1 We must keep our Party pure !! Moderates must be erradicated. We will go down in defeat, but go proudly.

2 2ed!

3

It is real simple: Both parties to the primary must agree that if they lose, they will support the winner. Sometimes this can be done. Sometimes it can not. The big key is that so called "party leaders" must agree to stay out of primaries and let the chips fall where they may. And the party organizations must pledge to fund the winners campaign.

I know, easier said than done. But, I am the enternal optimist.

4

The Phillies' plan for winning the WS was hoping for a major rift in the Yankees. It worked well.

5

"Some conservatives agreed. "The Democrats won not because they were brilliant but because Republicans were stupid," said presidential contender and ex-Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee."

I hope Huck was referring to himself there. The stupid ones were voting for him and McCain in the primaries.

6 Any article that describes Scozzafava as a "moderate" deserves to be used as liner.

That is simply ridiculous.  It -might- have been plausible before she turned around and endorsed Owens, but her endorsement should've proved the conservatives absolutely right that she was *not* a moderate.  If that doesn't, what the hell possibly *could*?  Or is it okay that the assumption is simply that conservatives cannot possibly be correct?

Qwinn

7

the push by fired-up fans of Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh to purge their party of moderates.

I do love this statement.  Its a demonstration of the media again that you need to point out Ace.  Its the attempt to push even more of a split by the media. While there are of course the more conservative activists wanting to purge moderates.  There are also moderate activists that are wanting to purge the more conservative members of the party.  The media won't bring this up though because they want to try and disenfranchise the moderates from the republican party and entice them into choosing the more "tolerant" democrats.

8 Listen to the media, they have the best interests of the conservative movement at heart. Why else would they endorse McCain in the Republican primaries?

9 that rift between christie and lonegan in the primary was awesome! gimme that happy talk

10 Did it take the media 6 hours to turn on McCain after he won the primaries or 6 seconds? My memory is kinda fuzzy.

11 Huckabee can suck it.

He better so not be in contention in 2012.

Fuckin' shyster.

12 Yeah, look: The problem with Scozzer isn't that she was a moderate, but a full-on liberal, and that is not acceptable. A moderate is not ideal. A liberal is not acceptable.

Going forward, the worry is that the perfect will be the enemy of the good, and that the good will just be dismissed as not good at all.

But Perfect > Good > Tolerable > Intolerable > Catastrophically Bad.

Aim for the perfect, but be prepared, I hope, to accept the merely good.

13 Your enemies would never lie to you.

14 Folks, this sounds like libtards whistling past the graveyard. Just begging and scolding the GOP into behaving like Democrat Lite. It's what they always do. Have you ever seen the Demotards and their lapdog press warn Republicans that they were diluting their identity be becoming too "moderate?" Have you ever seen a Demotard pundit or leader advise his party to become more conservative? Bill Clinton post-1994 doesn't count. Why? Because if you recall, they spent all their time pondering the vocabulary of their message, not the message itself. Did the era of "big government" really end for Clinton when he drooled that phrase?

Nothing to see here, truly. Just a minor variation on "Republican = Extreme Right Wingnut, now and always."

15 All I have to say about this, Which side of the Republican party is a turncoat?  Is it the social/fiscal side that switches parties and endorses Democrats when they don't get their way or the RINO/washington elite side of the party.

When the elites bitch about party unity, I switch to MSNBC and listen to Obama cry racism, its easier to digest than RINO whining.

16 As we know from the business sector, competition encourages excellence and innovation.  Primaries are a good thing.

17

Another Newspaper article about conservatives. I throw the bullshit flag and refuse to let the MSM nominate our candidates.  Just look at their choices on the poll:

 

Do you think the Conservatives will tear apart the GOP?

- Yes, they stubbornly refuse to compromise.

- No, they're ultimately politicians and know they need the national party.

- I'm not sure.

 

How about we have a poll for the news media to do?

 

Do you think the news media are ALL nothing more than PR organizations for the Democraps and will lie, cheat, and steal, to see the chocolate Jesus win?

 

-Yes, they are worse than Pravda in its communist heyday

- No they are buisness to make money and if pushing communism causes them to fail they will seek a bailout

- I’m a dumb ass and don’t know

 

I hope none of the real Morons believe anything in this article.  You can judge the quality of this article by them calling the Huckleberry Klown a conservative.

18 By the way, notice when some Republicans attempt to reassert basic conservative principles as party underpinnings, that constitutes a "purge." You know, with banging on the door at night and assassinations in basements.

But when leftards find Dems going astray from moonbat orthodoxy, like Lieberman on the war or socialized medicine, that is a betrayal of fundamental democratic norms and the people itself. Lamont vs. Lieberman... not that wasn't a purge.

