In the immediate aftermath of the 2004 elections, the prospects looked bleak for the Democratic Party. Bloggers on the right as well as conservative pundits (and even a few on the left) forecast that the Democrats would remain in the minority for the near future. Some even projecte GOP gains in the 2006 election. But, a combination of the president’s lack of media strategy and excessive loyalty to his appointees* as well as Republican overconfidence and the arrogance of a seemingly entrenched minority allowed the Democrats to make gains, not so much because of their agenda, but because they weren’t the party in power.
Now, a number of pundits, mostly on the left, but also a few on the right, have declared that 2008 will be a Democratic year, even though 2007 is barely a third over. Conservative pundit and frequent Bush-critic Bruce Bartlett writes that “it is foolish to ignore the strong Democratic trend that is indisputable,” claiming that “no Republican can win the presidency next year.”
To be sure, things don’t look so good for the GOP right now. But, then, they didn’t look so good for the Democrats in May 2005. In fact, things looked pretty bleak for the Democrats well into 1992. Going into this year in France, polls showed Socialist Ségolene Royal defeating Nicolas Sarkozy, the candidate of the party of the unpopular incumbent.
I would daresay that as soon as our party picks its nominee for 2008 and that candidate distinguishes himself from the incumbent, he (like Sarkozy) should pick up support. After all, while most polls show the American people preferring the Democrats to Republicans, polls also show that the American people continue to hold conservatives views. (Yes, I realize that these polls indicate that people prefer the Democrats on a variety of issues. I’m referring to polls which ask issue-specific questions, such as waging an aggressive war on Terror and decreasing the size and scope of the federal government.
Not only that. But, it seems that next fall, the Democrats may face criticism similar to that they leveled against the GOP last fall. Noting that “Democrats’ Momentum Is Stalling” the Washington Post writes that “some in the party are growing nervous that the ‘do nothing’ tag they slapped on Republicans last year could come back to haunt them.” And the power of the far-left “netroots” (i.e., left-wing bloggers) pushes the Democrats further to the extreme (e.g., Hillary Clinton’s bill to “deauthorize” the Iraq War), making them less palatable to voters in the center.
Right now the Democrats are riding high for the same reason they won in 2006. They are the party opposed to an unpopular president who has trouble making the case for his policies. But, when a GOP nominee emerges as the new face of the party and if he succeeds in putting forward a positive agenda for change, we should see the Democratic advantage melt away. And as the 2008 election approaches (without George W. Bush’s name on the ballot), Democrats’ opposition to the incumbent will not matter as much as their plans to move America forward.
Given that they’ve dwelled more on that opposition than their own agenda, expect a GOP surge next fall, that is, provided my party’s nominee succeeds at articulating his vision for the future. And that the Democrats reminded mired in the politics of antagonism — and beholden to the far left, with an agenda sure to win praise amongst left-wing bloggers, but out of touch with the great majority of Americans.
– B. Daniel Blatt (GayPatriotWest@aol.com)
*particularly as this involved shifting strategy in Iraq — and making the case for the war to the American people.
ADDENDUM (after the jump): In an interesting AP article headlined, “Democrats’ 2008 electoral edge in doubt,” Alan Fram notes, “Andrew Kohut, who heads the nonpartisan Pew polls, said the ability of the GOP front-runners to outperform their party in the surveys should give Democrats pause.”
Via OpinionJournal’s Political Diary (available by subscription), we learn that Norman Podhoretz, former editor of Commentary, thinks the Democrats have already lost the 2008 election:
In spite of what the polls supposedly tell us, I strongly suspect that the Democrats may already have blown the 2008 election. Unlike the late Senator Aiken of Vermont, who proposed that we declare victory and get out of Vietnam, the Democrats want us to declare defeat and get out of Iraq. This, they imagine, is what the American people were demanding in the congressional election of 2006. But it seems far more likely that the message of that election was not ‘Get out,’ but rather ‘Win, or get out.’ In any case, the position the Democrats are now taking can only have the effect of revivifying and reinforcing the sense of them as weak on national security. And this was the very factor that led to the ignominious defeat of their presidential candidate, George McGovern, in 1972, when they also misread the public temper by paying too much attention to the left wing of their party.
UPDATE: in a piece on a gaffe by Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama, we read: “During his speech, Obama stirred the crowd as he often does by skewering President Bush over the unpopular war and noting that he opposed it from the outset.” Just goes to show that how the Democratic candidates (well, this one at least) are appealing to their audiences by bashing the president. A strategy which won’t help them very much given that George W. Bush will not be on the ballot next year.
UP-UPDATE: Via Instapundit, we learn of a new poll which shows that “the Democratic-led Congress is doing just as dreary a job as President Bush.” And Demorats have been back in charge there just over four months. Not only that. AP-Ipsos polls (which this one is) tend to skew toward the Democrats. So, perhaps more people approve of the president’s job than approve of that of Congress? A sign that 2008 may not be the slam dunk Democrats are expecting.
It’s possible that a growing ‘conservative’ (a relative term, that) presence abroad (particularly the recent decisive Sarkozy victory) may actually help our Republican case (in more ways than one) abroad and thus, at home. In order to take advantage of political trends abroad, a very skilled diplomacy and great timing will be needed. Perhaps the incessant left-wing attacks which are sure to come can be mitigated in the general public’s mind with well-placed and reiterated supportive statements made by foreign leaders, i.e. the repair of our relations will not be ours, but theirs. I consider this administration the most inept since Carter, but I’m always willing to be pleasantly surprised.
Podhoretz: “..the position the Democrats are now taking [on Iraq] can only have the effect of revivifying and reinforcing the sense of them as weak on national security…”
That’s why Democrats and their apologists try so hard to say, “We support winning in Afghanistan”, and “What has Iraq to do with al Qaeda?”
But the public sees through that as well – or, it will.
NDT can remind us of specific Democrats who don’t support winning in Afghanistan. Meanwhile, **in fact we are** fighting al Qaeda in Iraq – and the American public is aware of that (despite the best efforts of the Bush Administration to obscure the case for the war). The so-called “reality based community” is increasingly out of touch with Iraq reality.
#2 – ILC, I’m also not surprised that neither Pelosi nor Reid sought to distance themselves from al-Zawahiri’s comments the other day that basically were summed up as “an American exit is a win for al-Qaeda.”
After all, who knew that al-Zawahiri got a hold of DNC talking points?
Regards,
Peter H.
Dan:
With all your frontrunners embracing the occupation of Iraq, just how will they distinguish themselves from THE issueof 2008: the Iraq War. Like it or not the GOP OWNS the occupation and will through the election. Now if it turns around and goes well, then the GOP will benefit, if it doesn’t turn around and go well, the GOP will suffer the wrath of the voters. It’s really that simple and pretty much unalterable at this point.
Of course we can still enjoy the spectacle of candidates looking silly such as Mitt Romney apparently believing that there’s such a thing as a 7-year marriage in France! Apparently he got this from a Mormon sci-fi novel. Man, am I glad to be a proud member of the reality-based comminuty.
I thought that THE issue of 2008 was Global Warming.
#5: Not in the US it isn’t. Tell me, do you really doubt that the Iraq War will be the dominant factor in the 2008 elections? I’m serious. I would like to know if you truly believe there’s another issue that will dominate the voters’ minds as they go to the polls in 2008.
Ian S–two friends of mine, one a Democrat, the other a Democrat-leaning independent said they believed that had the President fired Rumsfeld before the election, the Republicans would have held Congress. It’s not so much that the American people wanted us out of Iraq last fall, but that they wanted a new strategy.
Given that there are already signs of progress in Iraq, it may well turn around before next year’s election. Please follow the link in the addendum (here it is again) to Norman Podhoretz piece on why he thinks the Democrats have already lost the 2008 election. Not sure I agree with him entirely, but he does make a valid point.
First let me thank the FBI and Homeland Security Dept under this administration for blowing up the New Jersey terror cell. And saving lives. Thank you Mr President for keeping us safe. As to 2008, I think George Will noted the Republicans need only win back 16 of the 30 lost House seats to regain control. And all 16 of those were seats Bush carried in 00 and 04. With the Democrats exhibiting their crazy leftist ways, I think Republicans will be more energized than in 06. Keep in mind they lost both houses of Congress because Republicans were dis spirited and didn’t turnout in larger numbers than the leftists. Leaving the troops in the field without protection is not going to sit well with the majority. I know Democrats have experience with retreating from the battlefield resulting in a bloodbath. But leaving the mid east to blow up isn’t the same as abandoning southeast asia. The last thing western nations want is America abandoning the mid east. Worldwide depression could be the result.
