Mass. Brown campaigning for AZ McCain

[MicroBalrog]

OK, Sergeant Bob, what's your solution? 

I think it's obvious. We should let the failures fail. Yes, the Democrats will advance a few more yards towards their goal - and they're notoriously bad at that - but it will make it easier for us to repeal their laws and cut their taxes later.

[Monkeyleg]

In case nobody noticed, it hasn't been the Republicans pushing nationalized health care, cap and trade, giving the auto companies to unions with our tax dollars, and establishing a czar to control the salaries of private sector employees.

This president is unlike any other we've had and, in combination with Pelosi and Reid, is more dangerous than we've ever had. Bill Clinton was a pragmatist, going where the votes were. Obama is an ideologue hell-bent on pushing an agenda the public doesn't want.

It's been said here many times: once legislation is passed, it's more difficult to repeal it, especially entitlement programs. Better to elect weak Republicans now and vote them out after 2012 than to "let failures fail" and let the Dem's turn the country into East Germany very, very quickly.

[makattak]

In case nobody noticed, it hasn't been the Republicans pushing nationalized health care, cap and trade, giving the auto companies to unions with our tax dollars, and establishing a czar to control the salaries of private sector employees.

This president is unlike any other we've had and, in combination with Pelosi and Reid, is more dangerous than we've ever had. Bill Clinton was a pragmatist, going where the votes were. Obama is an ideologue hell-bent on pushing an agenda the public doesn't want.

It's been said here many times: once legislation is passed, it's more difficult to repeal it, especially entitlement programs. Better to elect weak Republicans now and vote them out after 2012 than to "let failures fail" and let the Dem's turn the country into East Germany very, very quickly.

Fixing problems takes time and effort.

Screwing things up can happen overnight. Thus, like Monkeyleg is saying, we have to play defense because the more things are screwed up the LONGER it takes to fix.

[MrRezister]

Like Sgt Bob was saying, the main problem with electing weak Republicans is that they are only marginally better than the Democrats.  They might not be rushing to pass crazy laws like Cap&Tax, but they aren't leading a charge to repeal any of the ridiculous crap that Demos have already gotten through, either. 

It's like downshifting in a truck headed directly for a cliff instead of actually changing the direction.

Once the Repubs get in power, they seem to take turns spitting in the faces of the conservatives who got them there.  It doesn't take a lot of courage for them to stand up and say "NO" in the face of fairly unpopular legislation like the Healthcare debacle, but it would take some cajones to come to the American people with a better plan even though they are in the minority.  Make the Republicans earn power by proving they have better ideas.

[makattak]

Like Sgt Bob was saying, the main problem with electing weak Republicans is that they are only marginally better than the Democrats.  They might not be rushing to pass crazy laws like Cap&Tax, but they aren't leading a charge to repeal any of the ridiculous crap that Demos have already gotten through, either. 

It's like downshifting in a truck headed directly for a cliff instead of actually changing the direction.

Once the Repubs get in power, they seem to take turns spitting in the faces of the conservatives who got them there.  It doesn't take a lot of courage for them to stand up and say "NO" in the face of fairly unpopular legislation like the Healthcare debacle, but it would take some cajones to come to the American people with a better plan even though they are in the minority.  Make the Republicans earn power by proving they have better ideas.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/congress/scorecard.html

Getting the right people elected is not a win. It's a START.

From there we have to fight and explain to people that Social Security/Medicaid/Medicare is driving us off a cliff. We have to wake people up.

We know socialist policies eventually run out of money. We have to convince the people of that as well. George W. Bush made the first attempt at fixing Social Security. Unfortunately, while he may be the Decider, he's not the Great Communicator.

We need someone who can lead, but also one who can persuade. Congress cannot fix things the majority of people don't think are broken yet.

We need to convince them things are broken or breaking. We need to keep in mind we are fighting against people trying to do the opposite.

The Democrats just proved you can't go against the public.

We have to win the people first, not just the elections, and THEN fix the problems.

[Monkeyleg]

...the main problem with electing weak Republicans is that they are only marginally better than the Democrats.

When you're being overrun by the enemy, a weak soldier in your foxhole is better than none at all.

Because of this administration, there's a real chance that Israel may attack Iran this year, which could provoke a nuclear war.