Such silliness.

19 Is this really their best hope, that we shoot ourselves in the foot? Then they are so screwed.

NY-23 was such an oddball situation, to hope that it is repeated enough to affect national results is ridiculous. Supporting Rubio over Crist in a regular primary does not equal NY-23, despite what the MSM (who only have our best interests at heart) may say.

But what if, should we be so lucky, that these folks actually do buy their own spin? It will be like shooting fish in a barrel, come 2010.

20

Next up: a plea for returning civility to politics.

By Rahm Emanuel.

Also, floating bits of exploded ironymeters found in Saturn's orbit. Pix at 11!

21

"Is it the social/fiscal side that switches parties and endorses Democrats when they don't get their way or the RINO/washington elite side of the party."

Which side voted for Obama's "stimulus".

22 I lived in one place that had rapes, riots, drug use, where my sister was almost beaten to death because of her race by people outside the ethnic neighborhood, etc. Such things were quite common.
I lived in another place that you could leave your doors unlocked and your friends and neighbors would walk in like family to say high, where different ethnic neighborhoods had block parties that had different, but great food. 

Whitch one was conservative and which one liberal?

23 Man, do I make a lot of typos today.

24

The slide to LGF'dom continues.

25 The GOP and the Tea Party both have trouble connecting with each other because of the incoherence of their message:

1. “Fiscal Conservatism”- the ones who scream this buzzword the loudest are the very ones who have the least idea of what it means; the Tea Party wants more and bigger wars, and war funding; yet tax reductions. No one has yet shown a way that this can be done, which is exactly why GWB had stupendous deficits. There is no such animal as a pro-war fiscal conservative.

2. “Limited Government”- again, the ones who chant this most feverishly, are the same ones who cheer on the Unitary Executive theory, giving nearly unlimited power to the Chief Executive. The same ones who saw fit to intervene in the Schiavo family’s affairs.

The GOP thinks that having a slick website and slinging cool urban slang like “what up” is the same as having a principled message; the Tea Party thinks that raw anger alone will produce an effective platform.

But when your two main arguments are mired in incoherence and illogic, you naturally have a hard time gaining traction with the educated professionals who themselves have to balance budgets, who read the papers and understand the connection between 1.4 Trillion in war funding and a 1.4 Trillion deficit.

26

"party leaders" must agree to stay out of primaries and let the chips fall where they may. And the party organizations must pledge to fund the winners campaign.

Word.

27 This isn't rocket science-
1) Ignore anything the media says about what we "need" to do.
2) Recruit men and women of good character.Do you damn due diligence RNC.
3)Local issues but tied to a national message ( Newts greatest moment).
4)the Litmus test is on fiscal issues- social issues do matter but there can be some, not much, variance.
5) If unsure on 2,3,4, , call Gov. McDonnell .
6) CLOSE THE PRIMARIES IN 2012= no outside sabotage. That this isn't obvious makes me want to construct a tin-foil hat.

28

There is no such animal as a pro-war fiscal conservative.

I disagree. If we start keeping what we fight for, it could be very profitable.

29

 Reason60 at November 05, 2009 01:32 PM (ogXbt)

Hey, ChipD's back. Hi ChipD!

30

I may be a sell-out and not have integrity and whatever else but I desperately do not want strife after the primary challenges. From either side, the RINO side or the more conservative side. Fair is fair and a winner's a winner.

Hell, I'm a maxi and I agree.  The primary is the way to see how conservative a district really is.

31
good catch, Max.

wow, thanks for shitty analysis and shitty advice, ChipD.

As usual, you demonstrate how clueless you moonbats are about the Republican party.

Oh, and if I want advice on how to lose elections, I'll ask Michael Steele, not you.

32 "Democrats are hoping a growing conservative revolt within the GOP wreaks havoc on Republicans in the 2010 elections."

Yep, that's some strategy there. We're gonna win by...hoping that you have a misfire and blind yourself...get attacked by lions, tiger and bears...praying for another "maccaca" moment, etc. In truth, this is pathetic and shows that they don't know what the hell they're going to do to right the blue Titanic that Obama's agenda (and actions) have become.

33

Posted by: Reason60 at November 05, 2009 01:32 PM (ogXbt)

Oh look, someone from Reason magazine. You know why I left the Libertarian Party? Because no one there understood the simple fact that if the LP platform was popular then they would win elections. Turns out when you list people's priorities, drug legalization is not at the top of the list.

Republicans don't believe in the unitary executive you twat, Republicans believe that the Constitution applies to American citizens and legal residents, not violent terrorists or unlawful enemy combatants. I know everyone over at Reason strokes each other off everytime someone says Republicrat, but there are differences between the two parties. Total defense outlays account for 20% of total spending. Oppose foreign wars on philosophical grounds, don't sit there and tell me we're bankrupt because of a 1.4 trillion over 6 years and not because of the 2 trillion dollars annual spending on various forms of welfare.