Is Al Qaeda mimicking what the Democrats would like to do to FOX NEWS?
http://radioequalizer.blogspot.com/2007/05/talk-radio-al-qaeda-destroys-radio.html
#7: Well, Dan, I really don’t believe that Congress is going to stop the war before 2008. There are just too many Kool-Aid drinking Repubs combined with cowardly Dems for the Congress to force Bush to end the war. It just isn’t going to happen before the election. So, if that’s the case, what are the implications? It all depends on how the war goes. And that is not independent of what happens with respect to the political situation in Iraq. You think things are improving; I’m less optimistic. The papered-over constitutional chickens are about to come home to roost with the escalation at a critical point and yet the Iraqi lawmakers talk about taking a couple of months off? C’mon, we’re being played for suckers.
I agree with you that if things do turn around that the GOP may well win the Presidency not to mention make other gains. But what really are the odds of that?
#6 it was a Gore joke.
Sorry.
You wonder, Ian S, about the odds of things turned around in Iraq. They are already beginning to turn around — and the “surge” is not yet complete. The Sunni tribal leaders (in Anbar province) have turned on Al Qaeda. And several neighborhoods in Baghdad are returning to normal. The biggest problem seems to be Diyala province — and arms coming in from Iran.
And if the Bush White House had a political operation like the Clinton White House, it could certainly spin the Democrats’ shenanigans on funding the war in a manner which would embarrass them all and force them to buck their masters in the left-wing blogosphere.
ian #10:
I resent being characterized as “Kool Aid” drinking… if anything you drink the piss of the Left.
I think most of us have come to our position after lots of research and analysis.. you should try it . . . .
I think if the libs had presented themselves honestly, showing the American people who they really are, instead of hiding away Pelosi & Reid for two weeks, they would have lost big time. Unfortunately, the libs can never be honest with the American voter because it would spell their doom.
TGC: If the GOP handled the Foley scandal better.. like pointing out how the Dems had the “evidence” for a year before waiting for right before the election to “expose” it. maybe the base would be in a more fighting moood… the GOP usually disappoints.
That doesn’t take away what you said though.. you are right.
That candidate may pick up support among Republicans, unfortunately, the hatred the left harbors towards the right will preclude them from viewing the Republican candidate as anything but repugnant.
Right now President Bush is the target of all the hate, but the hate won’t go away when he does. It will simply be transfered to the next Republican in power.
Look what happened to Joe Lieberman, he dared to leave the lefty reservation – and he is hated as much as our President. Since he doesn’t wield much power, we don’t see the vitriol on a regular basis. But note, during the debate, Chris Mathew asked one of the candidates if he would work with the Democrats, and immediately qualified that Joe Lieberman doesn’t count.
I know people are hoping that the hatred and rancour will go away with President Bush. The schism is much deeper than one man, and hatred can easily be transfered to another.
Actually, what is funny is that leftist Ian let slip the Dems’ strategy of late.
Like it or not the GOP OWNS the occupation and will through the election. Now if it turns around and goes well, then the GOP will benefit, if it doesn’t turn around and go well, the GOP will suffer the wrath of the voters.
So what are the Dems like Ian doing?
Cutting troop funding.
Trying to block troops from being deployed.
Trying to restrict troops from being used.
Trying to completely yank troops out of Iraq.
Endorsing and supporting terrorist groups and countries who are attacking our troops.
Trying to spin public opinion by screaming that the war is “lost” and putting up propaganda pictures of our troops as evil, inhuman monsters.
Ian’s incautious remark demonstrates why; the Dems believe that our losing in Iraq will cement their grip on power.
Which is why they are doing everything possible to ensure that it happens.
And, I might add, are perfectly willing and happy to stand on our soldier’s backs to obtain their power.
From Ian:
Too many cowardly Dems? Just recently you, and the rest of your troll funky bunch, stated many times that the Dems are carrying out the will of the people. Are they or are they not?
Has anybody else noted the flip-floppery? First Ian passed himself off as a lawyer, then a scientician and now a Waffle House manager. Did I miss any?
If the Democrats force the US to leave, the terrorists will slaughter the Iraqi people who have been helping us. It’s shameful that Ian and the rest of the Democrats want this to happen.
Earlier this year, the Dems were targetting the surrender withdrawels to be in full swing around the early fall of next year (I dont know if those dates are still their targets) …. just in time for Iraq to fall into Hades on US Election Day.
Who says the Dems don’t have a plan?
Meanwhile, Ian’s bff, Barack O’Bama is falsely claiming that 10,000 people died in the Kansas tornado.
If Bush had mis-spoke like this, Ian would be the first to call him either a liar or an idiot. So, Ian and you other shills, which is O’Bama?
#13: Oh don’t whine. I wasn’t even referring to you, I was referring to GOP Congressmen who have lashed themselves to the SS Bushco mast as it founders on the rocks of reality. Still, if the shoe fits…
Perhaps you could share some of your voluminous “research and analysis” regarding why you think the Iraq War won’t be the overriding issue in the 2008 elections.
And so now Air Pelosi, in addition to threatening to sue the president if she doesn’t get her wish and porking up a water bill to benefit her business interests, has loosened up those tedious rules preventing congressman from accepting business jet rides from lobbyists and special interests.
So, Ian, are you going to condemn your queen, or are you just going to lamely mutter “there should be an investigation?”
Taking it a bit further, here’s a list of the achievements of the first four months of the Air Pelosi Congress:
– Tried to exempt a business in Pelosi’s home district from new minimum wage increases.
– Sold access to committee chairmen in exchange for donations to the DNC
– Added $24 Billion in special interest pork to a bill that was supposed to fund our soldiers in Iraq
– Voted to surrender in Iraq
– Sent a delegation of congressmen, mostly Democrats but also some moderate Republicans, to a luxurious Caribbean resort for “fact-finding” during the congressional recess
– Earmarked a Water Bill to subsidize Air Pelosi’s business interests
– Blocked a bill protecting citizens reporting terror activity from being sued by groups like CAIR
– Pressured the Congressional Research Service to hide information on earmarks inserted into bills
– Voted to deny workers the right to a secret ballot in union elections
How proud you all must be.
#20:
That’s simply not going to happen before Bush leaves office. This occupation belongs to you and your GOP. You’ve had free reign to make it a success or failure and you need to prepare to live with the consequences of that responsibility in November 2008. I’d like to see the troops out ASAP but I’ve concluded that simply is not going to happen before 2009.
Then, leftist Ian, fund the troops, give them what they need, and support their efforts to make Iraq a success — or stop bitching about it.
And that really is the point. You and your fellow Democrats are doing everything in your power to sabotage our actions in Iraq because you think its failure will ensure your political success. You have a vested interest in the United States losing, and you’re trying your best to make it happen.
Meanwhile, you want me to show you what the overriding issue in the 2008 elections will be?
The fact that terrorists are coming into our country as illegal immigrants while Pelosi and her fellow Democrats are blocking enforcement of immigration laws.
Well, Ian may be reluctant to discuss Air Pelosi’s Congress of Corruption, but as an amusing sideshow the nuts are starting to turn on each other.
#27: More demands from an authoritarian conservative. Whatever. As for:
well, two others were legal permanent residents and another was a citizen so your solution is to… build a wall along the Mexican border. Yeah, that’ll keep the terrorists out; almost certainly, these that were nabbed entered on a visitor’s visa and simply disappeared. Maybe if Bushco wasn’t spending so lavishly in Iraq creating more terrorists, we could afford to keep track of visitors better.
unless we’re attacked again on us soil, the gop has NO chance of winning the presidency or winning back either chamber. bushco has ruined the gop chances for the next decade.
better get used to being in the minority; the democratic rule is here to stay for a while.
My solution, Ian, is to enforce existing immigration laws.
Your party opposes that and proactively takes steps to block it, as I clearly cited.
Furthermore, your attempt to blame it on the Iraq war is hilarious; again, your party, as I clearly cited, opposes identifying, tracking, arresting, and deporting people who are in the country illegally and is trying to BLOCK anyone who does so.
Preface: I’m undecided currently on the immigration issue. While there are clear free market/economic reasons to support immigration, I do worry about the cultural assimilation (or lack thereof, actually); current technology and stronger political bases make it too easy for entire cultures to simply transfer whole to a new country and assimilation into the new culture never happens. I believe strongly that the current cultural climate is far different than the that faced by previous immigrants when they (we, in my case) came here.
As for enforcement, it’s hard to sort through the conflicting polls, but what I had gleaned was that while people do strongly support enforcement of immigration laws and tighter borders, majorities (although not as strong) also supported a path for citizenship for those who are in fact already here. I am sure someone here can fact check me on this. I am guessing that when people are asked “Should the police come and arrest people and send them home,” there is less support; even people who strongly support enforcement of people who are not here yet have a problem with the thought of those they know and work with (or have working for them) being dragged away and sent home.
ND30: I’m curious as to your thoughts on this. My thought is that if this position (in favor of some kind of amnesty for those already here and not ” identifying, tracking, arresting, and deporting people”) is in fact supported by even a bare majority, it places the Democratic position, as opposed to some Republicans’ positions, more inline with that opinion.
Actually, neither party wants to enforce immigration laws. The coalition of Big Labor, Big Business, and Big Racial Grievance (Inc) are united on this, and they all have a vested interest in open borders.