We're in a position where we can't deal with China on substantive issues, and are weakened strategically from our excessive borrowing from them. They could turn out our lights overnight by selling off our bonds. Obama has exacerbated the problem and, if left unchecked, will make it far worse.

Our deficits are unparalleled in world history, and Obama seems determined to make them worse. We're technically bankrupt already, but further erosion will make the US functionally bankrupt.

The health care bill, cap and trade, and appointment of a "pay" czar will give the government nearly complete control of private companies and individual citizens. Want a job? Let's see who you voted for in the last election. Every move a company or individual wishes to make can be predicated on how well the company or individual toes the party line.

This isn't about a stained dress, this is scary serious, and the only way to stop it is to have enough members of the opposition party to defeat anything coming from this administration.

[Sergeant Bob]

I think it's obvious. We should let the failures fail. Yes, the Democrats will advance a few more yards towards their goal - and they're notoriously bad at that - but it will make it easier for us to repeal their laws and cut their taxes later.

Fixing problems takes time and effort.

Screwing things up can happen overnight. Thus, like Monkeyleg is saying, we have to play defense because the more things are screwed up the LONGER it takes to fix.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/congress/scorecard.html

Getting the right people elected is not a win. It's a START.

From there we have to fight and explain to people that Social Security/Medicaid/Medicare is driving us off a cliff. We have to wake people up.

We know socialist policies eventually run out of money. We have to convince the people of that as well. George W. Bush made the first attempt at fixing Social Security. Unfortunately, while he may be the Decider, he's not the Great Communicator.

We need someone who can lead, but also one who can persuade. Congress cannot fix things the majority of people don't think are broken yet.

We need to convince them things are broken or breaking. We need to keep in mind we are fighting against people trying to do the opposite.

The Democrats just proved you can't go against the public.

We have to win the people first, not just the elections, and THEN fix the problems.

I don't think I can say it any better than these folks did. Sometimes, things have to get worse before they can get better. I agree that Brown being elected is an improvement, considering the circumstances, and is a win in the short term. But, electing more just like him, McCain, Specter, Snowe, Graham, etc, etc, is not the answer.

They are like a gangrene on the Constitution, slowly festering and rotting it away. If you don't do something about it now, you will end up losing the entire (Constitution) limb.

[MicroBalrog]

The majority of Americans understand – and poll after poll shows it – that lower taxes and a freer economy is better.

In fact, while the majority of Americans are neither conservative nor liberal, 40% of Americans are conservatives. The base that Republican Presidents will be relying on for conservative reform is far larger.

Besides, the Democrats could have – up until the MA Election – rammed te reform through. Had they'd done this, they could hope – they'd be wrong! - that if it had passed, then those people who benefit would form a big enough voting block as to secure them electoral victories (like they did with Social Security). In effect, the Republicans could do the same, in reverse. It's not necessary to educate the majority of Americans about the intricacies of Austrian economics for us to win.

[Monkeyleg]

If conservatives really want to win in 2010 and 2012, they're going to need to go back to the fundamentals of conservatism. That's true. They're also going to need someone who can articulate his or her vision in the way that Reagan did. People didn't necessarily agree with Reagan on every issue, but they knew his philosophy and where he stood.

Scott Brown was very effective in doing that, even if he isn't the conservative's conservative.

I'd like to see McCain gone and replaced with a JD Hayworth or other person with real conservative credentials. If that can't happen, I'd rather have a McCain than someone like Napolitano filling his seat or, for that matter, any Democrat. The conservative Democrats fell in lockstep with leadership on the healthcare bill. It's too risky to hope they'll buck the leadership in the future.

[Sergeant Bob]

When you're being overrun by the enemy, a weak soldier in your foxhole is better than none at all.

That is true, however, we are putting weak soldiers in most of our foxholes.

When you're being overrun by the enemy, a weak soldier in your foxhole is better than none at all.

Because of this administration, there's a real chance that Israel may attack Iran this year, which could provoke a nuclear war.

The problem is though, Iran didn't just start seeking nuclear weapons one year ago. Bush didn't do anything about it either.

Clinton helped the North Koreans with their nuclear program, and Bush did nothing about that either.

Every election, we keep electing squishy Repubs, because "we just can't afford to let a Demo win", and every election, the people who were supposed to "save us" contribute to the downward slide.