34

Oh, and if I want advice on how to lose elections, I'll ask Michael Steele, not you.

Oh, that's just mean!

35 ChipD is still stuck in 2005, apparently.

36 The meme from the commies is, "You conservatives had better sit down and shut up or you'll end up with nothing!"  Why don't I buy that?  Consider the source.  The political reality is that the more fuss we make, the more we win.  The commie libs know that and they hate it.

37

Ace, if you were looking for a good article with fair and balanced reporting and insightful commentary to advance your argument.....

 

This ain’t it.

38 Amen,

Fight for the Conservative in the primary.  Fight for the Republican in the General.  Voting third party or staying home and pouting gets us where we are now.

39 And, of course, the Democrats will try to stir things up as much as they can.  Weren't there stories last year of Democrats who registered as Republicans, just so they could vote in the Republican primaries (or...maybe that was Republicans who registered as Democrats just so they could vote in the Democrat primary).

40

But when your two main arguments are mired in incoherence and illogic, you naturally have a hard time gaining traction with the educated professionals who themselves have to balance budgets, who read the papers and understand the connection between 1.4 Trillion in war funding and a 1.4 Trillion deficit.

Of course, 1.4 trillion in Pork barrel socialist spending by the Obamunists gets nary a peep out of you.

41

Pro tip: Anytime the Dems give advice on how the Republicans should act, do the opposite. 

They say tough primaries help them, it helps us.  They say SoCons can't win on issues, like gay marriage (only bare majorities in the deep south State of ME and CA!), we win gangbusters.  They say we need to moderate and reach out, it's time to veer right, kick ass, bust teeth, and forget the name-taking. 

Why would you take advice from your opponents?  Especially ones with such thoroughly demonstrated dishonesty as the Dems?

In related news, Cincinnati Bengals coach Marvin Lewis said this Sunday the Ravens defense should worry primarily about sportsmanship and avoid unnecessary partisan acts like stopping the run and sacking the quarterback.

42

...praying for another "maccaca" moment, et  al

 Think about this Morons, that Macaca bullshit only worked because spineless Republicans allowed it to work. There is no such word as Macaca and we should have told the Dems and the press to stick it up their ass.

43

ChipD is still stuck in 2005, apparently.

Maybe he's a Daily Show writer?

44
Why are the Democrats (constantly) offering free advice to us when, according to them, what we're doing is clearly helping them win?

45 I'm all for a primary process. I'd like to see them closed.

I think it's promising that at least one of the National Republican deep pocket Orgs is moving towards a hands-off approach during the primary.

I'll just say that winning a majority in '10 is not the goal in my mind. If we can earn back a bullet-proof filibuster block with firm Conservatives, then any races our squishes* lose remain an easier target for a run from the Right in all races in the future.

*My definition of squish may not apply to all.

46 Here's a winning strategy for the Democrats in 2010. Put me on MSNBC and I'll give them this great slogan.

"Not all Democrats are Socialists but all Socialists, with the exception of Bernie Sanders, are Democrats. So vote for us!"

If only I was a "journalist" who could write bullshit articles telling the party I don't agree with how to win elections.

47 Yep, fight in the primaries, and not after.

Also, while there are some social cons who want big government otherwise, and some fiscal cons who want mandatory gay rapes in the 5th grade, and some 'moderate' Republicans who are concerned that Obama is too right-wing, most of us Republicans/Conservatives are where we are because we have lots of common ground, and some of the ones stirring up the fights are mobies.

48 I may be a sell-out and not have integrity and whatever else but I desperately do not want strife after the primary challenges. From either side, the RINO side or the more conservative side. Fair is fair and a winner's a winner.

Just keep your heavy, big party, fingers off the scale till we get done weighing out the grain, then sure, I'll back the squish, so long as they're a fairly selected squish, not an anointed and ceremonially coronated squish the smokey back room boys happen to "like" for the seat.

49 Also today, Grand Moff Tarkin suggested that the Rebel Alliance should attempt a frontal assault on the Death Star battlestation, and avoid lowering the level of political discourse by slipping snubfighters under the station's defenses and launching proton torpedoes at a 2-meter ray-shielded exhaust port. 

50 Limited Government”- again, the ones who chant this most feverishly, are the same ones who cheer on the Unitary Executive theory, giving nearly unlimited power to the Chief Executive.

You do not grok the unitary executive theory.

Unitary executive theory says the President is solely responsible for what happens in the Executive branch, including hiring, firing, and exercising himself all the powers of the Executive branch.

