought police crusade, Bush spending hundreds of millions of dollars to fight “indecency” through the FCC and an anti-porn (not child porn) task force, et cetera.

    Comment by Mr. Moderate — January 31, 2006 @ 9:28 am - January 31, 2006

  10. No, I’m not really at all. Go to Kos and DUMB and see what they are demanding and see if it is in any way inconsistent with the way I have characterized the left. Everything I have cited as an example of the left’s extremism comes directly from the agenda of the left-wing groups that own the Democrat party right now. Unlimited Abortion: NARAL, NOW, EMILY’s List (all of whom support the unlimited right to taxpayer-paid abortions). Same-sex marriage: NGLTF, HRC. Socialist Redistribution of Wealth: George Soros, Move-On, Labor Unions, (all of whom advocate raising taxes on “the rich” and redistributing it to designated victim groups) the RAINBOW/PUSH Coalition (“reparations”). Environmental Extremism: The Sierra Club and other environmental activists (no logging, no drilling in ANWR or anywhere else, no SUVs), Judicial Supremacy: 25 Senators voted to filibuster Alito just for not being left enough. Internationalism: Code Pink, every “peace group” in the world, the EU, the United Nations and its advocates who turn a blind eye to its blatant corruption and hypocrisy.

    Comment by V the K — January 31, 2006 @ 9:50 am - January 31, 2006

  11. #9 – It’s interesting how much you have to distort the position of the Right in order to make it match your caricature. Parental consent laws are not anti-abortion except that you characterize them that way. Partial-birth-abortion bans are much more anti-infanticide than anti-abortion.

    No such distortions are necessary when discussing NARAL’s position: They want unlimited abortions, for minors without parental notification, paid for by taxpayers.

    Comment by V the K — January 31, 2006 @ 10:07 am - January 31, 2006

  12. I give up on you VK. Again it’s amazing to me how little you see in your own party’s extremism. It takes no great amount of twisting to highlight the religious right agenda–unless quoting sitting Senators and stating policy positions is twisting. Adios muchacho.

    Comment by Mr. Moderate — January 31, 2006 @ 10:20 am - January 31, 2006

  13. #12 — So, if “it takes no great amount of twisting to highlight the religious right agenda” why can’t you link to any of it?

    And if the Republican agenda is so right-wing and out-of-the-mainstream, how come they are able to formulate policies and advance them through the democratic process, whereas Democrats can offer only attacks and vitriol and no policy alternatives?

    Comment by V the K — January 31, 2006 @ 10:25 am - January 31, 2006

  14. it’s amazing to me how little you see in your own party’s extremism.

    I’m a registered Independent, so I don’t have a party.

    Comment by V the K — January 31, 2006 @ 10:26 am - January 31, 2006

  15. How do they do it you ask? Number one is they are much better at running an election campaign and keeping their people on message. The second reason is that most of the country really isn’t paying attention. Considering that most people were shocked by perfectly legal and typical campaign donation for votes actions that came to light in Abramoff, and considering that most people still think USAPATRIOT Act isn’t an acronym, it’s quite easy to put enough lipstick on the pig to keep winning office.

    I happen to be registered independent too and am lucky enough to live in a region where moderate Republicans hold a lot more power than they do at the federal level.

    Comment by Mr. Moderate — January 31, 2006 @ 10:32 am - January 31, 2006

  16. I think it’s a bit absurd to argue that the only reason Republicans are succeeding is because their PR is better. The Democrats have most of the media, nearly all of Hollywood, and nearly all of Academia working for them but they have a PR disadvantage? And even at that, they still can’t come up with any actual policies they can sell to the mainstream voter? Get real.

    Comment by V the K — January 31, 2006 @ 10:46 am - January 31, 2006

  17. HA! VK. Whatever you say.

    For yet another example of religious right nuttery check this headline from WorldNetDaily (a veritable font of these stories):
    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48585

    Comment by Mr. Moderate — January 31, 2006 @ 10:48 am - January 31, 2006

  18. I see, one nutty AOL-User now speaks for all religious people in the USA. Un-huh.

    When the Republican party adopts an actual political policy based on that, call me.

    Comment by V the K — January 31, 2006 @ 10:59 am - January 31, 2006

  19. VK, once they adopt the policy you’ll ask me to wait until it is an official plank of the platform. Once that happens you’ll ask until legislation is introduced. Once that happens you’ll ask to wait until it’s signed. After that you’ll ask to wait until it affects someone. The joy of the ever moving goal post….

    Comment by Mr. Moderate — January 31, 2006 @ 11:27 am - January 31, 2006

  20. I don’t really see that particular goalpost ever going anywhere.

    Comment by V the K — January 31, 2006 @ 11:31 am - January 31, 2006

  21. Just remember, if the religious right is personified by Pat Robertson (a failed presidential candidate who failed to win a single primary), consider where he is — a marginal televangelist with a smaller audience than Al Franken and no role within the party.

    If the radical left is personified by Howard Dean (a failed presidential candidate who won only one primary) consider where he is — running the Democrat party.

    Comment by V the K — January 31, 2006 @ 11:35 am - January 31, 2006

  22. 2004 Federal Level Republican platform on abortion:

    …we say the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation to make it clear that the 14th Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions. We oppose using public revenues for abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life.

    And what is this Human Life Amendment?”: It is a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution that states, “The paramount right to life is vested in each human being from the moment of fertilization without regard to age, health or condition of dependency.”

    What was that about not trying to outlaw all abortion not being part of the party platform?

    Comment by Mr. Moderate — January 31, 2006 @ 11:41 am - January 31, 2006

  23. Actually the personification I’m thinking of is in the form of intimate ties with James Dobson (Robertson is so last century even though he still has regular communications with the White House) and other evangelicals (such as when they were in a private concall guaranteeing them that Ms. Meyers would strike down Roe v. Wade). I’m also thinking in terms of the major party leaders, like Santorum, DeLay, Frist et cetera tripping over themselves to get to “Justice Sunday” rallies. There is nothing wrong with them doing that of course, but it is a clear indication of the power of the religious right over the party leadership.

    Comment by Mr. Moderate — January 31, 2006 @ 11:45 am - January 31, 2006

  24. I note the language says “support.” I see nothing about imposing such a law except through the process of participatory democracy. I also note the lack of legislation proposing a Human Life Amendment or the criminlization of abortion.