This shouldn't be about who is to blame, it should be about what needs to be done to return this country to the greatness the Founding Fathers, through their sacrifices gave us. In the immortal words of the great Chief Lone Watie, we must "Endeavor to Persevere".  

[Sergeant Bob]

If conservatives really want to win in 2010 and 2012, they're going to need to go back to the fundamentals of conservatism. That's true. They're also going to need someone who can articulate his or her vision in the way that Reagan did. People didn't necessarily agree with Reagan on every issue, but they knew his philosophy and where he stood.

The only answer I have for that statement is this: If conservatives really want to win in 2010 and 2012, they're going to need to go back to the fundamentals of conservatism. That's true. They're also going to need someone who can articulate his or her vision in the way that Reagan did. People didn't necessarily agree with Reagan on every issue, but they knew his philosophy and where he stood. 

[RocketMan]

"Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me."  The Republicans have fooled me more than twice, unfortunately.  I just cannot see going back to the Republican party.  As many others have said, I did not leave the party, the party left me.
One of the definitions of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.  We keep supporting the Republican party whenever they reach out to us.  The party claims, during each election cycle, to be headed back to its "conservative roots", whatever those might be.
Michael Steele, the current RNC chairman, is not a conservative, and yet has been posturing as one because he knows that conservatives form the largest base of party support.  Were the Republicans to do well in 2010, perhaps even gain control of both houses, his tune would soon change, and the party would no doubt slide right back into its normal Rockerfeller Republican behavior.
What is the alternative to supporting Republicans?  I don't know.  I fear that it may be too late for the Republic.  The downward spiral is too tight to pull out of, the damage done too extensive to repair.
There is likely insufficient time to form a new truly conservative party.  We may have to ride it in.

[Monkeyleg]

Sounds like a lot of people are itching to use their bug out gear and stockpiled ammo.

That was a real fun party in Argentina back in 2001.

[MicroBalrog]

Sounds like a lot of people are itching to use their bug out gear and stockpiled ammo.

That was a real fun party in Argentina back in 2001.

I don't have any bug out gear nor do I have stockpiled ammo.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I think it's obvious. We should let the failures fail. Yes, the Democrats will advance a few more yards towards their goal - and they're notoriously bad at that - but it will make it easier for us to repeal their laws and cut their taxes later.

Experience shows it's a lot more effective to prevent awful bills from passing than it is to repeal awful bills after they're passed.

[alex_trebek]

In case nobody noticed, it hasn't been the Republicans pushing nationalized health care, cap and trade, giving the auto companies to unions with our tax dollars, and establishing a czar to control the salaries of private sector employees.

Bush started the auto bailout with TARP money meant for banks. He had bend the law to do so, so GM's bankruptcy wouldn't happen on his presidency. IMO that act, along with the wasteful spending of his administration, is just as bad as what Obama has so far accomplished.

Republicans expanded Medicare without budgeting, and the total cost of the Iraq War is estimated at over 3 trillion dollars, once one accounts for medical treatment of disabled personnel. Due to the way fiscal year budgets work, much of the spending of FY 09 was planned under Bush.

McCain supports cap and trade, and I am surprised he didn't vote for healthcare. The only other choice we had in our two party system would leave us one step to the right of where we are today.

For the record I voted for McCain in the general election, because I thought Obama would be worse than he has been, and McCain would be marginally better. I have regretted that ever since, because I betrayed my integrety to vote for that man, I wish I would have just stayed at home.

I no longer care who gets elected, both parties will lead us to the same end. Republicans as a party stand for nothing, they just want to be the ones who control the purse strings.

[Sergeant Bob]

Sounds like a lot of people are itching to use their bug out gear and stockpiled ammo.

That was a real fun party in Argentina back in 2001.

That's just crazy talk! No, seriously I don't think anyone here is even hinting at that.

George W. Bush: Biggest Spender Since LBJ

[Monkeyleg]

That chart is going to have to be a lot wider to include Obama. (BTW, when referring to the percentage of change, what is the baseline?)

Yes, Bush spent too much. The "bailout" (better known as the takeover) of GM was unconstitutional and illegal. But  Obama's making him look like a piker. Trying to draw an equivalency between the Bush and Obama administrations is a real stretch.

It's difficult to draw an equivalency between the Obama administration and any previous presidency since we've never had one like this, and what's in store if Obama gets his way is something this country has never experienced.