Its another theory that says that the Executive Branch has "unlimited power."

Someone could believe in the Unitary Executive theory AND in a limited executive.

51

Where does everyoen get the idea I am arguing in favor of liberalism? I'm just saying the Tea Party isn't really serious about being conservative.

"Republicans don't believe in the unitary executive "

Dick Cheney and Obama have not gotten the memo; since they both appear to endorse the notion that the Chief Executive has nearly unlimited power to detain Americans without trial. (Reference Jose Padilla, and the Arar case, endorsed by Obama)

"Of course, 1.4 trillion in Pork barrel socialist spending by the Obamunists gets nary a peep out of you."

Actually, in this fiscal year, we spent less than 500Billion on all non-Defense, non-SocialSecurity/ Medicare programs. Show me what you mean by 1.4 T in pork, and we can talk.

Look, I am happy to argue numbers here:

I have posted a couple of times here the same question, and no one has an answer: What would a conservative budget look like?

Specifically-

We spend 2.1 Trillion on Medicare, SS and debt service;

Another 900 Billion on Defense;

500 Billion on every other thing the government does;

this adds up to 3.5 Trillion.

We only take in 2.1 Trilion in revenue;

So what would a conservative budget look like?

Do conservatives want to cut Social Security? Medicare? What?

Getting angry isn't really a good argument.

Show me a balanced budget that takes in 2.1 trillion in revenue and preserves almost half that for  Defense, and we can talk about it.

Until then, my point stands. the Tea Party isn't really serious about what they say.

52 Posted by: Shillelagh at November 05, 2009 01:58 PM (Oz4Bj)

Your geeky mind-tricks have no power over me, nerd.

53 BTW, unity after the primary does not mean enthusiastic support.  I pulled the lever for McCain, but I didn't pound the pavement.

54

not an anointed and ceremonially coronated squish the smokey back room boys happen to "like" for the seat.

Hey, we gave ya a hot momma like DeDe Scozzafazool, an' youse bums ran her right offa da ticket! I aint seen a rack like that since the one on toppa my '65 Olds Vistacruiser! So she tapped us for near a million and then endorsed the Democrat, so what? Swell gal! We're tapping her to jump outta a cake at da next smoker! And den we're givin' the cake to some deservin' charity, like feedin' Sout' Africa or sumpin. We don't hear you teabag monkeys comin' up wid genius like dat!

55 Posted by: Reason60 at November 05, 2009 02:01 PM (ogXbt)

Dude, ignoring previous arguments doesn't mean they weren't answered. Short recap: You got to start somewhere. Fiscal Incrementalism to the right is preferable to that to the left or wholesale abdication of power by demanding that which is politically impossible.

What's your solution?

56

Secondly-

I see Tea Partiers waving banneers that say "don't tread on me" and quoting Franklin's line about giving up freedom for security;

Great! I wish they actually meant it!

But does everyone here realize that the NSA/ CIA/ FBI has claimed for itself the right to tap any phone, read any email, rifle through any bank account, and all without court supervision or oversight? read this article if you want to feel the hair on the back of your neck stand up.

Does this sound like "limited government"? Does it sound like something the advocates of "liberty" would embrace?

Again- I am not arguing against limited government or fiscal conservatism- I just think few in the Tea Party really believe it.

57

Ace, I agree with you, I think. There are some things I can compromise on, some I can't. But the candidate must, MUST, be fiscally conservative in order for me to vote for him/her. Period. I cannot and will not go along with any more of this spending ourselves into a third-tier country. Social issues I can deal with, but this continuous bullshit of creeping socialism and bail-outs must stop.

58

I just think few in the Tea Party really believe it.

Hey, Chip, as long as the mind-reading act is going so well, I'm thinking something about you right now; see if you can guess what it is!

Hint: it involves a body part.

59

Krakatoa-

My main point is that war is the natural enemy of limited government;

War always, always, enlarges the power and scope and cost of the central government.

Conservatives believe that the government should be decentralized, that governors and mayors, being closer to the people, should hold the most power; but governors and mayors do not fight wars, Presidents do.

So when we go to war, it is the President who grows more powerful, not Congres, not the governors, and least of all, the People. Libeerty is reduced during wartime, never expanded. Ever.

Wars are inherently insanely expensive; no nation has ever fought any war without deficit spending. And we have settled into a pattern of nearly endless war, whether Cold or hot. No one reading this can remember a time when we did not have either a Cold War to fight, or a shooting war.

Which means that we have accepted a slow and steady enlargement of the central government, and steady growth of the power and reach of the President.

60 I think I'm figuring out Reason60.

His problems aren't policy.

