A WELL-EARNED KICK IN THE GUT

[Ron]

A WELL-EARNED KICK IN THE GUT
Neal Nuze ^ | 11/8/06 | Neal Bootz

Posted on 11/08/2006 4:48:25 AM PST by NotchJohnson

A WELL-EARNED KICK IN THE GUT

The voters gave the Republicans a well-earned kick in the gut yesterday. They have taken control of the House of Representatives by an overwhelming margin. They needed 15 seats to get control. They have won at least 28. As of this morning the Senate is still in play. At best the Republicans will have a one-seat margin in the Senate.

When I got up at 4:00 this morning and started to look at results, I can honestly say that I was neither surprised nor disappointed. I've been saying this for weeks ... and I'll say it again right now ... this may be the best possible outcome for the future of our Republic.

This is good news .. and bad news. Good news because of the message it sends to Republicans. Bad news because of the message it sends to Islamic jihadists who are dedicated to the destruction of our culture.

One thing is certain. The Republicans worked very hard for this defeat. They've earned every lost seat. The Republican majority that was sent packing yesterday bore little resemblance to the Republican majority that rode to power 12 years ago. In 1994 we were promised less government. Over the next 12 years the Republicans more than doubled the size of the government. We were promised control over runaway spending. In the last six years discretionary spending has doubled. We were promised fiscal responsibility. We got a bridge to nowhere in Alaska. We were promised the elimination of the Department of Education. After all, educational achievement had been on a steady decline since education was federalized under this Department. In no time at all the Republicans doubled funding for the Department of Education. In the meanwhile America continues to slip on the international scorecard of educational achievement.

The Republicans, in full control of the government, couldn't even manage to stop the Mexican invasion. How many Hispanics invaded our country across the Mexican / American border in the last 12 years? Twelve million? Twenty? Funny, but I don't remember pressing 1 for English in 1994.

So how did I actually vote when I got that provisional (see below) ballot in my hand. Straight Libertarian. I voted for every Libertarian candidate on the ballot. I couldn't bring myself to vote for the Social Democrat Party ... and the Republicans simply had not earned my vote. I was heartened this morning to read the following line from an Augusta Chronicle story on the vote: "With the aid of statewide distribution of Libertarian Neal Boortz's radio talk show since the last election, the Libertarian Party is enjoying its strongest support ever, making Georgia one of the party's most vibrant states." Good to hear.

I was wondering how I would feel when I woke up on November 8th to find the Republicans out of power in the House. Now I know. I'm rather enjoying this. I'm enjoying the thought of Republican party leaders getting together somewhere to try to figure out what went wrong. Will they second guess their free-spending habits? Will they re-think their big-government agenda? Will they swap recriminations on their failure to stem the Mexican invasion? Will the wonder what would have happened if they had adopted a national agenda as they did in 1994, rather than insisting on their concentration on local issues? Will they ask why President Bush never pulled out his veto pen ... not until the issue of federal funding for stem cell research was on the table?

If the Republicans had maintained their power we would have faced two more years of business as usual. Two more years of spending and government growth. Now we have two years of Republicans figuring out how they can convince the American people that they deserve to lead again

[Dannyboy]

I wish I could say I was enjoying this but I think the next two years will be the worst in a looooong time.  Hopefully, the President will get his veto stamp ready...finally.

[Perd Hapley]

The voters gave the Republicans a well-earned kick in the gut yesterday. They have taken control of the House of Representatives by an overwhelming margin. They needed 15 seats to get control. They have won at least 28.

The voters took control or the Democrats took control?  The last time I checked, gaining control of one house of one branch of government doesn't give Dem's a mandate to speak for the people.

Will they ask why President Bush never pulled out his veto pen ... not until the issue of federal funding for stem cell research was on the table?

Perhaps I'm over-reaching, but the implication seems to be that federal funds should go to embryonic stem-cell research.  The Libertarian Party will never be successful or libertarian until it recognizes the rights of the pre-born.  May it be, politically, damned for its hypocrisy on this issue until it changes its platform. 

[HankB]

. . . The Republicans worked very hard for this defeat. They've earned every lost seat. The Republican majority that was sent packing yesterday bore little resemblance to the Republican majority that rode to power 12 years ago. In 1994 we were promised less government. Over the next 12 years the Republicans more than doubled the size of the government. We were promised control over runaway spending. In the last six years discretionary spending has doubled. We were promised fiscal responsibility. We got a bridge to nowhere in Alaska. We were promised the elimination of the Department of Education. After all, educational achievement had been on a steady decline since education was federalized under this Department. In no time at all the Republicans doubled funding for the Department of Education.