    Comment by V the K — January 31, 2006 @ 11:50 am - January 31, 2006

  25. V, you’re doing a great job here, keeping it real. The trouble, as you’ve noticed, is that “Mr. Moderate” is actually chock full of assumptions that come from the Left. Perhaps he’s one of those “I like to pose as a moderate so I pretend I am one” types. Perhaps he reads too much NYT.

    I’ll probably never know. But I do know that in my years of reading “far-right” (in Mary Mapes’ view) sites such as Powerline, LGF, BlackFive, Michelle Malkin and GatewayPundit, I have yet to come across even one instance of “their horror at the removal of anti-sodomy laws” or most of the other bogeymen claimed by MM.

    Meanwhile, Kos and DUMB are indeed replete with the bogeymen you have claimed. And they are now truly the mainstream of the Democratic Party, with MoveOn.org churning out ad after ad based on their extreme views, and their 2004 Presidential candidate now officially and publicly a Kos Kid.

    For the record, I, like you, am consciously registered Independent; not a Republican.

    Comment by Calarato — January 31, 2006 @ 11:53 am - January 31, 2006

  26. O[ff] T[opic]: Speaking of BlackFive, by the way, here he argues vigorously for removal of the ban on gays in the military.

    Comment by Calarato — January 31, 2006 @ 11:57 am - January 31, 2006

  27. Actually I’m a former ditto head who reads both left and right media, but whatever.

    Comment by Mr. Moderate — January 31, 2006 @ 11:58 am - January 31, 2006

  28. Yeah, “Whatever” indeed. Whatever you say, Mr. Leftist.

    Comment by Calarato — January 31, 2006 @ 11:59 am - January 31, 2006

  29. their 2004 Presidential candidate now officially and publicly a Kos Kid.

    #25 – Calarato, EXCELLENT POINT! I always think of the Dean/Robertson compare and contrast, but I forget that Kerry is now an official inmate at Kos. (And where was Liz Edwards posting during the campaign? Kos or DUMB?)

    Seriously, until about April or May of 2004, I was so disillusioned with Bush that I was ready to sit out the election. But when I saw the crzaed menagerie that a Kerry Admin would have brought to power (MoveOn, Michael Moore, George Soros) I held in my stomach and voted for Bush.

    I wish we did have a really moderate party out there formulating real policy alternatives and keeping the conservative right honest, even though I’d disagree with them on a lot of issues. The democrats have just gotten too shrill and nutty to serve that purpose.

    Comment by V the K — January 31, 2006 @ 12:00 pm - January 31, 2006

  30. “I note the language says “support.” I see nothing about imposing such a law except through the process of participatory democracy.”

    Wait a minute, just above didn’t you say, “When the Republican party adopts an actual political policy based on that, call me.”

    It is the plank of the Republican party! That means it is their political policy. How fixed are those goal posts again VK?

    Comment by Mr. Moderate — January 31, 2006 @ 12:00 pm - January 31, 2006

  31. If you want a better discussion, please make a better answer this:

    “I do know that in my years of reading “far-right” (in Mary Mapes’ view) sites such as Powerline, LGF, BlackFive, Michelle Malkin and GatewayPundit, I have yet to come across even one instance of “their horror at the removal of anti-sodomy laws” or most of the other bogeymen claimed by MM.

    Meanwhile, Kos and DUMB are indeed replete with the bogeymen you V claims.”

    Comment by Calarato — January 31, 2006 @ 12:01 pm - January 31, 2006

  32. Ah Calarato, good for you to throw in the name change canard. I know you guys don’t like being reminded about the power of the religious right within the Republican party, but it is there plain as day.

    Comment by Mr. Moderate — January 31, 2006 @ 12:02 pm - January 31, 2006

  33. #29 – LOL – I know, it’s hard to remember Kerry was their 2004 Presidential candidate, he’s such a joker.

    Personally, I am a libertarian small-government guy, and yes, I also hate the Republicans, or rather, I WOULD, if the Democrats weren’t objectively so much worse, so dramatically awful/evil for America.

    Comment by Calarato — January 31, 2006 @ 12:06 pm - January 31, 2006

  34. #32 – ????????????????????

    Where have I thrown in anything about name change??????????????

    Comment by Calarato — January 31, 2006 @ 12:07 pm - January 31, 2006

  35. Oh, I get it now.

    You have name-change on the brain, and you interpreted my own naming of you as “Mr. Leftist” to be an example or accusation of that.

    Comment by Calarato — January 31, 2006 @ 12:07 pm - January 31, 2006

  36. Why can’t you hate both parties at the same time and support a third party, Libertarian perhaps, or hope for dual party grid lock by having each party control one of the branches (as I do).

    Comment by Mr. Moderate — January 31, 2006 @ 12:08 pm - January 31, 2006

  37. #30 — What is this, three card monte? You take my response to a nutty point about an AOL slogan and apply it to the abortion plank? Get out of here.

    Comment by V the K — January 31, 2006 @ 12:10 pm - January 31, 2006

  38. “You have name-change on the brain, and you interpreted my own naming of you as “Mr. Leftist” to be an example or accusation of that.”

    Yes, exactly. Call me an actual moderate, but being labeled a leftist (or a rightist for that matter) ticks me off.

    Comment by Mr. Moderate — January 31, 2006 @ 12:10 pm - January 31, 2006

  39. “What is this, three card monte? You take my response to a nutty point about an AOL slogan and apply it to the abortion plank? Get out of here.”

    Is that checkmate then?

    Comment by Mr. Moderate — January 31, 2006 @ 12:11 pm - January 31, 2006

  40. The so-called Libertarian Party is as bad as the Democratic Party, in terms of being a bunch of nuts who would drive America off a cliff.

    Many of them are out there with International A.N.S.W.E.R. at the so-called “anti-war” demonstrations (actually pro-war: just pro-the other side).

    What comes closest to my views is probably the Liberty Caucus of the Republican Party – assuming they are pro-gay. I haven’t had the patience yet to learn all that much about them.

    Comment by Calarato — January 31, 2006 @ 12:13 pm - January 31, 2006

  41. #38 – But, in fact, you aren’t a moderate, MM.

    Real moderates aren’t chock-full of Leftist assumptions, and arguing from those. See #25.

    Comment by Calarato — January 31, 2006 @ 12:14 pm - January 31, 2006

  42. P.S. We have been over this ground before. I will always call you Mr. Leftist, when I see you operating as one (and claiming/pretending the contrary, with your self-declared “moderate” logo).