We also don’t have to round people up and send them home. The hammer needs to come down on the businesses and individuals who employ them. If the jobs dry up, and they can’t get welfare, the illegals will go home. Who knows. Maybe having had a taste of free market capitalism, they’ll demand that their corrupt socialist governments shape up.
Iraq doesn’t have anything to do with our lack of border security.
V:
Possibly the first statement I’ve read that you and I agree on on wholeheartedly: “neither party wants to enforce immigration laws. The coalition of Big Labor, Big Business, and Big Racial Grievance (Inc) are united on this, and they all have a vested interest in open borders.”
Any Republican who believe that the eventual GOP nominee will do anything to actually slow down immigration are sadly mistaken. There is too much division on the topic and too many financial incentives for the GOP to do much besides bring it up during primaries, and all the Democrats have to do is claim they “support border enforcement but not deportation” and they magically become the “kinder” choice. Both parties can make noise about the issue, do nothing, and maintain their bases. Sad.
The DOW hit another record today 13,362.87. It is becoming such a routine now that the MSM doesn’t even report on it. As over 75% of Americans now participate in the stock market, many are profiting from this amazing BUSHCO economy. I for one am extremely grateful as are my employees for this amazing American economy. The glass is damn near all full. Anyone still bitter must not be participating. Juggernaut. A magnificent juggernaut. And the American worker and risk taking entrepreneurs are the main reasons.
#33:
I concur completely.
Actually, guys, big business doesn’t have a lot to do with this.
The penalties for getting caught knowingly hiring and employing someone who doesn’t have the right to work in the United States are stiff. Every legit employer has to sign an affadavit (the ubiquitous I-9 form) stating that the employee has provided us documentation demonstrating a) that they are who they say they are, aka a photo ID and b) that they have the right to work in the United States (proof of citizenship, a Social Security number, a valid green card, etc.).
However, when they forge documents, there’s nothing we can do about it — because, by law, we are not allowed to ask about a person’s national origin. Usually the only sign we get is in a few weeks when the Social Security Administration sends us a letter informing us that there is a mismatch between their name and the SSN they provided — and that letter says specifically on it that it cannot be used as grounds for any action to terminate or discipline the employee.
It’s tempting to blame “big business”, but quite honestly, the groups that make the most use of and benefit from illegal immigrant labor are usually small businesses — landscaping companies, cleaning services, homebuilding and construction crews — and individuals. They pay cash and they don’t ask questions.
Furthermore, those jobs are not going away, and someone has to fill them. If the government really wants to solve the illegal immigration problem, the other thing it could do would be to provide businesses targeted tax cuts as a reward for hiring American citizens at higher salaries. Or, if it really wanted to do it in a convenient fashion, it would simply change the law to announce that workplace protections, such as minimum wage and hour laws, no longer apply to illegal immigrants.
The issue is that the government hasn’t been enforcing those penalties.
10 million illegals, and the Bush Admin prosecuted four?
And don’t get me started on the Border Agents Bush’s Justice Department is throwing in prison.
The other dirty little secret of this is that money sent back to Mexico by illegals is the second largest sector of the Mexican economy after oil. There has to be some kind of government-to-government deal going on as well. But, frankly, I’m sick and tired of being Mexico’s bitch.
Tax cuts for hiring Americans (for doing what one is supposed to do)? Does the employer claim that a job ‘could have been filled by an illegal’ and thus gets a tax cut? I suspect that those companies who hire illegals don’t mind breaking other laws such as those that govern wages/hours/injury — these workplace issues are incentives to hire illegals and likely already do not apply in the vast majority of cases.
Must Read Henninger Journal Piece.
It’s hard to pull a single quote, but this is the essence:
This gets to the heart of much of what has been argued in this forum between the Republican Activists and the Disaffected Conservatives.
I want the Republican party to find its Conservative-Libertarean principles it once claimed to stand for (though never actually lived by).
But a Party isn’t a thing unto itself.. it’s the aggregation of its members… so that means I want the non-Useless American people to reclaim those principles. It should be beyond a doubt now… any leadership in this party is going to come from the grass roots because the politicans (with maybe one or two exceptions that I cant even think of) are gutless.
If the American people cant pull it together, then I think this country is over within a generation.
V, you’ve just redefined “chutzpah” for me.
Chutzpah. It used to be the classic definition of the boy who kills both parents and then asks the judge for leniency in sentencing because now he’s an orphan… for me, it’s now the disaffected conservatives bitching about the GOP moving toward the center and –as a long shot– maybe snatching a potential win of the 08 WH. Pickign someone who can win… not who is the purest of the pure. Given what those disaffected conservatives have already done to America, to the GOP… that’s some brass-assed chutzpah you’re showing.
These are the same disaffected conservatives who bitched about the abuse and corruption in Congress by their own lovely little power-mad egomaniacs like DeLay and others… the same disaffected conservatives who sat on their collective asses in the last election and gave America over to Pelosi and gRied… the same disaffected conservatives who now whine about moderation in the Party and demand ultra-conservative candidates be coronated or they’ll once again stay home and let the FarLeftFringe win more seats.
You wrote it here the other day and wrote it before the election: maybe the GOP and America needs to suffer a while longer in order to return to the wisdom of conservative rule. Gheesh… rather than try to sound like a parent, try growing up first… act accordingly and responsibly… and then you can try to sound like a parent scolding a wayward child (voters or GOP). Given the last time conservatives had power and that resulted in the unchecked, debasing conservatives in Congress screwing the Party royale, maybe the Party needs to clean house and put those social conservatives out to the curb or back in the pew… wherever they belong.
No, for the last time politics isn’t about purity issues or being farther to the Right in order to prove you really really really did love Reagan. Politics isn’t about being right on principles and still losing –as your Wall Street Journal editor contends. And the conservatives sure demonstrated to all that it’s not about being wrong and losing, either. It’s about winning first; no door prize in politics to the second runner up.
You can’t engage in constructive policy reform if you’re in the minority freezer… in order to secure the majority, I hope the Party dumps the “but you aint pure enuff” crap from the FarRightFringe and selects candidates that will win voter approval first, govern second. And in order to do that, moderate solid GOP principles will get us there… the ideas of Jack Kemp and others… eqaulity of opportunity not outcomes, strong defense, lower taxes, smaller govt, etc rather than another round of gay bashing, waving the bloody red shirt of another immigrant, dividing the country into competing angry camps, belittling and demeaning the political process while desperately wanting to be in control of everyone’s life… we’ve had enough of that mindset and corrosion within the Party in the last decade. Enough already.
Afterall, those purity tests of candidates by Tom DeLay in the 1990’s didn’t lead to the most upright Congressional sessions… it led to some of the most corrupt, debasing, out-of-touch political excesses we should now call the Conservative Congressional Clutch.
What bugs the purity test folks is that the Party might be moving toward moderation… and for the conservatives, that would be a defacement and repudiation of what the “conservative movement” in America thought it stood for.
It takes a lot of chutzpah for a group to screw the Party and then complain the Party’s not a virgin anymore as they get kicked out of the sack before morning. I, for one, hope the Party picks a moderate, reasonable nominee –not someone who will feed the FarRigthFringe fresh red meat every Monday… like the Democrats have been doing.
Mr Henninger is wrong –but he’s entitled to that given his perch at the WSJ. The key issue isn’t whether the GOP will be a Party of purity tests versus pragmatic politicians… it’s about who can win the WH in 08… because without that, there’s not a whole lot of purpose for a Party. You want philosophical purity on issues –go to Church. I want to win.
Matt, I have already debunked the purity test slogan repeatedly, please move on to a new argument.
It’s not that the GOP isn’t pure as driven snow, it’s that the GOP is a sewer. And the party activists are saying “Drink it anyway, otherwise the Democrats will win.”
Is it too much to ask that the GOP stand up for something other than not being Democrats? You throw around words like “moderation” and you spit on the conservatives that brought the party its majority in the first place. But you never define what you want your neo-mod Republican party to stand for.
I’ve made it perfectly clear what I want to see in the GOP: a firm commitment to fiscal restraint, smaller government, national (including border) security, and the protection of individual liberty. If these ideals are out of whack with the hip, neo-mod GOP, then they have nothing to offer me.
Same here. (V the K’s last paragraph)
VdaK writes: “Matt, I have already debunked the purity test slogan repeatedly, please move on to a new argument.”
Sorry, did I hear three snaps and a big hand gesture there, V? You need to keep those gay gestures in check, guy.
Hardly debunked it; you’ve actually accelerated it with the additional nonsense repeated about conservatives should stay at home on ElectionDay if they don’t get their way with the GOP. Just like the 06 election, conservatives are still playing a game of threatening to take their marbles and go home if the GOP doesn’t play by their rule book and with their players only. No purity test underscores that threat, eh? Yeah, um, sure.
You can write “Purity Tests Be Damned” all you want; when you start acting like you preach, then you can be taken seriously. The issue isn’t that the GOP and Democrats are the same or indifferent –you know they are not just from what you write about Pelosi and the sneering condemnation of gReid and Democrats in your words. And it isn’t about making social conservatives “drink” the GOP juice on Election Day.