Neal nailed it right here. More than once I've felt someone needed to grab a GOP leader by the lapels and scream "WHAT THE ^%$! DO YOU THINK YOU'RE DOING?!?" in his face . . . on some occasions, it's as if they were DELIBERATELY trying to "throw" the election. (George Allen's "macaca" comment comes to mind.)

If Denny Hastert becomes minority leader, it will be a sign that the GOP has NOT figured out why they lost. If they don't come up with a plan along the lines of the "Contract with America" they may as well get used to the idea of being in the minority for a LONG time.

On a more personal note, I think I'll go out and buy magazines and another EBR before the Dems start pushing AWB II . . .

[garrettwc]

I think Neil Boortz, and HankB covered it pretty well. The Republican party I have been watching for the last 18 months isn't the same party I have voted for every year since Ronald Reagan.

And Hank, I think you're right on your second point as well. Time to start stocking up on the tools of freedom while we still have the freedom to do so.

[French G.]

Yay for gridlock! I don't think anyone got a significant enough majority to get anything done. While I am not going to sell all my guns and buy a daisy farm just yet, I do not see the impetus to run out and buy all the magazines.  First, because the dems got their majority based on some centrist sounding people who do not want to touch guns with a 10ft pole(or so they say). Second, there is just not enough of a majority to push on things like that. So, my post election predictions:

1. Two years of really contentious confirmation hearings.

2. Two years of shrill cries to impeach bush.

3. Two years of just plain shrill from Pelosi.

4. Bush finally vetoes something.

5. Massive, and I mean massive backlash come 2008. In short, I think yesterday ensured a 2008 conservative white house and congress.

6. Some of the nutroot/Lamontie types hang themselves when they realize that they made Joe Lieberman and Dick Cheney the two most powerful guys in the Senate. 

7. Nowhere in the next two years will we address the two issue that are destroying our governing system, those being the monster that McCain-Feingold created WRT 527s running campaigns; and the practice of amending bills, especially at the last minute when the amendment has nothing to do with the subject of the bill and is not subject to committe review or public comment.

8. The citizen outrage over immigration will explode, especially once Mexico's civil war does.

  I do not consider myself a republican, and really dislike politics as we practice it, but I will welcome a return to a more conservative government in two years. I guess on the plus side if stem cell research gets pushed through maybe we can clone Ronald Reagan.

[lumpy]

The Libertarian Party will never be successful or libertarian until it recognizes the rights of the pre-born.

Maybe you don't quite get the libertarian party... you seem to imply that they will not be succesful until they adopt the religious right's position.

[Perd Hapley]

The anti-abortion position is not religious in nature, any more than the belief in human rights is religious.  You don't wish to discard human rights, do you?  This position is based on the fact that humans are humans, and that no reason has been shown why they do not deserve legal protection in all stages of life. 

It is the Libertarian Party that does not understand the issue.  Their raison d'etre is a government that protects rights without trampling on them.  That is, a government that does nothing more than punish you for violating my rights or vice versa.  The same would apply to mothers and children.

[hardtarget762]

Massive, and I mean massive backlash come 2008. In short, I think yesterday ensured a 2008 conservative white house and congress.

  Hopefully you will be right!

[Lee]

I think it's a good thing.  The Dems will benefit in the short term...however, creatures that crawl from under rocks, don't do well under the light of the sun. People (including Republican leaders) will soon realize that the political dogma wasn't a viable subsitute for smart diplomatic stategy, responsible, moral behavior, or a healthy, sustainable economy. 

[Perd Hapley]

The political dogma?  If they had stuck to the political dogma, we wouldn't be in this mess.  The last thing they were holding to was any political dogma.

[lumpy]

The anti-abortion position is not religious in nature, any more than the belief in human rights is religious.  You don't wish to discard human rights, do you?  This position is based on the fact that humans are humans, and that no reason has been shown why they do not deserve legal protection in all stages of life.  

Oh please... that's just nonsense. If you'd like to describe a blastocyst as a human feel free. I tend to believe that once an embryo is no longer a body part that it has human rights.

btw fistful: I completely agree with you on the political dogma post

[Perd Hapley]

Nonsense?  Nonsense?  If a blastocyst is not human, what is it?  I thought you worked in the medical field, or life science of some sort.  Yet you claim an embryo is a "body part"?  Explain.