His beef is popularity. Tea-Partiers collect more signatures and get higher turnout in less than 12 months that Libertarians (as a political group) have managed in their entire existence.

61 Oh. So you are a strict isolationist then?

62 Hey reason take your "wiretap" shit and shove it up your ass.

63 Yeah, that year-long, nasty, dirty Clinton-Obama fight sure destroyed Dem chances at the White House in 2008.

64 I predict by 2010 the GOP will be flying the conservative flag high. We have some of the best community organizers on the planet. Isn't that what Obummer said was important, we took him up on it.

65

What's most interesting about the article was the two Democratic insiders had the sense not to give their names, but Huck goes on and ratifies their argument. Now they would say Rubio shouldn't challenge Crist even though he was dead wrong on the stimulus, because. . .it shouldn't be done.

66

I agree with the results of a primary but....they MUST be honest primaries. The last ones we had were not. (And neither were the Dems)

 

1. Close the GD primaries so that only registered Republicans can vote in them.

 

2. Arrange the order of the primaries by percentage of the State who voted Republican in the last election. Hardcore Blue States should not be rewarded by getting an huge say in who the Republican nominee is early in the process.

 

3. Eliminate winner take all. If the idea is to prevent an extended fight then after the first 3 states, eliminate the bottom 25% and so forth until you whittle it down to two candidates.

 

4. Totally eliminate “caucus” voting. These are a fraud

67 Posted by: Vic at November 05, 2009 02:23 PM (CDUiN)

2. Or at least make it a lottery situation. Draw names out of a damn hat for all I care, but we must stop giving disproportionate influence to the leftest of the Right.

68 Create GOP disarray.  Sounds like a good task for some eager beaver Organizing for America types.  Let the sabotage commence!

69 Good luck to the Nationalist Socialist Democratic Party with their Hope Strategy.

Ours should be Maximalist in primary, Pragmatic in the General ™

The general will be a kick-butt, take-names all-out-war to save America.  Even if its for Crist and Fiorina.

70

Krakatoa-

I think nation-building is foolish; I would withdraw our troops from Germany and Japan, and close as many of the 1,000 military bases we have around the world.

But even if you feel our military adventurism is necessary; even if you feel that building a civil government in Afghanistan is vitally important; at least accept the logical consequence that doing that takes money- trillions and trillions of dollars more than we take in in revenue.

So there is no way to do all that, and balance the budget, until the wars are over.

And the wars are expected to last about another decade, or so. So even if we have a President Palin in 2012 with a Tea Party Congress, we will have massive deficit spending until 2019.

71 Reason60,

Nation building may be foolish.  Isolationism is triply so.

72 I fully accept the cost Reason60, although I disagree that the cost thus far has had no tangible benefit (economic or otherwise) offsetting it.

My solution includes an agreed upon timeframe after clearing out a hostile government and overseeing new elections for "changing hearts & minds".

If that succeeds, great, and I'll chalk up our financial losses to saving lives.

If it fails, our fallback plan is complete withdrawal with ironclad assurances that future aggression will be met be carpetbombing until morale improves.

I'm all for helping those that will help themselves, and hurting those that would hurt me & mine. It is a simple calculus predicated on a firm belief that our Values objectively are better than theirs.

73

Some conservatives agreed. "The Democrats won not because they were brilliant but because Republicans were stupid," said presidential contender and ex-Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.

The Republicans were stupid. But you'd have to be overdosing on LSD to say that they were stupid in the sense of being too darn conservative, or of running too many conservative candidates.

(Not that Huckabee is saying that here.)

74 The republicans were stupid, lost their way, funny now how I wished we only had $500 billion deficits.

75 the Tea Party wants more and bigger wars, and war funding;

“Limited Government”- again, the ones who chant this most feverishly, are the same ones who cheer on the Unitary Executive theory

You know as much about the Tea Parties as you do about concept of the unitary executive. Find out what the hell you're talking about, and not from the Daily Kos this time.

76 Reason (The new assigned troll? You need to include "honest" and "non partisan" in your name somehow to get any credibility BTW)

I'm sure many of the Tea Party folkes like my self share some common beliefs. I know some of them do because I held signs with them talked with them and they agree. I know, I know, you have done the same and they are all stupid slack jawed contradictory apes, but we'll settle that my experience shows the following.

1. We got attacked, we had to address that, it costs money, temporarily. That's unfortunate but a legitimate purpose of government. We need to get the force we need, where we need it, to end this as quickly as possible so we can stop spending money on it. Some folks thought bombing Iran might be necessary in the future, I guess that you can call that advocating for more war which would cost more money, but I just think about how much nuclear detonations inside the US' largest cities are going to cost. So which camp are you? The "Mullahs would never bomb us if we just play nice and support their dominance of the region" type or the "We can convince them with home made cookies to stop perusing the most powerful weapons man can make" type?