Frankly, if a conservative (for some here, read Libertarian) isn’t a party member, stay the hell out of the process of selecting our Party’s GOP nominee. Go back to the marginalized, impotent Libertarian Party and weave some hemp.
VdaK, I appreciate you support of traditional GOP values like fiscal restraint, smaller govt, the protection of individual liberty… I do as well. It’s why I rail against the corrosive excesses of the conservatives in the last Congress whenever conservatives try to put on a new suit and claim the GOP let them down. Conservatives let the GOP down when they hijacked the Party and ran it into the MSM buzz saw and voter shredders issue after bloody issue.
I also want a strong natl defense, free trade, liberty exported abroad and helped to prosper when possible, a constructionist judiciary, a better business climate, LOWER taxes, real health care reform (not insurance for all), SS reform via privatization, a cleaner environment with greater utilization of our own fossil fuel resources, more federal devolution and a return to ethics and integrity in public service… as well as a few other equally important things.
Do I need McCain-Feingold repealed? Do I need Roe v Wade reversed? Do I need an FMA? Must I have a 20 ft high wall built on US soil because I fear the economic ingenuity of our southern neighbors? Do I need to bash the UN to feel masculine? Is it important to repeal the automatic weapons ban? Am I consumed by Nativist bigotry and Isolationism?
No to all of those.
And, for the record, I find most govt service honorable and take political activism seriously… I’m not content like some to sit on their butts in the armchair and whine the Cynics Song.
The truth is, V, most conservatives arguing for candidates to meet their special interest group’s purity test fail to take the first lesson of politics to heart: winning elections is about votes on Election Day, not about validating ideas. If you don’t win on Election Day, you don’t usually get to govern and advance those ideas into implemented policy.
When you drop the nonsense about withholding political support and, by default, allowing the Pelosi and gReid types to control govt as a lesson for voters or the GOP, I’ll accept you don’t have a short purity test for candidates. I’m not sure I can ever get through the cynic’s fog to get you to appreciate that R and D are different and the differences matter greatly… Elliot Richardson once said that, for a true cynic, tossing rocks replaces their responsibility toward progress in society.
The battle right now is for a more moderate, successful GOP. If the Dems do go off the chart into the FarLeftFringe, the GOP needs to be positioned to capture the center, moderate, independent vote… that may be heresy to a true, pure conservative just out of the Church pew… for the GOP it means a victory.
Strong National Defense — McCain opposes subjecting terrorists to even mild discomfort, even when it would save American lives; Rudy refused to provide firefighters and police with compatible radios between the first attack on the WTC and the second, both oppose border security, in Rudy’s case, fighting all the way to the SCOTUS for the right of NYC to ignore immigration law.
Free Trade, a better business climate — Rudy made show trial prosecution of Wall Street investors for minor technical and non-existent violations of SEC rules, McCain uses class warfare rhetoric (“tax cuts for the rich”) and voted for SarBox.
Lower Taxes — McCain voted against the Bush tax cuts, Rudy cut some taxes, opposed other cuts.
SS Reform — Doesn’t seem to be on anyone’s agenda.
Greater utilization of our own fossil fuel resources — McCain flip-flopped on drilling in ANWR and supports the Kyoto Treaty, I couldn’t find Giuliani’s opinions.
More Federal Devolution — Doesn’t seem to be on anyone’s agenda. McCain has a consistent record of favoring Federal control in matters of the environment, regulation of political speech, and business regulation.
Ethics and Integrity in Public Service — Does the name “Bernie Kerik” mean anything to you?
A constructionist judiciary — McCain used the Gang of 14 to block constructionist judges, Rudy appointed mostly liberals to NY Courts.
So, it would appear that the two GOP front-runners don’t even come close to even passing Matt’s purity test.
Tax cuts for hiring Americans (for doing what one is supposed to do)? Does the employer claim that a job ‘could have been filled by an illegal’ and thus gets a tax cut? I suspect that those companies who hire illegals don’t mind breaking other laws such as those that govern wages/hours/injury — these workplace issues are incentives to hire illegals and likely already do not apply in the vast majority of cases.
Actually, it’s simply rationalizing the tax system, HardHobbit.
If you employ US citizens, you should be taxed less — since they’re more likely to pay income taxes and consumptive taxes in the United States.
If you employ non-US citizens, you should be taxed more — since they’re less likely to pay income taxes and consumptive taxes in the United States.
In a sense, you are both rewarding employers for hiring US citizens (tax cuts) and penalizing them for not (no tax cuts). That has the net effect of increasing the cost of illegal immigrant labor, which brings it more into line with the cost of US citizens.
Furthermore, all minimum-wage laws do is generate more revenue for the government. Since payroll taxes and individual income taxes increase with salaries, and the higher peoples’ salaries, the more they tend to pay in consumptive taxes, it is in the government’s best interest to artificially inflate salaries and, by doing so, collect more in taxes.
NDT — I’m sort of adjacent to your opinion. I don’t see why it’s necessary to give people who broke the law to enter this country citizenship, but I could compromise as far as giving them some sort of legal residency status. And I think higher taxes on employers who use them would be a good way to finance a system for monitoring non-citizens who are living in the country. It would also end the de facto taxpayer subsidy companies who hire illegals get by breaking the law.
I would agree, V. Perhaps that’s the solution — temporary work permits that last two years. At the end of that, they must leave the country and reapply — and if they overstay or otherwise fail to comply, they are ineligible for any other form of visa.
V, nice try at threading the needle but from your jaundiced perspective, I doubt Abe Lincoln or Reagan could pass a GOP values test.
Let’s just do the 1st of your bulleted talking points… the one on natl defense? To suggest McCain is weak on natl defense by arguing he is against America having an “adopted policy of torture” on the books is simply silly. On natl defense, he’s a hawk with the talons sharp, beak ready to rip and eyes as sharp as an eagle. And frankly, he’d be the best of the group on natl defense. Your blinding hatred for McCain’s preferences shows through.
We were talking about the Party –candidates’ positions aren’t the Party, last time I checked. Your attempt above flies in the face of your own use of Henninger’s piece —he said the “jumble” of candidates is exactly what is supposed to be happening right now with lots of positions on issues, lots of fine tuning… and he advised the reader (if you read it) to be wary of those who contend there must be a “monolith” GOPer out there at the ready.
Do we really have to do more of your bullets? LOL. Again, nice try at threading the needle.
I don’t hate John McCain. But even if I grant you he’s strong on defense (and, as I work in the defense industry, I know better), does that make up for his contempt for the right to criticize government? For his support of amnesty and open borders? For his opposition to Bush’s tax cuts? For undercutting the president’s right to nominate qualified judges through the Gang of 14?
But at least I showed, using the public record, how the leading candidates fall short of even the minimum standards across a large number of issues that you chose. And all the name-calling, caricaturing, and painting people who don’t agree with you as extremists can’t change that record.
#17. “Strategy”? What’s a “strategy”? I’ve been living in Bush’s America for so long now that I don’t even know what a “strategy” looks like.
I’m just taking the long view here. I’m looking beyond the next election, and I’m looking beyond ‘what’s best for the party’ to ‘what’s best for the United States?’
Imagine it’s 1976. And the party activists are saying. “You want that right-wing nut Reagan? We need a nice moderate like Jerry Ford.” And imagine further that Jerry Ford won that election because enough conservatives were persuaded that winning was more important than ideas.
Then, Jerry Ford would have been president when the sh*t hit the fan … oil prices, Soviet expansion, malaise, Iran… Would he have done much different than Jimmy Carter? No. Because it wouldn’t have been very moderate to stand up aggressively to the Soviets or to Iran. And every good moderate knew 70% tax rates were necessary to support the government. By the end of that term, people would have been just as p’o’d at Ford as they were at Carter. So in 1980, we’d have gotten the leading Democrat of the time elected as president… Ted Kennedy.
So, you’re asking me… isn’t it enough just to have the lesser of two evils? And I say, not always.
Ideas matter. Principles matter. Vision matters.
Great point, V the K.
The contrasting careers of Reagan and Ford show it’s better to have strong, good principles and stick to them and *sell* them to people via persistent persuasion, than to “be moderate” for the sake of “winning”.
Moderates never win. Never. Because even when they gain the election victory, they have lost – by having to fudge and slur over their core principles, if they had any.
Ford was a lot like George W, in the following respect. Both men were/are “conservative” only in a very general sense of being patriots. I.e., at least pro-American. Other than that, Ford didn’t stand for much, and Bush doesn’t either.
Bush would disagree. He would claim he has principles. He’d cite his “compassionate conservatism”. But intellectually, “compassionate conservatism” is mush and only a rationalization for right-wing, big-spending Big Government.