[mfree]

Nobody has the right to demand sustenance from another human being. You cannot sue and gain the right to take someone's kidney because it'll save your life.

Neither does an embryo have the right to demand sustenance from a woman. After a time, there's a reasonable expectation of it (kind of like a common law marriage), hence nothing after the second trimester, and that's why there wouldn't be late-term abortions except in matters of life or death for the mother.

So if you want to talk embryonic rights, there you go... no, you can't have my kidney; no, you can't have my blood, so why would anyone expect to be forced to "share"?

[Perd Hapley]

Do you imply the embryo made a choice, or demanded something?  That is very odd.  In most cases, the mother made the choice. 

After a time, there's a reasonable expectation of it (kind of like a common law marriage)

  That's absurd, as well.  Parents are expected to care for their children, and there's no reason that should change in the womb.  With the possible life of the mother exception.

[lumpy]

If a blastocyst is not human, what is it?

maybe this will help... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blastocyst

btw: using your logic we should outlaw adult stem cell reseach because a mass of human cells is a human.

I think the Onion nailed it...

Republicans Blame Election Losses On Democrats

November 7, 2006 | Issue 42•45
WASHINGTON, DC—Republican officials are blaming tonight's GOP losses on Democrats, who they claim have engaged in a wide variety of "aggressive, premeditated, anti-Republican campaigns" over the past six-to-18 months. "We have evidence of a well-organized, well-funded series of operations designed specifically to undermine our message, depict our past performance in a negative light, and drive Republicans out of office," said Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman, who accused an organization called the Democratic National Committee of spearheading the nationwide effort. "There are reports of television spots, print ads, even volunteers going door-to-door encouraging citizens to vote against us." Acknowledging that the "damage has already been done," Mehlman is seeking a promise from Democrats to never again engage in similar practices.

[roo_ster]

The anti-abortion position is not religious in nature, any more than the belief in human rights is religious.  You don't wish to discard human rights, do you?  This position is based on the fact that humans are humans, and that no reason has been shown why they do not deserve legal protection in all stages of life. 

Oh please... that's just nonsense. If you'd like to describe a blastocyst as a human feel free. I tend to believe that once an embryo is no longer a body part that it has human rights.

lumpy:

Do you think that the anti-abortion position is religious in nature?  Do you think that belief in human rights is religious in nature?

[Perd Hapley]

The blastocyst is the structure formed in early mammalian embryogenesis, after the formation of the blastocele, but before implantation. It possesses an inner cell mass, or embryoblast, and an outer cell mass, or trophoblast. i.e. it is a human who has not reached full maturity yet enough to be considered a "human" by those that are for cloning.

That's pretty much the whole entry, lumpy.  Seems slanted to my position, but factually correct, so far as I can tell.  Doesn't this undermine your point?

btw: using your logic we should outlaw adult stem cell reseach because a mass of human cells is a human.

It is not my "logic" that says a blastocyst is a human.  There's no way around it.  It ain't a puppy.  It ain't a guppy.  It's a human.  That is its taxonomic classification.  A "mass of cells" is a mass of cells.  A complete, seperate organism is, well, a complete, seperate organism.  The blastocyst is not part of the mother's body.  It is a new organism.  This is not opinion.  It is fact.

If the blastocyst is not human, what is it?

Do you continue to claim that an embryo is a "body part"?

[lumpy]

The blastocyst is not part of the mother's body.  It is a new organism

Great then you can run down and go adopt all those blastocysts in the ferility bank, right?

Do you think that the anti-abortion position is religious in nature?  the religious right is pushing this position. amongst those that do not have the same position as the religious right's agenda there is little support for the right of governments' to interfere with a woman's right to determine what is best for herself, and her body. I would suggest that a true conservative would also support this position (for reference: I would define Goldwater as a true conservative, small government, no interference in personal lives, lower taxes, lower spending)

Do you think that belief in human rights is religious in nature? no, I'm an atheist... I believe that we should have human rights, and am well aware that those rights can and have been oppressed by and governments and relgious practices.

[mfree]

Fistful,

You should preach your anti-abortion sentiment to your church. Seriously! That's where it belongs, in church. The only punishment for having an abortion should be God's punishment, which will come. Or don't you believe that it will? Or is God's punishment not enough, so that you've got to punish someone in the corporeal, even though they don't believe in the same God or gods that you do?