As for the sensible Democrats, they must be napping. From today's National Review Online:

Rep. Paul Ryan (R., Wis.), the ranking member of the House Budget Committee, tellsNational Review Online that House Democrats are planning to use the budget-reconciliation process in order to pass Obamacare. “They’re meeting with each other this weekend to pursue it,” says Ryan. “I’ve spoken with many Democrats and the message is this: They’re not ready to give up. They’ve waited their entire adult lives for this moment, and they aren’t ready to let 100,000 pesky votes in Massachusetts get in the way of fulfilling their destiny. They’ll look at every option and spend the next four or five days figuring it out.”
If the Democrats pass a health-care bill through reconciliation, it means they would need only 51 votes in the Senate for final passage. To start the process, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) would need to bring a new health-care bill to the House Budget Committee with reconciliation instructions, with the Senate doing the same. “They’d have to go back to the beginning of the process,” says Ryan. “They’d need to affix reconciliation instructions to a new bill.” Doing so, he says, wouldn’t be too hard. “There’s nothing we can do to stop this from a technical standpoint, since all they need is a simple majority vote and our ratio on the committee is terrible. What [Republicans] can do on the Budget Committee is pass resolutions for the Rules Committee to insist on certain changes in the bill and create a ‘vote-a-rama’ atmosphere.”

If reconciliation happens, Ryan predicts that the Democrats will still have a hard time pulling it off. “There are Blue Dog Democrats out there who are more survivalist than ideologues. One or two switches could be a game changer. The question is whether Democrats will continue to follow Pelosi off the cliff. After Massachusetts, the Democrats are quickly realizing that even if the president comes in to stump, and you get all the union support you need, it’s still not enough to get you elected.”

[alex_trebek]

Democrats will support healthcare to the end. Depending on motives this is either crazy, immoral, or shows integrity.

Republicans hate this bill, but why? This is what I was trying to point out earlier. Republicans have zero problems spending 3 trillion in 8 years. Why fight so hard against 1 trillion in 10 years? They expanded Medicare, clearly they don't have moral issue with national healthcare programs.

Earlier the trench analogy was used, allow me to show my view of the situation:

Yes a weak soldier is better than being alone in the foxhole. But you assume the republicans are a weak soldier.  I view them as someone who doesn't have a side. They aren't your enemy, now. They aren't your ally either. It is better to be in the foxhole alone than with someone you can't turn your back on.

[RocketMan]

I don't have any bug out gear nor do I have stockpiled ammo.

Me, neither.  One can still read the writing on the wall.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

It's not about sensing the writing on the wall about bad times coming.  It's about the apparent eagerness from some for the bad times to hurry up and get here already.

[RocketMan]

It's not about sensing the writing on the wall about bad times coming.  It's about the apparent eagerness from some for the bad times to hurry up and get here already.

Why are some eager for bad times to get here?  For many, it's because they want to play with all their toys in a TEOTWAWKI game.
But there are some that can see what is coming and just want to get it over with, maybe with a chance at coming out on the other side relatively intact.  It is that simple.

[Perd Hapley]

Sergeant Bob, et al;

Maybe I missed it while skimming through, but I haven't seen your solution.  I saw your platitudes, but the closest thing to a specific plan I found was to "let the failures [I can only assume this means people like Ron Paul, McCain, Badnarik] fail." 

I wonder how far we can go with that.  We can complain about the ineffectiveness of the Republican Party all we like, but I haven't seen any other party do any better.   

[Balog]

Incumbents have a huge advantage. Elect squishy RINOs now, and you'll not likely vote them out any time soon. And if they do go it'll likely be for a D not another R.

Taking whatever socialist lite the R's chuck at us is the reason we ended up with Obama in the first place. The outrage over Carter put Reagen into office. The outrage over Obama could put another conservative into office, and yet many here will happy vote for McCain or some other %90 liberal just because he's better than Obama. Our side always talks about accepting liberals on our ticket "just for now" then we'll kick them out later. I am not aware of that ever actually happening.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I disagree.  If we had even one or two more R's *squishy or strong, doesn't matter) Obama wouldn't be nearly the threat he is.  Obama and his policies are what you get when you don't have enough R's in office, a fact that Brown demonstrated quite convincingly this week.

An interesting remark I heard the other day:  If Dems and Reps are all the same, why does anyone care that Brown won?