    Comment by Calarato — January 31, 2006 @ 12:16 pm - January 31, 2006

  43. Why can’t you hate both parties at the same time and support a third party, Libertarian perhaps, or hope for dual party grid lock by having each party control one of the branches (as I do).

    1. Because third parties are a joke.

    2. Because there are real problems such as terrorism, national security, and various reforms that need to be addressed for the good of the country. It is unhelpful that one party is proposing solutions and the other party is only proposing to obstruct the solutions proposed by the other party.

    3. The gridlock of divided government is only desirable when there are no pressing problems and when neither party is screaming, apeshit nuts.

    Comment by V the K — January 31, 2006 @ 12:16 pm - January 31, 2006

  44. You reference your own post as evidence of my “leftist preconcieved notions”? That’s an interesting mechanism. You know very little about my stance on a whole host of positions, and never will since these forums really don’t lend themselves to a discussion at that level. I read the religious right literature directly from them, not through some prism. I watch them because I consider them the greatest threat to personal liberties while they still retain control of the GOP or the GOP still controls the executive and legislative branch. I make it a point to read their sites, like worldnetdaily.com, cnsnews.com, and read their magazines. My opinions on their positions come from listening to them, not by reading some left wing blog.

    Comment by Mr. Moderate — January 31, 2006 @ 12:20 pm - January 31, 2006

  45. #1 I agree as they are right now, but remember the GOP was a third party when they got started in the first half of the 19th century.

    #2 Plenty of stuff still gets done on really important matters, and history shows that both parties fall into a coexistence that brings both more to the center rather than towards their fringes.

    #3 Half baked idealogue policy during times of crisis is usually not better than policy through open debate or no policy at all (which rarely happens in practice).

    Comment by Mr. Moderate — January 31, 2006 @ 12:25 pm - January 31, 2006

  46. Besides, you gotta hand it to how smart we on the right are. We waited to seat Alito and Roberts until we had managed to render the previous wire coat-hangers obsolete and replaced them with the plastic kind, which are much harder to perform abortions with – — BWAH HA HA HA HA HA HA…

    Oh, and I notice the Democrats are going to be outside the SOTU banging on pots and pans to try and drown out the president’s speech. Oh, yeah, they are plenty mature to be trusted with power.

    Comment by V the K — January 31, 2006 @ 12:25 pm - January 31, 2006

  47. Oh how soon you forget the anti-Clinton barrage from the right wing in the early 1990’s, when the Repbulicans had no power in the legislative or executive branches. Also, aren’t you now putting a label on all Democrats because of a few crack pots? Wasn’t that exactly what you accused me of doing, despite the fact that my “crack pots” are the people actually holding seats in Congress, at the table at the White House and not the handful of people holding demonstrations in front of abortion doctor’s houses…

    Comment by Mr. Moderate — January 31, 2006 @ 12:33 pm - January 31, 2006

  48. Both parties are lead around by their extreme bases, the GOP by the religious right and neo-conservatives and the Democrats by the neo-communists.

    Waaa? If Caring about the Average American and the Poor is Communist – then I guess I’m one….? G–d D–m you people who back these NUT job administration dumbfound me beyond belief!

    Comment by moderate gay — January 31, 2006 @ 12:40 pm - January 31, 2006

  49. The difference, Mr. Modo, is that the extreme Clinton-haters were always at the fringe of the GOP. The conspiracy-theory-police-state-Bush-is-Hitler crowd is (see comment #21) currently running the Democratic Party.

    Funny how these so-called moderates can’t seem to find a single word of criticism for the Democrats. (And don’t make me reference out my extensive history of Bush criticism again).

    Comment by V the K — January 31, 2006 @ 12:41 pm - January 31, 2006

  50. …Let me just say this: IF because of Alito/Roberts and the left over crap of BS from this administration causes Gays to lose whatver gains we’ve made….and then some. You better hope I never run into a LCR gay member — cause your ass WILL get a kicking!

    Comment by moderate gay — January 31, 2006 @ 12:43 pm - January 31, 2006

  51. Oh, and, props to Calarato, I don’t recall Bob Dole ever posting at Free Republic.

    Comment by V the K — January 31, 2006 @ 12:51 pm - January 31, 2006

  52. […] But Lorie Byrd at Polipundit, and Dan at Gay Patriot, have put down their thoughts, and they are worth reading and thinking about. […]

    Pingback by The Anchoress » SOTU dreams… — January 31, 2006 @ 12:56 pm - January 31, 2006

  53. Mr. Moderate, you’ll never win an argument with a drunk or a fanatic. It took even less time than usual for you to be called “lefty”. With these guys you might as well argue with the wind.
    Nice “goalpost” analogy

    Comment by hank — January 31, 2006 @ 1:54 pm - January 31, 2006

  54. #50 – proves Dan’s point about critics not bothering to read or understand posts here before mouthing off.

    Who is a proud LCR member here??? LOL. Dan isn’t. Bruce isn’t. (Taking them as the ones that count.) And of the ones in the present comments, I’m pretty sure neither V nor I is!

    Mouthing off in bizarre, inapplicable rants must be a form of therapy for some people.

    Comment by Calarato — January 31, 2006 @ 1:59 pm - January 31, 2006

  55. #44 – Now you’re really playing stupid games, Mr. Leftist.

    I referenced #25 in the manner of “I made point X that you STILL have not answered in the slightest, and I am not going to repeat it to satisfy your dumb games, so evidently you need to go back there and read it again, then properly answer it.”

    You’re obviously playing to waste time, at this point. Bye.

    Comment by Calarato — January 31, 2006 @ 2:04 pm - January 31, 2006

  56. Uh, hank, I never once called Mr. Mod a lefty. Not once. Also, I never moved any goalposts. Instead, Mr. Mode very dishonestly took a response to one of his comments and applied it to a different one. Learn to read better, okay bud? Thanks.

    Comment by V the K — January 31, 2006 @ 2:09 pm - January 31, 2006

  57. I came back a second just to re-iterate my whole original (and real) point: V, good job!!

    ————————————–

    Reading #56, now that I’m here, sparks one morethought. I am the one referring to Mr. Moderate as Mr. Leftist. My reason in doing so is that, in (mis-)claiming the moniker “Mr. Moderate”, MM is attempting to tell us/me in advance what we/I should think of him. He is appointing himself a name to live up to.