Likewise, Ford claimed to be a believer in small government at times, but in reality, Ford was in bed with the Nelson Rockefellers of the world. Intellectually and as compared to Reagan, Ford had only mush to offer the country (plus a little more patriotism than his contemporary Democrats had).
addendum – I couldn’t care less about abortion or the cultural issues right now. The core principles I care about, and do want to see some tiny degree of “purity” on (so sue me Matt), are the Reagan ones, as V the K cited earlier: cutting taxes, cutting government, capitalism / freedom.
I happen to care about abortion, but it’s not necessarily a deal-breaker if the candidate is strong in other areas.
There’s a difference between principle and policy, and I don’t think Rudy or McCain get that.
I gotta tell you to, hearing McCain interviewed once, he was asked the question “What would you do if Iran took 15 of our sailors hostage like the British?” And all McCain could do was gabble “I’d do everything possible to get them back.” Well, duh, who wouldn’t? But do you mean you’d do the diplomatic ritual humiliation and bow to the mullahs, or would you freeze Iranian back accounts and blockade their ports? What happened to Mr. Straight Talk?
Now, a compelling answer would have been along the lines of, “There have to be standards of international conduct, of decency. And any nation who wants to be part of the civilized world has to uphold those standards, and when they violate them, they must be held accountable.” That’s a principle answer, not a policy answer. And that’s what’s missing more than anything else in the GOP… principles. First things.
When Rudy talks GWOT, he’s compelling (I think), because there he talks from principles.
Other than that – he ain’t got much. He sounds like a Democrat fairly often. (He talks a good game on constructionism, but as you point out, his record doesn’t back it up.)
#37:
NDT would have you believe that that’s the end of the matter. Of course it’s not. As an employer, he is obligated to follow up on the letter. NDT seems all too comfortable with hiring and keeping illegals working for himself as long as he can make a buck from it. If so, he’s a huge part of the problem.
I think Rudy has a few principles, law and order, among them. (And I admire the job he did in New York City.) However, you can’t present yourself as Mr. Law and Order, and then sue to the Supreme Court to avoid enforcing immigration law. Also, his law and order principle does lead him astray, when, for example, he’s doing show-prosecutions of investment managers, or supporting the disarming of law-abiding citizens.
I don’t hate Giuliani, or any of the candidates. I don’t hate Hillary for that matter. In fact, she’s started to grow on me a little. The only GOP candidates that have a realistic chance just aren’t compelling alternatives.
I’d love to see JC Watts or Michael Steele in the VP spot. Probably too conservative for most, though. (Jindal/Steele in ’12 or ’16!)
#48:
Goodness! One post and a second time I’m in agreement with you. I doubt it will happen again. I think someone who has broken the law by entering the country illegally should not get citizenship but instead a form of green card which would not lead to citizenship. There is already a “tax” on non-citizens legally working here and it is in the form of a renewal fee – perhaps that could be increased. However, permanent residents pay all the taxes that citizens do but they cannot vote and most federal jobs are closed to them. That’s part of the reason I became a citizen. Now, of course, there’s an even greater reason and that’s because your fundamental rights (such as habeas corpus) are more protected if you are a citizen as a result of a bill passed and signed into law last year.
Ian, next time, do yourself a favor and read your source thoroughly.
(1) Do not automatically assume a listed employee is an illegal worker as mis-matches can result from a number of inadvertent things such as name changes, clerical errors, etc.
(2) Do not automatically assume you must re-verify the employee’s employment eligibility status;
(6) Do not propose or initiate disciplinary action against an employee solely because they are on the mis-match list;
And then this:
(8) If an employee is unable to correct the error through SSA, you may then, depending on the circumstances, be on constructive notice of their illegal work status and obligated to terminate their employment.
And further down:
An employer.s obligations, if any, must be determined on a case-by-case basis……Employment re-verification is a serious matter laden with dangerous traps for the unwary employer.
And that is because Ian and his fellow leftist Democrats, as part of their refusal to enforce immigration laws, teach people this:
Q. In fact, your only complaint is that you think it’s discriminatory to ask you to go to the Social Security Administration to clear up a no-match issue?
A. Yes.
You see, what’s taking place here is that leftist Democrat Ian, who, like Nancy Pelosi, supports governments like the city of San Francisco that refuse to support or enforce immigration laws, is trying to blame employers for the fact that employees provide fake identifications and lie about their right to work in the United States.
To use an analogy, rather than go after counterfeiters or crooked law enforcement, Ian is demanding that shopkeepers who end up with counterfeit money be punished.
#61: Oh I did read the source, and once again, you are obfuscating. Employers have a duty to follow up when they receive an SS mismatch letter. Yes, they have to do it carefully and so they should. Gee, NDT, sounds like you’ve had problems with hiring illegals. Anything to get those labor costs down, eh?
Notice this, folks.
I provided clear evidence that Ian and his fellow Democrats oppose enforcing immigration law.
Yet now, Ian is attempting to slander me by stating that I hire and employ illegal aliens, even though he has no idea of who I am, what my company is, or what I do.
In short, Ian supports Democrats ignoring and blocking enforcement of immigration law, of which there is clear proof, but insists an organization whose name he doesn’t know, whose location he can only guess at, and whose business processes he knows nothing about is hiring and employing illegal immigrants.
This, unfortunately, is not atypical of the Democrat Party. They insist that everything is the fault of “business”; they yell and shriek, without proof, about how companies like mine are supposedly knowingly hiring illegal immigrants by the score. Yet when confronted with their own unwillingness to keep and opposition to enforcement of immigration law, they defend that.
How you could run off a litany of reasons as to why the Republicans lost control of Congress and not mention the war in Iraq is INCREDIBLE.
Hell, even Mitch McConnell said a month or 2 ago, that were it not for the war, he wouldn’t be Senate Minority Leader.
And if the Republicans continue to go full steam against public opinon, next year McConnell may be saying, “were it not for the war, I’d still be a Senator.”
As Ian pointed out above, Chase, the entire strategy of the Democrat Party is to make Iraq a failure — by defunding our troops, by slapping restrictions on them, by trying to micromanage the war, by putting out their propaganda that we can’t possibly win, that everything is “lost”.
And people are starting to figure that out.
Really, the weakness of the Democrat Party is obvious; in order to win enough voters, they had to bury their nutroots, hide Pelosi and Reid, and lie convincingly enough that they weren’t anti-military and wouldn’t cut and run to get a small fraction of moderate voters to go along with them.
Then, when they come into office, out comes Pelosi to gush over the terrorist groups and countries supporting the insurgents who are killing the troops, Reid to shriek to everyone that the war is “lost”, and the nutroots to force the party to immediately cut and run.
The gross miscalculation on their part was, Chase, that everyone who voted for them were typical unthinking puppets like yourself. But more and more Americans are making the connection that the Dems honestly believe that their grip on power will be cemented by us failing in Iraq — and that the Dems will do anything and everything to achieve that goal, even if it means supporting terrorist groups and defunding and defanging our own troops.
Transcript of Jon Voight on Hugh Hewitt’s radio show.
I have never esteemed Jon Voight before, but after this, I respect this man very much.
HH: Jon Voight, not only fun movies like this one [Mission Impossible] and Anaconda, Camp Fun, but great movies, and Coming Home was what your Oscar was for. It’s an anti-war movie. It’s understood as an anti-war movie. In fact, I was with my brother-in-law this morning, retired lieutenant colonel in the Marine Corps, said to say hi, but not to your co-star in that movie, for whom he has no use. And the question is, were you anti-war at the time that Coming Home was? And what’s the difference between Vietnam and the war that we currently find ourselves in?
JV: Well, there’s a big difference, isn’t there? A big difference between Vietnam and this war. We’ve been attacked on our own soil here, and we have…and the enemy might be our own neighbor, as was brought forth in a very vivid example by the attack on Fort Dix. This is a very different situation, and so…and I think we’ve learned things. I’ve learned things from the 60’s, and that time, and where my head was at that time, and I can see things in a different perspective.
HH: You’ve just…
JV: I think 9/11 really changed it for me.
HH: You’re a 9/11 person, as opposed to a 9/10 person. I read in your Radar interview that you’d just been to Walter Reed. Now I have the young men from the Semper Fi Fund up here, coming in a couple of weeks. They were here in December. They’re rehabbing at Camp Pendleton, been seriously wounded, but they’re making their way back. I have extraordinary, as do you, extraordinary respect for these people. Did they have confidence, the kids you met at Walter Reed, the kids you dined out with, we were at the same Marine Corps, dining out in Newport Beach a few months ago. Do they have confidence the war can be won?
