From Ron.
For those of you who believe that I'm a diehard Republican and an unabashed Bush supporter, I have stated many times that the last election was a one issue election for me and that issue was the War On Terror. Bush would fight it. Kerry would not.
I think that at the meeting with Vincente Fox this past week, Bush should have told that asshole that he was pissed at his obstruction in the UN during the run up to the Iraq War. Furthermore, he should have kicked him in the nuts and told him to fuck off and he supported private citizens patrolling the border.
I think Bush is wrong on immigration. I think he and the Republicans are wrong on education and agriculture. Those are two departments that should be eliminated.
I think the Republican Congress has spent too much money and I think Bush should start using the veto pen.
I especially think every piece of pork going to West Virginia, the home state of Robert Kleagle Byrd,("$11,612,000 for projects in his state, including $4.4 million for GIS Center of Excellence at West Virginia University, $3.6 million for the Appalachian Fruit Laboratory in Kearneysville and $150,000 for turfgrass research in Beaver" - Cal Thomas). should be cut out of the budget. Remember those numbers the next time Senator Kleagle starts ranting about out of control spending.
The Republicans are bad but the Dimocrats are worse. We really need a viable third party in this country.
Posted by denny at March 26, 2005 10:35 AMThe depts of education and agriclutter should be revamped to a new mission: Making sure congress has at least a few facts (for education) and keeping up the lawns and gardens in Washington for ag.
I'm not against immigration, I just think everyone who comes here should be screened, border jumpers should be shipped back via truck, and before you become a citizen you must be proficient in the American language.
You oughta just LOVE the JCWP Roger has up on C & S.
http://www.terpsboy.com/
Posted by: babalu on March 26, 2005 02:40 PMAmen. I think we should start the Independant Republican Party. No Democrats allowed, and neuter all Libertarians. They're half way there already, anyway.
If the Repubs saw hordes of Repub voters jumping ship to the new party, maybe they'd sober up a bit. I voted for Bush, too, and he spits in my face nearly every day.
Posted by: Bane on March 26, 2005 04:34 PMYup, mah range boss done tore down the fences.
Texas AC
Posted by: AC O'Brein on March 26, 2005 06:15 PMI think the Republican party is making a big mistake bringing religon into the government. I think the separation of church and state is a good thing and what good did putting your hand on a bible in court do if the guy was Jewish or other than Christian. I thought the Republican party historically was conservative (or against government intervention running their lives) and Democrates were in favor of government intervention taking care of our safety. Now, it seems republicans are taking their faith to work like Ashcroft.
Posted by: Kevin on March 26, 2005 11:30 PMThis is a bit acerbic, but sometimes such a tone is needed.
Kevin drops by to show acute and nearly paralyzing historical and Constitutional ignorance. I also like the invoked but non-existent "separation of Church and State". Bravo.
I suggest actually reading, oh, the opening of the Declaration of Independence, and almost every inaugural speech to give an idea of how much you do not know about the role of Christianity in the government.
Some examples:
Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station, it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes, and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success the functions allotted to his charge. In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good, I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own, nor those of my fellow-citizens at large less than either. No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency; and in the important revolution just accomplished in the system of their united government the tranquil deliberations and voluntary consent of so many distinct communities from which the event has resulted can not be compared with the means by which most governments have been established without some return of pious gratitude, along with an humble anticipation of the future blessings which the past seem to presage. These reflections, arising out of the present crisis, have forced themselves too strongly on my mind to be suppressed. You will join with me, I trust, in thinking that there are none under the influence of which the proceedings of a new and free government can more auspiciously commence. - 1st inaugural address, George WashingtonI have attended church sermons with less religiousity.
In these my confidence will under every difficulty be best placed, next to that which we have all been encouraged to feel in the guardianship and guidance of that Almighty Being whose power regulates the destiny of nations, whose blessings have been so conspicuously dispensed to this rising Republic, and to whom we are bound to address our devout gratitude for the past, as well as our fervent supplications and best hopes for the future. - James Madison
And a firm reliance on the goodness of that Power whose providence mercifully protected our national infancy, and has since upheld our liberties in various vicissitudes, encourages me to offer up my ardent supplications that He will continue to make our beloved country the object of His divine care and gracious benediction. - 1st address of Andrew Jackson
Looking for the guidance of that Divine Hand by which the destinies of nations and individuals are shaped, I call upon you, Senators, Representatives, judges, fellow-citizens, here and everywhere, to unite with me in an earnest effort to secure to our country the blessings, not only of material prosperity, but of justice, peace, and union... - Rutherford B. Hayes
In this dedication of a Nation we humbly ask the blessing of God. May He protect each and every one of us. May He guide me in the days to come. - 1st address of FDR
Here before me is the Bible used in the inauguration of our first President, in 1789, and I have just taken the oath of office on the Bible my mother gave me a few years ago, opened to a timeless admonition from the ancient prophet Micah: 3
"He hath showed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God." (Micah 6:8) - Jimmy Carter, quoting directly from the Bible
"Bringing religion into the government" That is like saying that Goodyear is bringing rubber into the tire industry or Intel the transistor into the microprocessor industry. It is sine qua non that one be with the other. It has been thus with the US government, whether you like it or not.