    Logically enough, I then ask myself the question, “Does he live up to his self-appointed name?”

    Answer: No.

    V has demonstrated that. And now I’m really off to class.

    Comment by Calarato — January 31, 2006 @ 2:17 pm - January 31, 2006

  58. #50 moderate gay >> ouch. Sorry but that doesn’t sound like much of a threat when you’re dressed in a pink polo & chinos, displaying $50+ in hair care products and lisping. You gotta work on delivery, wanna-b-big-boi. “Tough” just doesn’t sing when the clenched fist og a macho gay guy habits a $65 manicure…. lol.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — January 31, 2006 @ 2:18 pm - January 31, 2006

  59. 56
    I never said you did “bud.’

    Comment by hank — January 31, 2006 @ 2:22 pm - January 31, 2006

  60. If GWB had his pompons with him, I might watch his speech. He is, after all, the Cheerleader In Chief.

    Comment by raj — January 31, 2006 @ 2:23 pm - January 31, 2006

  61. If you go to any of the loony leftist sites, like DU, Kos, Moveon, etc., you’ll see that they’re in meltdown. There are three possiblities:

    1. The nutcases could abandon the Dhimmicrats altogether, as they claim now they’re going to do, and run their own wackjob candidates. Since they’re the Soros base, it’s conceivable that they could get ol’ UN George to back their candidates.

    2. The moonbats could “come to their senses” (relatively speaking) and stick with the Demorats. If they do, they’ll be more nuts, more shrill, and more cobative, and they’ll drive the Dims further to the left.

    3. The leftists could just go back to what they were doing — and they were driving the party further to the left, just not as far or fast as 2. above.

    The third is the least likely, to judge from how unhinged they are now. If they go with the first possibility, we get the Nader effect, and win in 06 (more than we would have anyway). If they go with the second, the party will alienate even more Americans, and we’ll win in 06 (more than we would have anyway).

    The only thing that can get a Dhimmirat win in 06 is if conservatives stay home and don’t vote.

    Comment by rightwingprof — January 31, 2006 @ 2:24 pm - January 31, 2006

  62. anyone notice #50 is a threat? what\’s the quote about threats are last refuge of…. ?

    Comment by greek_chorus — January 31, 2006 @ 2:29 pm - January 31, 2006

  63. VK,

    What policy was mentioned in that article that I linked to you? It was an example of the hyperbole coming out of the religious right. Just to recap what happened for those that don’t wish to scroll back:

    1. There were a series of discussions where I lay out, per your request, examples of how the religious right has tremendous influence over the GOP and their political platform.

    2. While perusing the internet between replies I saw that link at WorldNetDaily and thought it was great example of how wacked out they can get. I placed that link here.

    3.You state you aren’t worried about the religious right nuttery until they set policy. What policy in that article were you referring to may I ask, or did you not read the article?

    4. I, perhaps too generally, applied your party principle argument to the very real discussion we had where you stated that the religious right has no intention of banning abortion outright, just limiting it. To back up my point that this is not shrill rhetoric I post the abortion plank fo the national party from 2004, including their support for the “Human Life Amendment” and applying the 14th Amendment to fetuses.

    5. You then state that it wasn’t an issue because they would do it democratically, not through some brute force method.

    That goes back to the goal posts. When will you worry about the religious right? We have one concrete example of how they push the party far outside of where mainstream America would like abortion to be–limited but not outlawed–and you say you are only worried about them driving the party that way if they would enact such policies through undemocratic means? What a high bar to set for when you actively track and seek to counter a movement. By that token, why are you worried about Democrats, who will enact their tax policy and such through democratic means? They don’t even control the party in power, so why bother worrying about them? The logic you use on the religious right can’t, and wouldn’t, be applied to Democrats, and therefore it is faulty.

    You want some Democrat criticisms, as if I didn’t post enough of them on more moderate blogs. Kerry is a puffed up boring blue blooded douche bag who couldn’t election his way out of a wet paper bag. Murtha’s contention that the only solution to the Iraq issue is pullout is flat out wrong–more, not less troops and resources need to be pushed into Iraq. The Democrat proposed policies on Medicare reform, or lack thereof, are comical at best. Their lip service about reducing the deficit is just that, especially if they once again controlled both branches of government. While their position on body armor and veterans benefits are admirable, their lack of support for future combat systems would leave our military under-equipped for warfighting in the next few decades. I could go on, but I generally save this stuff for when I have political discussion with Democrats…

    Comment by Mr. Moderate — January 31, 2006 @ 2:39 pm - January 31, 2006

  64. Actually, I only asserted that my church’s position on abortion (comment #8) was not extreme and neither was the position of the religious right. I challenged you to cite where “religious right” organizations where choosing to outlaw abortion. You cited the Republican platform. Fine. I asked if there was any legislation pushing through the outlawing of abortion. You accused me of moving goalposts… mainly because you couldn’t cite any actual evidence of this agenda being implemented. I don’t think it becomes a legitimate point unless there is actual effort to have it implemented. Unlike the kook-left agenda which we can plainly see in the (failed) Alito filibuster, the blocking of drilling in ANWR, and the wild-eyed accusations of “domestic spying” and the open calls for impeachment.

    And, yes, regardless of the outcome, I have a preference that the abortion issue be decided by legislatures and the democratic process and not by courts. I don’t see why that position is “extreme.”

    You also took a kook point from a kook website as evidence that the GOP is dominated by the “fringe right.” Never mind that no Republican has touched it, and ignoring that Ted Kennedy made a fool of himself on the floor of the Senate spouting the talking points of kook left-wing websites like Kos and MoveOn.

    And, finally, my point that the GOP fringe is still the fringe whereas the left-wing fringe is in active charge of the Democrat Party… pretty much ignored.

    Comment by V the K — January 31, 2006 @ 2:59 pm - January 31, 2006

  65. Because I disagree with your sentiment on the GOP side. My point from the beginning was that both parties are being controlled by their fringe. I am illustrating, and you are choosing to ignore, examples of how the religiosu right fringe is leading this party. Where in any of this have I countered that the fringe of the Democratic party isn’t driving its agenda? I stated it in posts #4 and #5!

    Comment by Mr. Moderate — January 31, 2006 @ 3:10 pm - January 31, 2006

  66. Because your “proof” that the religious right owns the Republican party consists of a kook point on a kook website that has nothing to do with the GOP, and a plank in the GOP platform that has seen no legislative action.