JV: Yes, they do, and it was said repeatedly when I visited the troops, the wounded warriors at Walter Reed. And I must say, I wish, I wish I could have carried the entire United States with me to see these fellows’ faces, and to hear their words. These guys are really, these guys are top of the line. They are way beyond their peer group, in terms of strength of character, and understanding of what’s going on in the world, and their commitment to helping the United States. They’re just extraordinary people. And in the wake of their disabilities, which were happening by going to one room, and I said when did your injury happen? And I think because of Coming Home, and working with all the vets there, and the paraplegics and the quadriplegics, I know not to be shy to talk about everything. So where’s your injury? When did it happen? You know what I mean? And we get into it. Well, it happened two and a half weeks ago, Jon. I shouldn’t be here, says one of the guys, most of the guys. I shouldn’t be here. If that helicopter hadn’t shown up and the medics took me out five minutes after we went down in our humvee, we were, we had two bombs blow us up, or it would have blown up a city building, and you know, these guys came. And I was looking around for the guys who were moving on my team, and see if anybody made it, and they got me out of there, and they got here. So I’m a miracle. You’re looking at a miracle. And this is a guy with you know, half a leg on one side, and none on the other, and multiple injuries.
HH: Let me read this quote from the Radar interview. “The war on terror is real,” you say. “People would have you believe it’s not real. This is not Vietnam. This particular situation is not the same wherein we can walk away and just leave destruction behind us. No, we can’t. Anyone who’s paid attention to what Ahmadinejad is saying, what all the mullahs are saying in this country, and in England, and all the Arab world, this is serious. They’re calling for the destruction of America and all democracy, and that’s what’s going on. We could lose this war.”
JV: Yeah.
HH: What does that look like, losing the war?
JV: What does it look like? Well, you know, we’re dealing with a totalitarian…theocratic totalitarianism. This is like dealing with Hitler. I mean, we’re dealing with people who want to bring us down. We could lose it.
HH: And does that mean the end of the Republic? Does that mean a city in ashes? What’s…when you say that, what do you mean?
JV: Well, when I say what do I mean…look, we had 9/11, didn’t we? The damage that was done on 9/11 was extraordinary. Yes, two buildings went down and thousands of people, innocent people were incinerated. It was a horror. But not only did it send shock waves throughout our country, and traumatize us, it was economically hugely damaging to our country. And we had better know that something hitting our soil again could be even more successful. This is a dangerous time and a dangerous enemy.
HH: When Ahmadinejad says Israel will be gone in a flash, do you take him seriously that he might use a nuke if he obtains one? And should we allow him to obtain it?
JV: Obviously, he means what he says, and he’s spoken about the destruction of the United States as well. So he’s a serious enemy. We have to take him seriously. And he is going, you know, he’s going forward as fast as he can to achieve that weaponry.
HH: So the phone rings, and it’s George W. Bush, and someone sent him a transcript of this, and he says you think I should bomb them? They’re getting close. What do you tell him?
JV: Well, I think we’re…I think that we have a tremendous…this time is fraught with dangers, and we have to have responsible people in the White House and in our government. And I believe that our generals are capable, and I believe our President is capable.
HH: Now let’s turn to Bush. You said some nice things about Bush and the Vice President in Radar. Again, a lot of people don’t like this. You said, “The attack on George W. Bush I find to be reprehensible. I have great regard for our government. We have all sorts of checks and balances that are afforded us by our Constitution. We have a lot of hard-working people in the government. Once it gets to be partisan, it takes the energy in another direction.” You point out that they wanted to impeach Lincoln in 1864. What’s Bush’s reputation going to be in twenty years, Jon Voight?
JV: Well, you know, who knows? At this time, when you ask me a question like that, I’m reminded that I’m an actor. This is not my strong suit, but I would say in my little humble view, I think he will have a high place.
HH: Did you vote for him?
JV: I did not.
HH: You voted for Kerry?
JV: Oh, this last election, I voted for him, yes.
HH: Okay, but you voted for Gore?
JV: Yeah, I voted for Gore.
HH: And what has impressed you the most about Bush in the six and a half years he’s been in?
JV: I think this strength of character, his fortitude. I think he sees, he understands things, and I think he’s, by the way, I think he’s extremely gracious. When you seem him introducing Nancy Pelosi, or meeting with other members of Congress who are, who have set themselves against him. He’s always a gracious figure, he always speaks kindly and nicely of people. He never stoops to name calling or any of that. But he holds the line. He knows what has to be done, and he stays with it. He doesn’t seem to…I mean, you have to have extraordinary strength of character, I would say, but you know, to take the blows that he has taken in office, you have to have an extra reserve of strength, and he has it. It was one of the kids in Walter Reed said, and he was one of the fellows who said I’m not going back, I won’t go back. And almost everyone else to the man said I want to go back and be with my buddies, and if I can’t do the things on the field because of my injuries, they’ll find a place for me, and I’m very grateful for that. I’m going back, Jon. This fellow said no, I don’t think I’m going to go back. That’s it for me. I said well, what do you think about our President? And he said he is strong. This guy is a strong guy, Jon.
HH: What about the Vice President? You also refer to Cheney in this Radar interview.
JV: Well, I referred to an aspect that was, that people very little know, we see a certain kind of face on Dick Cheney. And people make jokes, and try to demean this fellow, but he’s got a great dignity, he’s very bright. And also, he’s very sensitive. He goes to Walter Reed every six weeks, and goes to every room. And when I see, when somebody talked about…people review a speech as if they would review a movie or something like that. They said well, his tie was this way, and he was looking around at this point, and I saw at the State of the Union, Dick Cheney’s face, and I know what he’s carrying in terms of the responsibility and his caring for this country and for those guys, too, and that’s what I see in his face.
HH: So what do you make of the hatred for him? Where does it come from, for both Bush and Cheney, probably more for Cheney than Bush, if you go to the hard left.
JV: Well, I think it’s been orchestrated, really. I must say, I think that I don’t like speak in a partisan fashion. I really am not a fellow who likes partisan politics in any way.
HH: All right, before…we’ve got three minutes. I want to take one minute and hear about the media, and then I want to just make sure we cover anything that you wanted to say. What about the media? Have they just lost all sense of proportion and propriety?
JV: Well, my concern about the media is that there’s, that…I’ve talked about this before. The country is being divided with brainwashing, very cunning brainwashing. And we don’t give the enemy any credit for the cleverness with which they are carrying out their propaganda. They can’t beat us militarily, but they can do it by turning us on ourselves. And they can reach the questioning minds, the weak minds, and the meek minds to bring down democracy, and our love of God as we were talking, and they have skillful ways. They look at Americans, and they say what do Americans love? Americans are compassionate people, you see. They have a compassionate nature. Let’s hit them there. So they have an organization, and it’s an organization that is a devious organization that is really supportive of Islamist activity, and they call it a humanitarian organization.
HH: You’re referring to Hezbollah?
JV: Well, I’m referring to a lot of different organizations. If you saw Ahmadinejad talk to the United Nations, he used the words love, you know, peace. They know what they’re doing, guys. And so I find that there’s a press out there that has been taken into this side of things, and they don’t know whereof they’re speaking in these directions.
HH: Are you an optimist or a pessimist?
JV: I’m an optimist.
HH: So you think we’ll get out of this? We’ll figure it out? We’ll wake up?
JV: I have to believe in…first of all, I do believe in this country, and I believe the principles of this country and the Constitution, and all the stuff we were taught when we were little kids is still with us, and I believe that that will sustain us, and that righteous men will step up when the time is needed. And I think that they’re doing that now. I think there are righteous men in our midst.
HH: It’s said in one of these articles I read that you’ve just been to the Lincoln Memorial.
JV: Yeah.
HH: We’ve been through lots worse. Was that an interesting experience for you? I mean, you’re old enough to be getting there finally, but it’s a great place.
JV: Oh, the Lincoln Memorial’s a great place. This is a beautiful…when I think of the artist who carved that portrait of Lincoln, and it’s a very…there’s wisdom in it, there’s tremendous compassion, there’s great stature, and it lifts us up when we see that memorial.
HH: I think a lot of people say your interview lifted them up today. Jon Voight, thanks for being here, thanks for spending a lot of time, good luck with the new movie, September Dawn. We’ll talk to you again in the future, I hope.
NDT, I think the short version of your comment is, if Democrats think fighting the Iraq War is unpopular, wait until they see how unpopular losing the Iraq War is.
Yes, there is a hippie-dippy contingent that just wants to surrender because America is always wrong and military action is always wrong (the Sheehanistas, Code Pink, Move-On). That’s the Democrat Base. But the middle is divided between people who are resigned to losing and want it over with, and another side that’s frustrated with Bush’s conduct of the war… the bad strategy, the prosecutions of soldiers on the testimony of terrorist liars, the failure to kick the Iraqi government in the ass and say “get out there.” Most of America would still rather win this war than lose it, but losing the war is the only option Harry Greid and Air Pelosi are putting on the table.
#47 I disagree. The only efficient way to deal with illegal immigration is to fine those employers who hire illegals in an effort to make it very expensive if they’re caught. The fines would then be used to partially offset the costs of investigation and prosecution.
The reason employers hire illegals is to avoid paying legal wages, avoid standard 8-hour days with breaks, payroll taxes, and injury claims. In your previous post, you stated
“Or, if it really wanted to do it in a convenient fashion, it would simply change the law to announce that workplace protections, such as minimum wage and hour laws, no longer apply to illegal immigrants”
My point is that they already don’t apply to illegals because they are illegal. The reason illegals are attractive employees is to avoid these very protections. Do you really think an employer who breaks the law by hiring illegals is suddenly interested in following the law (by letter and in spirit) when considering what and when to pay and whether conditions are safe?