2. Bush was not a fiscal conservative. Many of us were unhappy, told him so, but he insisted on being bipartisan and extending a hand across the aisle. But we all feel that Gore/Kerry would have made Bush program increases look small.

3. Cheney is not a libertarian, many of us did not like him and told him so. Many of us did not like parts of the Patriot Act and executive actions that infringed on the rights of the people. We said so, we even got media coverage back then (Conservatives turn against Bush makes a great headline) remember that low approval Bush had? That you flung in Republican's faces every two seconds? He got that because a lot of conservative/libertarian Republicans did not like parts of the Bush/Cheney administration.

4. Detention of terrorists. Hard subject, if the UN would get off it's chicken ass and make a decent international treaty that we could use as policy to replace the old sovereign law we might have something we could do, and a way we could resolve their status. But right now they fall into the "enemy of humanity" (hostis humani generis) category under the old international law which suggests their access to civil rights is very limited. This is not just "our" problem, it is the whole of the civilized world, who seem content just to criticize whatever decisions we make as either being reckless or cruel/unfair depending which side of the line we are on. Most people I have talked to are for the military tribunal with a more liberal set of evidence rules in place. And no one I talked to supported detaining Americans without trial indefinitely. NOT ONE.

So because we backed a squishy big government neo-con Bush, over frighteningly socialist alternatives should not give you the impression we aren't SERIOUS about theses things in our platform. It's just the only alternatives to "moderate" republicans, seem to be hard left democrats. A problem we are trying to rectify, and we just blew a race in NY to make that point! That we are tired of the Neo-con squish.

So what's your plan genius? stop all foreign opps, scale down military operations to pre WWII levels (What happened when we did that the first time, OH that's right WWII) and tax the bejesus out of every marginally successful wage and money earner in the country to support your entitlement society? What does a conservative budget look like? Yeah you always want us to say those magic words don't you troll? "Sure we need to cut. . ." pick your favorite entitlement so that those votes you bought with those programs will come flooding back. Entitlement budgets need to be cut, yes. We need to conclude our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and get defense spending back under control yes. However, we cannot do so ignoring real threats to the US. Unless you think we can benefit by some more uncontrolled building demolitions. A conservative budget is very simple.
You bring in
2.1 trillion.
You only spend 2.1 trillion or less and pay off the debt.
If you borrow money to conduct a temporary operation like a war,
you should be restructuring your entitlements and other services to pay it back when the need for funds subsides. But when my tax burden is on par with gross tax rates of feudal times you can't convince me that taxing more is the solution to our fiscal woes. It will just choke the economy and role back income taxes. Which get raised to compensate which chokes the economy more, and before you know it, it's the Carter admin again with 75% upper marginal rates, and still huge deficits.

77 Spending hundreds of billions, even trillions, on dead terrorists and rubble pays a dividend of international miscreants cowering in their caves and pissing their pants.

The scariest phrase on the planet should be "The Americans are coming...and they're pissed."

Cheap at twice the price.

78 The only "civil war" I see in the Republican Party is between the professional consultant class (i.e. Mark McKinnon, Steve Schmidt) and the rank-and-file.

These consultants seem to be trying to defend their hold on Republican "tier 1" campaign activities .. for the same reason that Woodward and Bernstein belittled every political scandal that came after Watergate .. so as not to diminish their position .. in this case, vis-à-vis the next campaign.

79 Keep fucking that schism, libs.

80 It could happen! The Paulites tried to take over our local party, disappeared after the caucus, and are now forming a separate conservative group. This is going on all over.
 
If they run Republican candidates, great.   But if they go 3rd, we're fooked.

81 There is no such animal as a pro-war fiscal conservative.

Sure there is.  They used to be called "imperialists" or "colonial occupiers" back when it was teh cool to plunder conquered lands and such and send fleets of gold and booty laden ships back to the motherland.

See, the USA fucked up somewhere along the line and never quite got the concept right -- when we put a beating on someone or plant the flag somewhere, the gold laden ships head in the wrong direction.

82

Krakatoa-

You believe the wars are justified and necessary, and are willing to accept deficits to pay for them. We agree to disagree, but you are being honest and forthright in accepting that they are expensive.

Mike-

Lets take your points one by one-

1. " We got attacked..." Ok, so you believe that we should continue the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistand, and widen it to include a war with Iran.

Like I said to Karkatoa, we can disagree on whether that is a wise strategy- but at least accpet it will cost much more than the near-Trillion we are spending now every year.

2. "Bush was not a conservative" On this we agree!

3. "Cheney is not a libertarian..." Again, we agree!