    Comment by V the K — January 31, 2006 @ 3:16 pm - January 31, 2006

  67. Here’s a question: Would Brokeback Mountain have received any Oscar nominations if the main characters had been a man and a woman in a heterosexual romance?

    Comment by V the K — January 31, 2006 @ 3:21 pm - January 31, 2006

  68. And you missed all the other stuff I posted, such as Coburn, Brownback, “Justice Sunday” the planks in the party platform on abortion. That didn’t include things that I didn’t mention like the Schiavo “emergency” legislation and the political circus around that event, the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2004, their push at the state level to make all gambling illegal, their strong arming the executive to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to fight the amorphous “indecency”, and so on. Actual legislation (that’s what you were asking for right) as well of lots of rhetoric and political posturing coming out of GOP leaders, the White House and elected members of state and federal legislatures. That is not just one stray reference to one “kook” site to prove my point.

    Comment by Mr. Moderate — January 31, 2006 @ 3:23 pm - January 31, 2006

  69. Here’s a question, how is that remotely on topic?

    Comment by Mr. Moderate — January 31, 2006 @ 3:27 pm - January 31, 2006

  70. Oh and even though off topic, Bridges of Madison County received an Oscar and two Golden Globe nominations in 1996

    Comment by Mr. Moderate — January 31, 2006 @ 3:30 pm - January 31, 2006

  71. #67 Would Bambi have been a hit if it were about a pitbull?

    What in the world are you trying to say?

    Comment by hank — January 31, 2006 @ 3:33 pm - January 31, 2006

  72. I haven’t seen anything about outlawing gambling at the state level, but if you have a link, I’ll consider it. As for Schaivo and the rest, um, both sides passed that legislation, revisionist history notwithstanding. Spending millions to fight indecency? Regarding indecency, and getting back to my original point, I think that mainstream America is more comfortable with the government upholding public broadcast standards to shield children from Janet Jackson flashing her joybags and Howard Stern’s lesbian Jell-O wrestling than they are with the cultural left’s push to incorporate gay themes in children’s programming and fight against pr0n filters in school libraries.

    And as for the FMA, what you guys don’t like to admit is that opposition to same-sex marriage is a mainstream position, not an artifact of the “extreme right.”

    Anyway, I Alito’s been sworn in and, so far, no one’s been marched to the death camps yet. What’s the hold up?

    Comment by V the K — January 31, 2006 @ 3:35 pm - January 31, 2006

  73. Just so we remember who brought up the over the top hyperbolic death camp rhetoric VK…

    Incidently, federal level legislation against internet gambling pushed by the religious right wing of the party
    http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-519783.html

    Comment by Mr. Moderate — January 31, 2006 @ 3:53 pm - January 31, 2006

  74. Um, that internet story is from six years ago, it says nothing about the Religious Right, the bill in question carved out exceptions for states that wanted to continue to have internet gambling, and it never passed the House anyway.

    Also, a bill to legalize slot machines in my state was blocked by Democrats in the legislature (who then went on to punish Wal-Mart because their unions masters decreed that they should do that). This suggests to me that internet gambling isn’t the “Religious Right Controls the Universe” issue Mr. Mod thinks it is.

    Comment by V the K — January 31, 2006 @ 4:12 pm - January 31, 2006

  75. Also, thanks for demonstrating how tone-deaf you are when it comes to sarcasm, Mr. Mod.

    Comment by V the K — January 31, 2006 @ 4:14 pm - January 31, 2006

  76. No where am I arguing that the Religious Right has no influence in the GOP. Of course they do. But they do not have the degree of control over the GOP that the radical left has on the Donks, as evidenced by who is in the leadership, and by what the party is doing on behalf of the respective groups.

    Secondly, and this is my original point, even if the Religious Right has more influence than I think they do, it is less of a problem for Republicans because the American electorate, by and large, is much more religious than it is radical-socialist.

    Comment by V the K — January 31, 2006 @ 4:26 pm - January 31, 2006

  77. Hopefully 2006 is just like 2005 with one notable exception – D puts forth a plan. We should know by now that what is perfectly clear to us – GWB is an idiot and that alone should be reason enough not to vote for him and his kind, is not reason enough for the Kool-Aid drinking masses.

    Comment by ralph — January 31, 2006 @ 4:37 pm - January 31, 2006

  78. #42 Calarato — January 31, 2006 @ 12:16 pm – January 31, 2006

    I will always call you Mr. Leftist, when I see you operating as one (and claiming/pretending the contrary, with your self-declared “moderate” logo).

    Hey, whatever. You must be of the Stevie Miller (IndeGayForum) brand of discussion. “Leftist” this and “liberal” that. Do you not have anything of substance to say instead of tossing around what you apparently believe to be epithets?

    Comment by raj — January 31, 2006 @ 4:59 pm - January 31, 2006

  79. Just out of curiosity: how many of you Alito fans are “anti-anti-Alito” as opposed to being merely “pro-Alito”?

    I’m reminded of the general reaction of the right-wing élite to the election of Pope Benedict XVI. It’s not so much his ultra-conservative theology they praised (though of course many of them did just that), but their perception that he annoys the left and is therefore A-OK. Never mind all that Hitlerjugend stuff.

    Hey, does Robert Byrd’s vote in favor of Alito’s confirmation mean he’s officially off the Emmanuel Goldstein Memorial Two-Minutes-Hate List now?

    Comment by vaara — January 31, 2006 @ 5:10 pm - January 31, 2006

  80. #79 vaara, ok, I’ll bite. I was so strongly Alito that I was tickled when Miers went down in flames –glad to see her withdraw because I thought there was a 75-25% chance W would nominate Judge Alito or another conservative to the Court. And I knew that nomination would draw a clear, clean line in a national debate about SCOTUS and public policies because the Left would make it so.

    Not anti-anti, just pro. But is your question kind of like asking “Please, how many people think like I do; John Kerry didn’t lose to W, he just didn’t win”?

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — January 31, 2006 @ 5:22 pm - January 31, 2006

  81. So why, if the Democrats are such congenital obstructionists, did John Roberts’ nomination sail through the Senate?

    Your enthusiasm for “strong conservatism” on the Supreme Court suggests that you think it’s perfectly fine for a President to want to perpetuate his ideological legacy, via the Supreme Court, for decades after he leaves office. (Hint: Just because FDR did it, doesn’t make it right. Right?)

    Re: Kerry, yes, he lost. I’m over it. Let me guess: if he had won, all our wimmin would be wearing burqas now, right?