I also note the obvious point that Denny did not mention religion in any way ("Republican Immigration Policy" is the topic), so I assume you decided this would be your soapbox to (ignorantly) attack Christians.
Posted by: addison on March 27, 2005 01:14 AMThere probably will never be a viable third party, at least as long as this country is great and strong (anyone who doesn't agree that the US is both great and strong is a blithering idiot and can be safely ignored on all subjects). The only real effect a third party has had in modern history is to make a degenerate slob President.
Why won't there be a viable third party? Short of some political earthquake, it won't happen because the two established parties have the infrastructure and the activists who know how to organize. Who would the activists be in a new third party? Anyone ever check out a Reform Party conclave? The best analogy is the bar scene from the first Star Wars. Those idiots couldn't have organized a one man circle jerk.
All that being said, the potential exists for that political earthquake. Immigration is the sleeping giant issue that could undo the two party system. If a charismatic leader who isn't insane (like Perot) or a self-promoting huckster (like Ventura) emerges, enough voters from both parties could be siphoned off to elect a third party President. Could this be translated into a viable, on-going policial movement? Who knows.
More likely, a single issue (third party attempts are always single issue) immigration reform party would force the Republicans to actually face the issue and deal with it. The Democrats wouldn't be able to deal with it, because their long-term strategy is to continue importing their unskilled and illiterate future voting majority. If current trends continue, Texas will be a Democrat state in about 10 years.
So here's the dilemma. Immigration reform is probably as important long-term to the survival of the US (as a great and good country) as is the war against Islamic fascism. So do you cause political upheaval near-term to deal with immigration, at the cost of at least temporarily emasculating the Republicans? Is the new third party going to single-mindedly pursue and kill the Islamic fascist bastards? Will the Democrats? These questions answer themselves.
It will probably take a third-party movement to force the Republicans to tackle immigration: When, and at what cost?
Posted by: Cap'n Ron on March 27, 2005 10:01 AM
Kevin, the whole religion thing is just a distraction. It is the hand they wave to keep you from seeing which shell the pea is under.
Cap'n, you are dead on, especially with the 'what if' motif. All I am suggesting is that Conservatives just take one step to the right (no Time Warp jokes) and take one last shot at doing this sea change thing correctly, through voting. Otherwise things could get all Jeffersonian real quick, and we could be watering the Tree of Liberty by the bucket-full.
If Conservatives simply used their existing system, but rebelled, and promised their votes to someone other than The Anointed One (in droves) it would, I believe (yes, that's faith) make a difference.
I could vote for a Tancredo/Hayworth ticket.
Posted by: Bane on March 27, 2005 12:03 PMBill Quick at at Daily Pundit had a long thread on this issue.
My ideal party would be one that is to the right of Dubya, but to the left of Delay. I would incorporate many of the Libertarian ideals, among them the abolishment of the ridiculous war on drugs. This party would appoint judges who were strict constitutionalists. Every spending bill that is passed would have to cite the area of the Constitution that supports it. Naming the entire state of West Virginia after Senator Kleagle is not in the Constitution. Giving money to the Rock 'n' Roll Hall of Fame is not in the Constitution.
Posted by: denny on March 27, 2005 07:34 PMAddison,
Although the subject of the message was immigration there were a few sub-topics presented that together suggest room for improvement in the Republican party. I don't agree with you but as you quickly resort to name-calling I have no desire to debate anything further with you.
My apologies for posting an off-topic message.
Posted by: Kevin on March 28, 2005 01:51 AMKev, dearie, that high-pitched yipping is hurting my ears. Sorry you got kicked in the butt, so.
Well, maybe not. You invoke the 'separation of church and state' thing, perhaps the most infamous straw man, ever, except for it's Evil Twin, the 'Right To Privacy' demon, and you must expect the 'Hobnailed Boot of Correction' to be applied, perhaps all the way up to the deliverer's kneecap.
Now, go shake it off, and reconsider. Or not.
Posted by: Bane on March 28, 2005 02:27 AMTwo parties, three, a hundred. Doesn't make a difference. Our political system wasn't created to support parties - indeed political parties were frowned upon. Regardless, we ended up with a two-party system and we're stuck with it. The only way to mitigate party powers is to redo the way we handle government. Really, I believe some form of parliamentary system would work best. Hypothetical parliament simplified: The vote could still be for individuals, but at the party level. If the Greens get 5% of the vote, 5% of the House seats go to Green candidates. If the Republicans get 46% of the vote and the Democrats get 46% of the vote, they have no choice but to work with the Greens to gain control. Hence the "coalition" governments of successful countries like the UK and Germany. You want to get rid of crapulous government, get rid of the two-party system. Time for an Amendment?
Posted by: Wes on March 30, 2005 03:43 PMProportional parlimentary systems like Europeans have tend to give the extremists (paleocons, watermelon-greens, etc) more power than they actually deserve because of coalition-building.
Posted by: Dave on March 31, 2005 12:17 PM