4. "Detention of terrorists..." Actually, I was not talking about terrorists detained overseas; I was talking about an American citizen who was arrested in Chicago, and held in prison for 6 years without a trial or even charges. This could easily be a "rightwing terrorist" next time. I don't believe advocates of limited government should embrace this.

 "A conservative budget is very simple.
You bring in
2.1 trillion.
You only spend 2.1 trillion or less and pay off the debt.
If you borrow money to conduct a temporary operation like a war,
you should be restructuring your entitlements and other services to pay it back when the need for funds subsides. "

OK, a good plan. But we currently owe something like 10 Trillion dollars; each year, even without Obama, we are adding about 1/2  Trillion to that.

So how to reconcile the difference?

If we don't want to cut defense spending; and don't want to increase taxes; then thre is no where else to cut except Medicare and Social Security.

But no one wants to openly say that; no one wants to say "we are going to cut off Granny's Social Security check and cancel her Medicare". And honestly? America will never elect someone who says that, not in the reddest of red states.

In my diary over at RedState I offered a few commonsense solutions based on shared sacrifice and compromise. These included raising the age of eligibility for SS and Medicare; reductions in foreign entanglements; closing of tax loopholes; and yes, a modest increase in tax rates. I am currently thinking of Bruce Bartlett's notion of a VAT, but haven't decided yet.

The point is, there ARE ways to achieve a balanced budget; but it involves painful choices, a recognition that government cannot do everything, everywhere, and we must pay in taxes for the services we get.

And THAT is the essense of conservatism.

83 And THAT is the essense of conservatism.

As defined by you. Raising taxes has no part of my Conservatism.

I'm glad you can agree to disagree, but I reject your claim that we spend a trillion a year on "wars". Seriously, where does that come from?

You ignore the concept of reducing taxes to spur economic growth, which has the neat effect of closing the gap between revenues and expenditures. Granted, maybe not perfectly, and maybe not tomorrow.

We're all on board with limiting expenditures. The extent of that can have a multiplier effect on revenue growth to close the deficit.

Limit spending, increase revenues, and let us work towards fiscal responsibility with a politically viable strategy.

Seriously, you could simply place a limit on the sum of all spending increases to be some point below quarterly growth, and you will, at some point, achieve a balanced budget.

But let's get off the false choice arguments you try to impose on everyone.

84

Don't be so sure the Dems aren't whistling past the graveyard here with a bit of projection to boot -- Lieberman in '06 was, imho, a bit of a trial balloon, and they didn't do too well with that, did they?  The Dems have their own "civil war" going on -- they want to purge the moderate ones from the party, or get them in line with the new party line, and they still want to win elections.  If the Republicans can fix their image (it wouldn'be be hard IF they are smart about it and serious about it) and manage to control the fissures within their party, the Dems won't be able to purge and still win (and if they don't purge, they are sitting on top of a leftist bubble -- those leftists will eventually break away and form their own party if the Dems don't cater to them).

If the Republicans don't stay on message (and it can be a big tent message IF they look at it the right way -- which is forget the special interest junk -- let the state's handle it as they see fit and let people have a bit more freedom to choose on their own what they want to do with themselves, get a core message of fiscal resposiblity, strong defense of the people, job creation, no more tax and spend irresponsiblity, and getting the government out of people's lives -- they would pick up votes with this; no more pandering, just a simple, straight message and don't try to pick up the core base of the Dems).

85

"I reject your claim that we spend a trillion a year on "wars". Seriously, where does that come from?"

It comes from here. Wallstats is a great website that has the entire federal budget laid out in graphic form. We spend 680 Billion on Defense and more besides on Homeland Security. Altogether our wars cost us about almost a Trillion per year, if you account for the future and continuing cost of veterans benefits and VA health care.

"You ignore the concept of reducing taxes to spur economic growth..."

Reducing taxes to raise revenue is a hotly debated issue; I am agreeing with Bruce Bartlett who was one of the original architects of supply side economics, who now believes there are no more revenue increase possible by any further cuts in taxes; he belives and I agree, that supply side may have worked in 1980, but our taxes are so low now, no more benefit will happen by cutting.

The notion that we must pay for what we get is pure Reagan logic; I think he even put it exactly those words, which is why I was such a strong believer in him. I worked eagerly on his campaign as a college student.

It is liberalism that likes the idea of getting services without paying for them. They were always advocating that if we pump money into the economy, the resulting rise in prosperity will bring in enough revenue to pay off the debt- sound familiar?

86 All this whistling is getting annoying.

87 Link directly to your numbers please. I'm not interested in searching that site.

But you seem to suggest that you are including the costs of maintaining our military readiness into the cost of prosecuting the war.