Moreover, giving an empoyer a tax cut for hiring an American or other legal is merely giving people money for doing what they are legally required to do. This same logic could be applied to any legal endeavor and where would it stop? Shall we give tax cuts to those retailers who don’t sell cigarettes to minors? Shall we give tax cuts to those companies who legally dispose of their waste? This is Big Government Conservatism and I oppose it.
You state:
“Furthermore, all minimum-wage laws do is generate more revenue for the government.”
This may be a side benefit from the standpoint of government in that tax receipts are increased (based upon the assumption that bottom-line wages would be lower), but the purpose of the minimum wage is for the government to artificially set (meaning control) what is referred to as a ‘living wage’ (despite the fluctuations in costs of living, profit margins, tax rates for different businesses), thus preventing a certain number of people from being employed.
You sure do prove that conservatives are not capitalists.
NDT, you are funny.
It was a mistake to invade Iraq in the first place and it is foolish to continue fighting there, particularly since the Iraqi people have no interest in forming a government. We can’t want it more than they want it for themselves.
Nation building is not our job.
So, it’s okay to surrender, pull out, and leave behind a failed state in which terrorist groups are free to organize, train, and prepare for jihad against the West.
That sounds like a *great* idea.
Chase 71:
For the love of God stop arguing about the cause of the war… that topic is long past stale.
I don’t know what the GP policy is on copyright infringement but it seems to me that commenters ought to refrain from extensive cut and paste operations from works that are in all likelihood under copyright protection. Providing a link and a few pithy quotes will help ensure that Bruce and Dan don’t get in trouble with copyright enforcers.
#69:
Yes, but they’re realistic enough to understand that the gang responsible for four years of “bad strategy” – your description – is showing little sign of even at this late date getting it right. No wonder America wants to bring the troops out of that mess.
Ian: Signalling to Al Qaida that “The war is lost” does more damage than a decade of war mistakes.. and it only takes idiot Leftists 10 seconds to do it.
The only efficient way to deal with illegal immigration is to fine those employers who hire illegals in an effort to make it very expensive if they’re caught.
Like I said, HH, that is blaming a shopkeeper for not refusing a counterfeit bill — when government says that refusing anything that looks like money is discrimination and should be punished.
If you are willing to give people the automatic power to fire an employee or disqualify an applicant because you think their documentation is suspicious or their SSN doesn’t match, then I would be fine with significantly raising fines; that’s analogous to most state liquor laws that allow you to deny entry or purchase if you even THINK an ID is fake, in return for raising penalties for those who sell to underage minors. But as long as we have leftist Democrats thinking that simply asking someone to explain an SSN mismatch is grounds for a discrimination claim and lawsuit, no one will ask.
My point is that they already don’t apply to illegals because they are illegal.
Nope; US and state employment laws, with very few exceptions, apply to anyone whether they have the right to work in the US or not.
The logic behind that argument is that an artificially-high wage makes jobs in that area MORE attractive to illegal immigrants, not less. The counterbalance is that you can only drive wages and conditions so far down before you will have no workers — especially in as tight of a labor market as we have.
In short, let the invisible hand take up the slack first.
Moreover, giving an empoyer a tax cut for hiring an American or other legal is merely giving people money for doing what they are legally required to do.
Then don’t call it a tax cut. Instead, merely reduce the base tax rate for all employees, and put on an additional surcharge for non-US citizens.
What you’re missing here, HH, is that there’s going to be an increased cost somewhere to someone, unless you can start convincing the unskilled welfare generation to start working for less. What we are in essence doing is putting a tariff on imported labor, since we’re not willing to deal with the fact that Americans want $25/hour for what amounts to unskilled work that would be worth $8/hour in other countries. Cutting taxes on business is the only way you can force them to hire more-expensive labor without driving them under; it shifts the cost neatly onto the entity that created the distortions in wages in the first place — the government.
Nation building is not our job.
You know, Chase, prior to 9/11, I used to believe that too.
Until I put together the facts…..namely, that our refusal to take proactive steps in rebuilding Afghanistan’s government led to the rise of the Taliban — and they were the ones who gave Osama bin Laden precisely the protection and support he needed to plan and run attacks that caused thousands of deaths and billions of dollars in damages to us.
You’re right, it’s not our job, and it shouldn’t have to be our job. But like my boss always used to say, the longer you wait for someone else to clean up puke, the more problems you’ll have with the smell and stain afterwards.
That brings us to this:
It was a mistake to invade Iraq in the first place and it is foolish to continue fighting there, particularly since the Iraqi people have no interest in forming a government. We can’t want it more than they want it for themselves.
You couldn’t be more wrong.
Our mistake was in not invading Iraq years ago. 1991 would have been perfect and the late 90s OK, but our dumbest decision ever was to wait.
The lesson of Iraq is this; imposing sanctions on a fascist regime hurts, not the regime, but the people whose lives, fortunes, and infrastructure are bled dry by the regime’s desire to protect itself and willingness to sacrifice its own people to do it.
As a result, Iraq is in shambles. Had we invaded twelve years ago, we would have seen a nation that still had some semblance of order. But, while we pandered and did nothing for twelve years while European leftists and UN bureaucrats used Iraq to enrich themselves, the Iraqi people were left with the stark choice of stealing or starving. They have been trapped in a nightmare of “every man for himself” for over a decade; it takes time to shake that, and it’s harder when you have fat power-hungry clerics like al-Sadr whose only beef with a fascist regime was that they weren’t in charge of it.
Meanwhile, Chase, what have you and your fellow Democrats been doing? Cutting troop amounts. Trying to cut troop funding. Screaming “war crime” anytime our troops move. Blaming our troops for horrific atrocities, but saying nothing as the insurgents Democrats call “freedom fighters” systematically kidnap and kill the entire families of Iraqi officials, police, and soldiers who are desperately trying to restore some semblance of order without reverting to Saddam’s tactics.
And finally, the biggest, most-racist insult of all; your belief that the Iraqis are too savage and incapable to have a meaningful government.
What the past four years of the Iraq war have taught me, Chase, is how incredibly racist and hypocritical your party is. You wet your pants over white Europeans dying in Yugoslavia, but you said nothing as Saddam systematically went about deeds that made Slobodan Milosevic look like a Boy Scout. You claim to oppose genocide in African countries when it’s popular, but look the other way as a brutal dictator systematically eliminates entire swaths of population based on religion and race. You shriek “no blood for oil”, but do nothing but cover up the fact that your European and leftist allies at the UN made billions of dollars off Saddam bribing them with cash and cheap oil in exchange for assuring that nothing meaningful would ever be done against his regime.
That’s disgusting. But it’s typical of privileged white Democrats like yourself, Nancy Pelosi, Teddy Kennedy, Harry Reid, John Kerry, and John Edwards; your only concern about the poor or the oppressed is how they can be used to further your own personal power. Turning a blind eye to Iraq got you in well with the white and black racists in your party, and made you friends with the Europeans and UN; therefore, it was an easy decision.
Ian 74: Turn me into the police… I dare you.
BTW: that was like 20% of the whole interview. What’s the magic number so that I can please your uptight sanctimoniusness?
NDT: There’s Bush-hating to be done.. the people of Iraq can go to hell for all the Left cares.
#76: Al Qaeda definitely doesn’t want us to leave Iraq judging by their taunts and clear and consistent strategy from day one. It’s also becoming obvious that al Qaeda in Iraq would lose their “America is the enemy” appeal immediately after we leave Iraq – they have no base constituency there. Bin Laden must be quite pleased with how his stratgey has worked out and how Bushco continues to further the al Qaeda cause.
Our basic mission there is complete: eliminate any WMD threat (even a non-existent one), and replace Saddam with a duly elected government and voter-approved constitution. Absent a competent and strong political/diplomatic engagement there is nothing further to be gained from having our military there. We have had sheer incompetence demonstrated in the occupation and there is nothing on the horizon to change that.
Now I believe Bush is so stubborn and arrogant that he will never pull the military out of Iraq. I would prefer otherwise but it’s just not going to happen with his twisted psyche calling the shots. I also think that most of the GOP members of Congress will follow their Dear Leader off the cliff unless and until it becomes clear their seats are in jeopardy. That was clear from the disgusting spectacle of “moderate” GOP Congressmen imploring Bush to do something to save them from an angry electorate. No concern for the lives of the troops, only their miserable political lives.
You all should be on your knees thanking the Congressional Dems for giving Bushco at least a little leverage with the Iraqi government. Unfortunately, it’s too little, too late.
#79:
Not a chance. In any event, it wouldn’t be you who got into trouble, it would be the owners of the blog. It seems to me a rude disregard for Bruce, Dan and their blog to put them at any risk for the consequences of copyright infringement.