Is an eternity in hell not enough punishment for someone who obtains an abortion? Why do you want legislature when the real task here is to get that sinner into the folds of the church so you can then show them how wrong they are?

Leave morality to the churches, please.

[roo_ster]

mfree:

Careful, now.  Just 'cause you'd like to have a "baby eraser" handy to deal with birth control & self-control foul-ups*, is no reason to toss all morality out of the law.  Unless you think it is fine & dandy for the strong to steal from the weak, or the ruthless to kill those in their way, or the powerful to not honor contracts...etc.



* And no killjoys to remind you of the moral status of such actions.

[Perd Hapley]

lumpy, can you answer my very simple questions?

The blastocyst is not part of the mother's body.  It is a new organism

Great then you can run down and go adopt all those blastocysts in the ferility bank, right?  

I've considered it.  Some people do.  I might if adoption becomes an option for my family.  I'm not obligated to do it.  Their parents should be caring for them.  Proper libertarian or conservative or liberal government would shut down such concentration camps and find wombs and homes for these kids.  http://www.nightlight.org/snowflakeadoption.htm

Do you think that the anti-abortion position is religious in nature?  the religious right is pushing this position. amongst those that do not have the same position as the religious right's agenda there is little support for the right of governments' to interfere with a woman's right to determine what is best for herself, and her body.

People have rights to determine what is best for themselves and their bodies.  But if the embryo is another human being, such rights do not outweigh his/her right to life, especially when the mother is at fault for producing a child she does not want.  Your standard for determining a religious foundation is unsatisfactory.  I have not made a religious argument, unless the taboo against murder is considered to be religious.

Do you think that belief in human rights is religious in nature? no, I'm an atheist... I believe that we should have human rights, and am well aware that those rights can and have been oppressed by and governments and relgious practices.

And governments and religious practices have upheld human rights, too.  "I believe we should have human rights."  So do I, and I think our entire political system must be based on this belief.  But you must recognize that this is no more valid than any religious belief.  Why should we have rights?  Where is the scientific proof that anyone has rights?  

[Perd Hapley]

mfree, why are you bringing religion into this?  I have not based my position on religious belief, any more than you have.  Do you deny that all laws are based on morality?  If we all left our morals at church, I could feel free to enslave or kill you.  What are our rights, if not a moral concept?

Respond to my earlier post, or you will prove yourself unwilling to discuss the topic according to reason.

Do you imply the embryo made a choice, or demanded something?  That is very odd.  In most cases, the mother made the choice. 

After a time, there's a reasonable expectation of it (kind of like a common law marriage)

  That's absurd, as well.  Parents are expected to care for their children, and there's no reason that should change in the womb.  With the possible life-of-the-mother exception.

So if you want to talk embryonic rights, there you go

  Embryonic rights, gay rights - why don't we all have the same rights? 

[lumpy]

Do you deny that all laws are based on morality? If we all left our morals at church, I could feel free to enslave or kill you. 

Are you suggesting that morals are derived from religion?  (I'm not trying to be sarcastic)

As an atheist I like to carry my morals with me everywhere. I have, as of this writing, never been charge with a crime, never enslaved and never killed anyone. As you suggest I agree that we should carry our morals with us everywhere.

As far as the blastocyst thing goes... I think we'll have to agree that we disagree.

[Perd Hapley]

As far as the blastocyst thing goes... I think we'll have to agree that we disagree.

Probably. 

Are you suggesting that morals are derived from religion?

  That's not what I was getting at, although I do believe that.  I was saying that any system of law is based on ideas of right and wrong, morality.  I believe our laws should protect the rights of individuals from others and from government.  Rights are a moral concept, regardless how derived.  Even if we set up our laws to ensure the survival of the group, or optimum prosperity, or some other outward goal, we're making a moral judgement that these things are desirable and that it is right and proper for government to ensure such things.  In essence, everyone wants to "impose their morality" on others in some respects, and they should.  In this context, we both agree with the moral judgement that the law should punish murder, so it is only a matter of defining what sort of acts fit the definition of murder.

I do believe that morality is not possible without a transcendent Law-Giver to assign moral values.  Otherwise, it is only a matter of individual preference.  And likes and dislikes are not morality.  But that is not really necessary for my case against abortion.