I do not.

There are plenty of taxes that can be cut that will spur economic growth (e.g., the Death tax, SS taxes, Sin taxes), and once Bush's cuts sunset next year, there will be plenty more. I prefer some sort of fair tax/flat tax that cuts most loopholes and renders the IRS overstaffed and ripe for cutting its staff & budget by at least half.

And there are plenty of other ways to promote economic growth and reduce spending that include neither taxing nor explicit changes in spending.

You dismiss a lot in proclaiming your way is the best and only way. I'm frankly not convinced enough by what you've posted here that you are actually interested in other viewpoints, nor am I convinced that you have a superior strategy towards fiscal responsibility.

Good luck convincing others, but I think our conversation is done.

88 Keep fucking that schism, libs.

I laughed out loud.

89 You can't much more RINO than McCain, and I put his sign on my lawn.  With his name still on it.

90 discount Discount Boots
Womens UGG
UGG Shoes
UGG Australia
UGG UK
UGG USA
discount ugg boots
cheap ugg boots
air force 1 shoes
Nike air force
air force 1 mens
air force 1 boots
air force onefree shipping

91 中古DVD

92 Come to our website for shopping with high quality and best service! There have new products,MBT M. Walk
and MBT Lami,Welcome everybody to buy it.

93 Need to know before buying Lace Wig Our lace wigs are made of human hairs classified lace human hair wigs on our web. 100% Indian/Chinese remy human hair and best quality Swiss/French lace are used in lace human hair wigs. Lace human hair wig is thin, your scalp can get good breath, so you can feel comfortable just like real hair. You may find hundreds of units and almost 150+ styles of lace front wigs in our store. By using our web searcher, you may locate just the cosplay wigs you want without bitter searches. Also, you may customise full lace wigs here, all you need to do is just to follow our custom options or leave your specials in the "comments". A custom wig can be completed within 25 workdays generally. Thanks for Paypal and our Co-work World Wide Ship corporations, we can ship wigs to all over the world! Show your beauty, show your individuality, experience our wonderful service and dress you up right now!

94 cheap ugg
buy ugg
ugg usa
ugg boots
ugg uk
ugg australia
ugg shoes
ugg sale
womens ugg boots
discount ugg boots
cheap ugg boots
ugg shoes sale
ugg boots sale
ugg sundance
ugg 5819
ugg 5815
ugg knightsbridge
ugg 5825
ugg rainier

95 Buy discount ugg shoes
cheap ugg shoes
cheap ugg
ugg rainier
buy ugg
ugg usa
discount ugg boots
ugg 5825
ugg shoes sale
ugg sundance
ugg shoes
cheap ugg boots
ugg 5815
ugg sale
ugg uk
ugg knightsbridge
womens ugg boots
ugg boots
ugg australia
ugg 5819free shipping

96 nike dunk sb

Do anything needed to support an idea, a good idea usually brings good results, doing

business is like that.http://www.dunksky.com/.This site has always been on

97 buy [url=http://www.reviewups.com/]discount ugg shoes[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]cheap ugg shoes[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]cheap ugg[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-coquette-casual-shoes-c-22]ugg rainier[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]buy ugg[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg usa[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]discount ugg boots[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-classic-short-c-1]ugg 5825[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg shoes sale[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-sundance-c-5]ugg sundance[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg shoes[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]cheap ugg boots[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-classic-tall-c-3]ugg 5815[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg sale[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg uk[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-knightsbridge-c-27]ugg knightsbridge[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]womens ugg boots[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg boots[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg australia[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-classic-cardy-c-2]ugg 5819[/url]from usa

98 nike sb high
nike dunk high
nike dunk low
nike dunk sb
air force one
nike air
air force nike
six rings shoes
Jordan Six Rings
air jordan six
NBA Shoes
Nike Kobe IV Shoes
Nike LeBron VI Shoes
supra shoes
supra skytop
discount puma shoes
puma sandal
prada shoes
prada men shoes
gucci shoes
women gucci shoes
discount gucci men
obanma shoes
lacoste shoes
ATO Matsumoto Shoes

99 If you are looking for buying a quality pair of warm sheepskin boots you really need to try the ugg classic tall boots. The quality of the it means that they will last 4 or 5 times as long as the cheaper copies and the level of comfort they provide to the wearer is much higher.So when it comes to you finding a pair of ugg boots that will match up to any outfit in your wardrobe then it is worth considering investing money in a pair of Ugg classic tall this

100 ugg classic cardy
ugg bailey button
ugg classic tall
ugg classic mini
ugg rainier
ugg 5819
ugg knightsbridge
ugg 5815
ugg 5825
ugg sundance
ugg ultra tall

101 UGG BOOTS