    Comment by vaara — January 31, 2006 @ 5:32 pm - January 31, 2006

  82. raj baby, I don’t think terms like Leftist or Liberal are epithets anymore than Right or Conservative or Catholic or Wolverine or American are slurs. I guess if I heard a Buckeye fan say “Wolverine” with that hiss of hate and envy or an atheist or gay say “Catholic” with all the demeaning undercurrent of the usual dismissing attitude and contempt, I guess it would be a slam. I see those terms more as “epitheton necessarium” >sort of “required” to distinguish properly.

    For me, as an Irish Catholic conservative Wolverine gay male, no epithet or slur has any lasting impact. When you have been spit upon by strangers during a civil rights debate like me and others, an attacking person’s animosity is easy to set aside and has to be if we’re to get past the ignorance.

    Nope, no epithet. I see Calarato being clear, distinguishing –if anything at all. And I think others here using handles like “Mr Moderate” are easy to see through as neither a gentleman or as moderate.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — January 31, 2006 @ 5:37 pm - January 31, 2006

  83. I think Alito is awesome, but I would have been good with any other brilliant originalist Bush nominated. There’s a kind of natural selection at work here. Libs know that they can nominate any old liberal back (cough Ginsburg cough) and the nomination will sail through. But for a conservative to survive the borking, he’s got to be brilliant. Hence, the quality of conservative justices and jurisprudence improves over time.

    And the idea that John Roberts sailed through is a typical bit of hystorical revisionism, or did I just imagine the gay innuendoes about Roberts? the demands by certain left-wing groups to look into his adoption records? the NARAL attacks accusing him of supporting abortion clinic bombings that were so dishonest even other opponents repudiated them (but not NARAL)? Calling him a racist because he made an editorial change in a paper from “Civil War” to “War Between the States?” Taking his quotes out of context to claim he called the EEOC “Unamerican?”

    How soon they think we forget.

    Comment by V the K — January 31, 2006 @ 5:45 pm - January 31, 2006

  84. I’m with Matt. “Leftist” is not an epithet, but an apt description of one who embraces left-of-center politics. It’s passing strange that people who support “screwing the rich” on taxes, enhancing the power of the courts, vastly expanded environmental regulation, socialized health care and other socialist policies get so offended when they are properly labeled leftist.

    Comment by V the K — January 31, 2006 @ 5:48 pm - January 31, 2006

  85. Roberts’ confirmation margin was 78-22, a margin almost identical to that obtained by his predecessor Rehnquist.

    Re: Bork, does the fact that he wasn’t confirmed mean he’s not brilliant? Huh. I always thought Bork was supposed to be the most brilliant exemplar of brilliance in the entire history of brilliantness. Or something.

    Comment by vaara — January 31, 2006 @ 5:53 pm - January 31, 2006

  86. vaara, easy answer there on Judge Roberts > the Senate Democrat leadership couldn’t swerve fast enough to rally the forces once O Connor announced her side into the sunset. Easy answer. It takes time to steer the course of obstruction into a plausible strategy… hence the delays by Dems on nearly every major procedural step in the Alito confirmation.

    Think of it like the Titanic before the disaster… all those Democrat victimized constitutencies need time to muster whatever they can in the way of icebergs… it just doesn’t happen and it isn’t sitting on the shelf for easy implementation. And there’s the brave face of the band as Kerry plays the filibuster tune… all of that. Tough stuff to arrange with convincing purpose or else the MSM will bolt and not cover the story.

    It takes time.

    And yes, I think the President is required to select a justice who conforms to his judicial ideology or view of the Court. Required by volition of his election to office by the majority of voters –not the voters who chose the other guys. His supporters.

    It’s called democracy in action. Frankly, Kerry didn’t just lose. He got trounced and so did the Liberals by default and association. But that’s happened a lot, eh? Nixon and McGovern. Reagan and Carter. Reagan and Mondale. Bush and Dukakis. Bush and Gore. Bush and Kerry. Rice and Clinton2.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — January 31, 2006 @ 5:57 pm - January 31, 2006

  87. IF because of Alito/Roberts and the left over crap of BS from this administration causes Gays to lose whatver gains we’ve made

    Lay blame where it is due: at the door of Newsom and all those idiotic people who wanted to get married and have it on the front page of the newspaper day after day.

    Oh and even though off topic, Bridges of Madison County received an Oscar and two Golden Globe nominations in 1996

    That was 96. This year, gays are Hollywood’s pet victims. Doesn’t being patronized bother you? (Though I will grant that the analogy holds in that both are chick flicks.)

    Just out of curiosity: how many of you Alito fans are “anti-anti-Alito” as opposed to being merely “pro-Alito”?

    So far, pro. We’ll have to see if he starts legislating from the bench.

    perpetuate his ideological legacy, via the Supreme Court

    Reading the Constitution as written, instead of making things up as you go along based on what the Euros are doing or what you think the Constitution should say but does not, is not perpetuating an ideological legacy.

    It’s what judges are supposed to do.

    as an Irish Catholic conservative Wolverine gay male

    You have my sympathies. I have in-laws in Michigan. They’re nutty. They’re in the Natural Law Party. Crazy as it gets.

    Comment by rightwingprof — January 31, 2006 @ 6:11 pm - January 31, 2006

  88. To my way of thinking, RR’s Administration failed Judge Bork miserably. If Bork had been brilliant, he would have been able to handle the blow-hards in the Senate… like Judge Alito, he should have never risen to the bait. He should have held his sharp political commentaries, not explained positions or arguments in the misplaced hope of convincing Senators, and hung tight.

    I think it’s terrific that Alito is now “in” on the day that Martin Luther King’s widow has passed from the Earth. 58-42-1 shows us that we still have a long way to go in convincing good men and women of the value in doing the right thing. Judge Alito’s confirmation is a validation that the American Dream is still alive, conservatives who have labored so long for progress can rest a bit safely knowing that this Justice won’t invalidate their trust –now or in the future. He’ll stay true to the mission, keep on the message just like Martin Luther King’s widow.

    It’s a good day for America.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — January 31, 2006 @ 6:11 pm - January 31, 2006

  89. Or maybe it’s just that Roberts isn’t a conservative activist judge.

    Kerry got trounced? Do I detect a bit of historical revisionism there? He got 48% of the popular vote — which I realize doesn’t matter in a pseudo-democracy like the U.S., but the fact remains that he received more actual votes than Li’l George did, four years earlier. In fact, he even got more votes than Gore did!

