AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

No, it is just how I respond to posts that are mostly trash talking if I respond to that kind of post at all. I respond to other posts much differently.

At least I know what trash talking is, and you do trash talking a whole lot better than you correctly analyze what I do or do not know or think or do not think or do or do not do Cyclop. Give it a rest, okay?

My observations on Foxie:
a) Her statements are usually general enough to provide enough wiggle room when questioned about her position of most things.
b) When she reaches the end of her wiggle room, she becomes a victim.
c) It's always the other person who doesn't understand what she says.
d) She doesn't (and will not) admit that her definition of MAC is a personal one.
e) She uses her personal definitions to push her personal political agenda.
f) She finds fault with our interpretation of what she says, because we don't agree with her definitions.
g) And around we go.

Feb. 3, 2009
Republicans as Democrats - PART 1
By Thomas Sowell

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | A brief glimmer of sanity among Congressional Republicans has been followed, almost immediately, by a return to the more traditional Washington insanity.

Last week, every single Republican in the House of Representatives voted against the Obama administration's "stimulus" package " which had stimulated an orgy of runaway spending by Congressional Democrats on everything from sports arenas to sexually transmitted diseases.

This was a rare smart move by the Republicans. If the Republicans had gone along, pursuing the will o' the wisp of "bipartisanship," then if the stimulus had by some miracle succeeded, it would have been a bill for which Democrats would claim credit at the next election.

Every weekday NewsAndOpinion.com publishes what many in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". HUNDREDS of columnists and cartoonists regularly appear. Sign up for the daily update. It's free. Just click here.

On the other hand, if the stimulus failed " which seems far more likely " then it would be called a "bipartisan" bill, meaning that the Democrats would pay no price at the next election for a colossal failure.

Since President Bush started the "stimulus package" game, this was also an opportunity for Congressional Republicans to cut themselves loose from the political baggage of the Bush administration's unpopularity.

Within 24 hours, however, Republicans in the Senate came out with a plan to have the government fix mortgage interest rates at four percent " and use taxpayers' money to cover the losses that lenders would otherwise sustain.

It is painfully obvious that government intervention in the housing markets over the past several years has been at the heart of the boom and bust that has led to a huge economic downturn.

It was not the market, but the government, that pushed for abandoning traditional standards for making mortgage loans. That was what got both borrowers and lenders way out on a limb " and set off economic shock waves when the limb broke.

The last time the Republicans pushed for price controls was during the Nixon administration. It was very popular in the short run. But, in the long run, even Nixon admitted in his memoirs that it was bad for the country.

Price controls have been tried and failed, in countries around the world, going all the way back to ancient Rome and Babylon. Moreover, politicians intervening in the economy is the hallmark of Democrats.

What principle separates the Republicans from the Democrats? If they are just Tweedledee and Tweedledum, then elections come down to personality and rhetoric. If that happens, you can bet the rent money on the Democrats winning.

Those considered to be the smart money among Republicans have been saying for some time that the party has to become more "inclusive" and jettison "outmoded" principles of the Reagan era. But no one has to pass an IQ test to be considered part of the smart money.

Looking at the track record, rather than the rhetoric, the smart money doesn't look nearly as smart.

When have the Republicans won big? When they stood for something and told the people what that something was.

Ronald Reagan was the classic example. But another example would be the stunning Republican victories in the 1994 Congressional elections, which put them in control of the House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years.

Articulating the message of Newt Gingrich's "contract for America" was a key to that historic victory.

Too many Republicans seem to think that being "inclusive" means selling out your principles to try to attract votes. It never seems to occur to them that you can attract a wider range of voters by explaining your principles in a way that more people understand.

That is precisely what Reagan did and what Gingrich did in 1994. Most Americans' principles are closer to those of the Republicans than to those of the Democrats.

It is the only advantage the Republicans have. The Democrats have the media, the unions, the environmental extremists and the tort lawyers on their side. Why should Republicans throw away their one advantage by becoming imitation Democrats?
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell020309.php3

Feb. 4, 2009 10 Shevat 5769
Republicans as Democrats, Part II
By Thomas Sowell

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | In an era when so many people seem to be focused on "the first" of any group to do something, maybe it was not so surprising when someone on television pointed out the first Australian to play in a Super Bowl.

After all the hoopla over Barack Obama's becoming the first person of his complexion to become President, it was perhaps inevitable that there would be a small echo of that when Michael Steele became the first black head of the Republican National Committee.

For those of us who are still so old-fashioned as to be concerned about someone's ability to do the job, the question about Michael Steele is whether he can pick up the shattered pieces of the Republicans and put them together again to form a winning party. That is going to a whale of a job, for anybody of any complexion, "gender" or whatever.

As a political candidate, the question about Michael Steele would be the usual ones about his ideology, his track record in office and the like.

Every weekday NewsAndOpinion.com publishes what many in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". HUNDREDS of columnists and cartoonists regularly appear. Sign up for the daily update. It's free. Just click here.

As chairman of a political party, however, the question is whether Michael Steele can represent that party to the public. This is especially important when the party is out of power and has neither a President in the White House nor a leader commanding a majority in either House of Congress.

One of the huge and perennial handicaps of the Republicans is that they seldom have anybody who can articulate their case to the public. It is hard to win the White House with candidates like Bob Dole and John McCain.

That was why Governor Sarah Palin was such a sensation in arousing the grassroots Republicans. She could talk!

Try to name five articulate Republicans. Ronald Reagan, Theodore Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln come to mind. After that, you have to rack your brain. Newt Gingrich has been good at the low-key, understated kind of discussion that a professor " which he once was " conducts around a seminar table.

But the rough and tumble of politics is not a seminar. Bill Clinton completely out-talked Gingrich and the whole Republican leadership during the government shutdown crisis of 1995.

It was painful watching the Republicans trying to explain the simple truth half as well as Clinton promoted a lie. Republicans got blamed for shutting down the government, even though they had appropriated plenty of money to keep the government running.

Michael Steele can talk. That is even rarer among Republicans than being black.

Too many Republicans don't even seem to understand the need to talk. They seem to think it is something you have to go through the motions of doing but, really, they would rather be somewhere else, doing something else.

When the first President Bush looked at his watch during a nationally televised Presidential debate, he epitomized what has been wrong with Republicans for years.

A member of the audience had just asked a stupid question. Ronald Reagan would have been all over him, like a linebacker blitzing a quarterback. But Bush 41 just looked at his watch, as if he couldn't wait for this to be over.

Michael Steele not only knows how to talk, he seems to understand the need to talk. In his appearances on television over the years, he has been assertive rather than apologetic. When attacked, he has counter-attacked, not whined defensively, like too many other Republicans.

When criticizing the current administration, Steele won't have to pull his punches when going after Barack Obama, for fear of being called a racist.

Beyond that, one can only hope that Michael Steele understands what has been so disastrously wrong with the inept way Republicans have gone after the black vote for the past 30 years, by trying to be imitation Democrats.

There are numerous issues on which Democrats have pushed policies that are very harmful to blacks, especially supporting the teachers' unions instead of parental choice. But, however good the case, somebody has to make it.

Somebody has to talk.
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell020409.php3

By October 2008, due to increases in domestic and foreign spending,[80] the national debt had risen to $11.3 trillion,[81][82] an increase of over 100% from the start of the year 2000 when the debt was $5.6 trillion.

Unemployment decreased from 6.0% in 2003, to 4.6% in 2006.

You also should not leave out the fact that GW Bush increased our national debt