I just have to say this; I think it’s incredibly juvenile to use the term “Bushco” to describe the president and his team. It betrays a narrow view of the Administration and it suggests that certain critics prefer their definition of the Administration than its actual ideas and policies (and rationale offered for them).
Ian… Whats more rude is being disingenious.
GayPatriot: please let me know if you expect a copyright lawsuit from Hugh Hewith. lol.
81: Save your breath. I have a new personal policy of refusing to discuss Theories on the Origin of the Iraq War of 29074907680 Years Ago.
When you’re ready to discuss the 2007 War to Prevent a Al Qaida founded Caliphate in Mesomopotomia, let me know.
#83: Well, Dan perhaps you prefer the term “Bushies” since they apparently use that term to describe themselves. 😉
#77 Once again, I disagree. The incentives to hire illegals are the incentives to avoid wages and other protections legals enjoy. Sure, I can agree that a high minimum wage raises all other wages by relation, but an illegal who will willingly work for less than his legal counterpart will always successfully underbid in a market where there is demand for his services. Thus, whatever gain made in living standards a minimum wage supporter claims is destroyed by those for whom it doesn’t apply, whatever the law may state. Illegals often work for cash and are paid daily.
The question becomes a matter of who and how illegals are reported to those responsible for enforcement. Yes, at some point this will have a cost attached to it, but I have no problem giving employers the tools they need to detect whether someone is illegal. And frankly, I really don’t care who is in power — my argument isn’t based upon political convenience.
And again, the leftist Ian reveals the inanity of the Democrat Party.
It’s also becoming obvious that al Qaeda in Iraq would lose their “America is the enemy” appeal immediately after we leave Iraq.
And after we leave Afghanistan too, right, leftist Ian?
In fact, let’s return to the blissful 1990s, when we weren’t invading or occupying ANY Middle Eastern country and when, by your leftist “logic”, al-Qaeda had no “America is the enemy” leg to stand on, since there was an appeasement-oriented Democrat in charge.
1993 WTC attack — oops.
1996 Khobar Towers attack — oops.
1998 East African embassies attack — oops.
2000 USS Cole bombing — oops.
And, since we hadn’t invaded or were occupying any Middle Eastern country yet….
2001 9/11 bombing — oops.
In all cases, Blame America Firsters like Ian jumped in, insisting that we needed to pander more, that we needed to do what the terrorists told us, that their attacks were justified, and that we should fall down and beg forgiveness rather than going after them and the states that were sheltering them.
And we did.
And they still hated us, blamed us for everything, and claimed we were the enemy.
So after 9/11, we changed our game plan. Instead of giving in to the bully, which obviously did nothing but ensure more attacks and more anti-American rhetoric, we fought back.
Now al-Qaeda is globally on the run, unable, despite the best efforts of the Democrat Party to protect them, to easily transfer funds, acquire weaponry, or to even have simple conversations without being caught.
Poor spinning Ian has also been trying to claim that al-Qaeda’s plan was to lure us into a quagmire in Afghanistan, just as they did the Soviets……which would explain why he and his leftist Democrat Party want a withdrawal from there as well, since obviously they drive their lives by what al-Qaeda wants.
The question becomes a matter of who and how illegals are reported to those responsible for enforcement.
Indeed. And it’s not businesses that are refusing to do that; it’s government.
NDT… Some days we disagree, but… There are more days when I basically think you are a god.
Let me take my hat off to you for that evisceration of Ian’s prattling, as I try to pick up my jaw off the floor.
#89: Instead of reams of illogical and fanciful blather, why didn’t you stick to a critique of my claim about al Qaeda in Iraq? I suspect you know I’m right. They have no real base in Iraq only our hated occupation to drive recruitment. If we leave, the Iraqis will deal with them.
In hindsight, Clinton should have avenged the Cole bombing and swung the election to Gore. But who was to know that
Bushcosorry, the Bushies would sit on their fat asses and ignore the increasing threat of terrorism in favor of focusing on rounding up New Orleans hookers?!!! You Bush dead-enders are a pathetic lot but the American people are finally seeing through your neocon lies and incompetence. But be sure that the GOP keeps the faith with Bush so that pack of scoundrels follows him off the cliff and good Americans can begin the long task of erasing the dark blot these last six years of Bush failures have left behind.Oh my God.. Ian is back at it with Theories on the Origin of the Iraq War of 47966589 Years ago.
Instead of reams of illogical and fanciful blather, why didn’t you stick to a critique of my claim about al Qaeda in Iraq?
Because, leftist Ian, your entire “logic” is based on al-Qaeda having no reason to hate us, propagandize against us, or attack us, as well as a complete inability to recruit, unless we are in Iraq.
What I did was simply point out that al-Qaeda hated us, propagandized against us, attacked us, and had no problem recruiting people to fight us during the entire Clinton administration when we didn’t have a soul in Iraq or Afghanistan.
The sole difference between now and then is that they are under direct attack by US soldiers, who have killed, by most estimates, upwards of 50,000 of them, who are methodically picking them off day and night, and who are being aided by Sunni tribes and others in Iraq who have figured out that al-Qaeda has no qualms about killing anyone who doesn’t give them exactly what they want, including other Sunnis or Muslims.
Meanwhile, despite the best efforts of leftist Democrats like yourself, we have systematically deprived them of funding and the ability to transfer money, of secure communications, and of nation-states to support them — the only ones left being the Democrat-endorsed regimes of Syria and Iran, both of whom are only supported by people like yourself who put Bush-hatred above all else.
And this is a hilarious example of how completely contradictory leftist puppets like you are, Ian:
In hindsight, Clinton should have avenged the Cole bombing and swung the election to Gore. But who was to know that Bushco sorry, the Bushies would sit on their fat asses and ignore the increasing threat of terrorism in favor of focusing on rounding up New Orleans hookers?
So you pander and spin about Clinton’s non-response, but then you blast the Bush administration for not responding.
And of course, you leave out the 1993 WTC bombing, the Khobar Towers bombing, the 1998 embassy bombings, and the fact that bin Laden declared war on the United States in 1996 and again in 1998, and the fact that it was obvious to everyone that the Taliban was sheltering him from the moment they took power in 1996 — all of which would make even more blatantly obvious the complete and utter LACK of response from what was supposedly an “enormous threat” to the United States.
Not only are Muslims like Al Qaida and Iran Gov’t getting ready for the Jihad under the new Caliphate,, so are paramilitary groups right here in the USA
This is from Canada Free Press (the URL is being blocked when I try to post)
To you Leftists… are you going to ignore this too?
Radical Muslim paramilitary compound flourishes in upper New York state The 70 acre complex is surrounded with “No trespassing”
[snip]
A sentry post has been established at the base of the hill.
The sentry, at the time of this visit, is an African American dressed in Islamic garb – – a skull cap, a prayer shawl, and a loose fitting shalwat kameez. He instructs us to turn around and leave. “Our community is not open to visitors,” he says.
[snip]
On the other side of the hill where few dare to go is a tiny village replete with a make-shift learning center (dubbed the “International Quranic Open University”); a trailer converted into a Laundromat; a small, green community center; a small and rather squalid grocery store; a newly constructed majid; over forty clapboard homes; and scores of additional trailers.
It is home to hundreds – – all in Islamic attire
Venturing into the complex last summer, Douglas Hagmann, an intrepid investigator and director of the Northeast Intelligence Service, came upon a military training area at the eastern perimeter of the property. The area was equipped with ropes hanging from tall trees, wooden fences for scaling, a make-shift obstacle course, and a firing range. Hagmann said that the range appeared to have been in regular use.
Nearly every weekend, neighbors hear sounds of gunfire. Some, including a combat veteran of the Vietnam War, have heard the bang of small explosives. None of the neighbors wished to be identified for fear of “retaliation.”
There are at least 15 of these scattered throughout the USA.
On May 10, 2007, the Nine Eleven Finding Answers (NEFA) Foundation was able to secure access to an exclusive interview with Taliban military commander Mullah Dadullah–only 24 hours before Dadullah was killed by Afghan and NATO military forces. During what would become his final interview, Dadullah stated that American and British Al-Qaida recruits are in the midst of planning and training for new terrorist strikes in their home countries: “We will be executing attacks in Britain and the U.S. to demonstrate our sincerity,” he explained in Pashto, “to destroy their cities as they have destroyed our cities.” A senior U.S. official told the Blotter on ABCNews.com that recent intelligence reports confirmed Dadullah’s claim that U.S. citizens were being trained in Taliban and al Qaeda camps. “The number is small, not large, but even once is dangerous,” the official said.
Didnt Reagan sell arms to Iran? And didnt Bush Sr. give arms to Bin Laden? And 9/11 did happen in a city lead by a Republican mayor in a country lead by a Republican President. No party keeps us safer than the other. Look to the individual and where he/she stands on security not their party.
So what if Reagan sold some weapons to Iran.
The US never supported Bin Laden , that is a myth.
That’s laughable. The Democrats actively undermine all the things we’re trying to do to go after Islamic militants.