    BTW, Condi Rice has said she’s not running for President in 2008. We should take her at her word, shouldn’t we? (Or were you looking ahead to 2012 or 2016?)

    Re: “Democrat victimized constituencies,” nothing says “victim” more than the stentorian bleats of people who control the entire power apparatus of the U.S. and are still mortally affronted about the very existence of an opposition — no matter how tired, impoverished, and out-of-touch. I mean, your friends in the G.O.P. have the White House, the House, the Senate, and now the Supreme Court. Not to mention K Street and large swathes of the media (despite incessant propaganda to the contrary), and I suspect that a poll of Fortune 500 CEO’s would reveal a marked lack of support for the Democratic Party.

    So what more do you want?

    Well, I’d love to stick around and chew the halal-slaughtered mutton fat with y’all, but it’s past midnight here in the United New Caliphate of Eurabistan, and I want to be first in line at the mosque tomorrow morning when the imam hands out the rocks for the weekly kaffir-stoning.

    Comment by vaara — January 31, 2006 @ 6:13 pm - January 31, 2006

  90. Michigan-Matt — January 31, 2006 @ 5:37 pm – January 31, 2006

    I don’t think terms like Leftist or Liberal are epithets anymore than Right or Conservative or Catholic or Wolverine or American are slurs.

    You probably could have ended after your third word quoted above, but let me ask you this. Why do you and like-minded people here throw “leftest” and “liberal” out so wontonly, instead of meeting the points with which you disagree, with evidence? As far as I can tell, you have no evidence, and you have no argument. From what I have seen here, and on other conservative web sites, gay or straight, it’s all about “I. I, I, me, me me.” That’s fine with me because we’ll be emigrating to a civilized country in the near future, and we won’t have to put up with the likes of you.

    I’m a perfect conservative. It’s all about me.

    /sarcasm

    Comment by raj — January 31, 2006 @ 6:17 pm - January 31, 2006

  91. and VdaK, on the revisionist Liberal “easy street” for Judge Roberts’ confirmation hearings you left off the whole disgusting innuendo about his adoptive children being “bought” by the infertile Judge and his barren wife (oh, so pathetic) that ran in the Liberal Newspaper of Record, the NYT. Can’t get it up, eh Judge? Gotta buy those trophy kids, Judge? Cute kids for the wealthy; everyone else to the back of the line.

    That low ebb couldn’t have been reached without the entrenched partisan hacks operating in TeddyK’s and PattieLeahy’s offices.

    “Oh, but Roberts just sailed through”… right.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — January 31, 2006 @ 6:22 pm - January 31, 2006

  92. raj, I think most of the people commenting here do meet arguments str8 on, point on, deliberately.

    Now, let me ask, for someone like you who loves to ramble incessantly about all things Euro-centrist and play the condescending professor without portfolio, why do you not focus in on the debate rather than run slipshod over all? I asked you earlier to revisit your assessment about “Leader of the Free World” and distance yourself from the silly Wiki cite you offered in defense… you asked for a reference. I gaveth the King his pleasure. Did you conform or submit? Nooo.

    On this small point, as far as I can tell –quoting the professor el conscendo, “As far as I can tell, you have no evidence, and you have no argument.” Hmm, go away to your Euro-sensible world Raj. Somehow I think you never left it. And take away one thing: under Republican leadership, America is stronger, more resolute, and the world follows our instruction and adopts our culture where free markets rule. It’s all about leadership, vision, freedom, and hope.

    And that will stick in your craw until your last muttering breath. I like that image.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — January 31, 2006 @ 6:34 pm - January 31, 2006

  93. Bork’s bad luck was just being the first guy out of the foxhole when the rules for confirming a Republican SCOTUS nominee changed from “fair hearing” to “scorched Earth.”

    Comment by V the K — January 31, 2006 @ 6:39 pm - January 31, 2006

  94. And my advice to anyone who doesn’t like being labeled a leftist would be … don’t be a leftist.

    Comment by V the K — January 31, 2006 @ 6:50 pm - January 31, 2006

  95. Back from class.

    For the record: I’m glad Newsom did what he did with gay marriage.

    I’m in favor of gay marriage. And I agree 100% with the conservatives here, that we need to ENGAGE AND GRADUALLY WIN THE MESSY STATE-BY-STATE DEBATE, rather than have unelected judges ram gay marriage down people’s throats. On that account, I understand why people think Newsom was wrong.

    But I think there was a symbolic or conceptual hurdle for the pro-marriage forces to overcome. Before Newsom, gay marriage simply was “not thinkable” to the American mainstream. Now it is. The mainstream may still not like it. They many still need a lot of persuading, over many years to come. But at least the debate has begun. Gay marriage is openly discussed on TV. The “sting” or “weirdness” of saying the words is gone. As much as any legal steps (Massachusetts or whatever), I give credit for that positive (in the very long run) development to Newsom’s Lefty theatrics.

    Which brings me to my second point. “Leftist” is not an epithet. raj, believing “leftist” is an epithet is 100% your cross to carry; 100% the creation or projection of your own mind. You will (or should) notice above that I just used Lefty in a positive context. Deal with it. It’s a legitimate descriptive term; you (raj) just don’t want to admit or acknowledge what is being accurately described by it.

    Comment by Calarato — January 31, 2006 @ 6:52 pm - January 31, 2006

  96. #89 – So what more do you want?

    I’d like more people on the left to recognize that good intentions are not enough. President Johnson’s “Great Society” public housing projects like Chicago’s infamous Cabrinni Green were built with the good intention of housing the poor but, for too many reasons to list here, was a disaster. This was clearly an experiment in socialism and it failed. The lefts tendency to want to socialize everything from housing to education to medicine should worry us all. If you guys want to help others go ahead and volunteer, donate money, help your neighbor, and urge others to join you. But don’t make it the job of the federal government . After all, a Communist is just a socialist who really means it. It’s an unsustainable system. Take a look at what happened to the former Soviet Union. I don’t want to take a single step down that road.

    I’d like you guys on the left to recognize that you’re part of a continuum used by unfriendly influences to undermine our country. If you think that’s an outlandish assertion just take a look at Sheehan and Chavez. You’re party has real problems. Please fix them for the sake of our country.

    Comment by Dave — January 31, 2006 @ 6:54 pm - January 31, 2006

  97. “Oh, but Roberts just sailed through”… right.

    I agree with Matt’s meaning. Yes Roberts got 78 votes in the end; but only because he showed himself to be so incredibly deserving and excellent. He earned the 78 votes the hard way, in the face of TREMENDOUS ugly, nutty opposition.

    I think (or hope) that the Roberts – Alito confirmations have forever put “borking” behind us. They have exposed to the center, the mainstream – yes, the real and actual MODERATES – of the American people, the real workings of the Left “borking” process and how ugly and nutty it is.

    Comment by Calarato — January 31, 2006 @ 7:00 pm - January 31, 2006

  98. Gay marriage is openly discussed on TV.

    And HBO is launching a new series premised on polygamy. Additionally, the Canadian government has recommended extending plural marriage rights, there has been at least one plural marriage in the Netherlands, and polygamy advocates in the USA are working on legal challenges to marriage laws modeled after the same challenges raised by same-sex marriage advocates.

    We should, at a minimum, be honest enough to admit that changing the definition of marriage necessarily raises the issue of what else could be defined as marriage. It was very, very dishonest to deny the link, and it places SSM advocates on the defenses now that they’ve been shown to be dishonest about that point.

    Comment by V the K — January 31, 2006 @ 7:29 pm - January 31, 2006

  99. It’s a debate / education issue. It means the SSM advocates haven’t done their homework, and/or, aren’t properly advancing their point.

    Real briefly (because I know we have covered this ground before), SSM is actually a small change to the definition of marriage. No larger a change than when they broke down and allowed different races to marry, or (reaching back to 17th-century Europe) different social classes. The basic legal structure remains: mutually exclusive, primary union of 2 adults. So polygamy isn’t included.

    But – you are right about this part – it is up to the SSM advocates to make that clear, or to cut the wackos from their midst. And they haven’t done so.

    Comment by Calarato — January 31, 2006 @ 7:33 pm - January 31, 2006

  100. And also, it is up to SSM advocates to eschew the word “marriage” and just take civil unions for 30-50 years, if that’s all they can persuade the voting public (or their legislators) to go with.

    Comment by Calarato — January 31, 2006 @ 7:35 pm - January 31, 2006

  101. Yes, but as someone once said, “The avalanche has started, it’s too late for the pebbles to vote.”

    Comment by V the K — January 31, 2006 @ 8:19 pm - January 31, 2006

  102. Then the SSM advocates will meet defeat, and have to dig deeper / get their act together better, for the next historical round.

    Not to be too Hegelian but it’s all a big, long historical process…like everything.

    The Dems/Left will come back one day, for example. But hopefully, defeat after defeat after defeat (for their moonbattery) will have forced them to dig deeper and come up with something better than the nuttiness they offer at present.

    It may take 5, 10, 20 years. It’s partly a process of natural selection (the long string of defeats killing off the moonbats “progressively”, hah hah, so that ultimately the few sensible ones are the only ones left standing).

    OK, now I’m way OT… will shut up.

    Comment by Calarato — January 31, 2006 @ 8:43 pm - January 31, 2006

  103. I’d like you guys on the left to recognize that you’re part of a continuum used by unfriendly influences to undermine our country.

    Single-payer health care is an Islamo-fascist plot? I had no idea.

    Comment by vaara — February 1, 2006 @ 2:44 am - February 1, 2006

  104. GCB, I’ve missed your comments. They’re so much fun to rebut. And if I have a lot of half-truths here, you haven’t identified a single one.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — February 1, 2006 @ 3:26 am - February 1, 2006

  105. #88 Michigan-Matt — January 31, 2006 @ 6:11 pm – January 31, 2006

    Just to let you know, Robert Bork was and still is a nut case. He was the only official in the Nixon “Justice” Department who was willing to fire the special counsel Cox in the Saturday Night Masacre. The AG resigned in response to Nixon’s demands, the Depubty AG resigned, and Bork, third in line, carried out Nixon’s orders.

    Bork

    Comment by raj — February 1, 2006 @ 7:15 am - February 1, 2006

  106. And my advice to anyone who doesn’t like being labeled a leftist would be … don’t be a leftist.

    Sage, common sense, advice — not unlike “if you don’t want STDs or a baby, keep your pants on.”

    Somehow, common sense evades liberals.

    Comment by rightwingprof — February 1, 2006 @ 11:50 am - February 1, 2006

  107. raj, thanks for the attempted history lesson on the real Saturday Night Massacre… I had a dog in that fight: Elliot Richardson. He was the US AG you couldn’t name. It’s ok. I love your condescending “lessons”. For the record, Ambassador Richardson later noted that Judge Bork held no weight in the events. Amb Richardson saw him as a functionary carrying out a lawful order of the incumbent president.

    You’re once again wrong, this time on your assessment of Judge Bork.

    He isn’t a nut case anymore than Ginsburg or Brennan or White; he was simply a too-cerebral, free-thinking intellectual equivalent on the judical side of a Russel Kirk on the political philosophy side. I can understand YOU likely didn’t comprehend his observations, but that’s hardly an indictment, now is it?

    If that and his willlingness to follow a direct Presidential order, lawfully given, is prima facia for being a nut case… well, we need to have you work on your parameters of nut case.

    No, Judge Bork was savaged. He was caught unaware and unprepared for the reception TeddyK’s Senate buds gave him… and the WH failed to support him when it mattered. At least the WH learned the lesson in time to save Justice Thomas from the pillory.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — February 1, 2006 @ 1:45 pm - February 1, 2006

  108. Just so you’re aware, President Bush was quite adamant in pushing Congress to define marriage between a man and a woman. Other Republicans in Congress were hesitant, and that’s why the issue didn’t really go anywhere. You all can’t possibly believe a strong, conservative President like Bush would be more supportive for gay marriage than a moderate or moderate-liberal. The only reason why a more moderate or even liberal candidate hasn’t been fully open with supporting gay marriage is because it would be political suicide. Some insight can be obtained when you consider that all states that allow some form of sanctioned partnerships are more liberal than conservative; the same is true of other countries.

    When you say here that, “[h]e turned away from such divisive issues as the constitutional amendment barring gay marriage”, you’re just spewing lies. That’s not a phrase I’d just toss around either. If you don’t believe me, check it out for yourself. Please help our cause a little more, and stop spreading false information.

    Comment by James — February 25, 2006 @ 2:19 pm - February 25, 2006

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.