Strengthening Constitutional Self-Government

No Left Turns

The Facts on the Ground

The polls this morning look terrible for the Republicans. If the election were tomorrow, they’d lose both Houses of Congress with room to spare. Two perceptions are crowding out all the others:
1. The Republicans covered up what they knew about the predator Foley to keep power.
2. We’re not making progress--in fact, we’re losing ground--in Iraq and not facing up to that fact. The MSM is reinforcing both security concerns relentlessly. The election is not tomorrow. What can be done to make, for example, the "Security Moms" that Joe discusses below once again connect their children’s safety at home and in the world with voting Republican? And we have to be thinking both of short-term electoral strategy and long-term policy.

Discussions - 17 Comments

" The polls this morning look terrible for the Republicans."

Where did you get this?! Do you have any links for this? It might not be as bad as the all the noise from the MSM. I’m skeptical...

Fifteen point spread in generic congressional voting, Bush’s approval at 33%, Democrats have actual leads in enough seats to take the Senate. I’m not saying it won’t get better. But the first step to recovery is to admit you’ve got a really big problem.

It’s not a disaster to have opposing parties in charge of the executive branch and the legislative branch. You could that the founding fathers intended it be this way. You could argue that it saved the country during the last presidency. Perhaps we’ll even get habeus corpus back!

Why can’t the election be tomorrow??

Enough with the "Founding Fathers" crap. Every last one of them would be absolutely disgusted by the Democratic party. They wouldn’t want them in charge of Congress no matter what.

Would they understand the GOP’s failings? Of course. But unlike some of the confused people on these threads, they would "get it."

Cue pathetic liberal moan: Perhaps we’ll even get habeus (sic) corpus back!


This is as good a time as any for driving a stake through the heart of the canard that Bush has done away with habeas (note spelling) corpus. Habeas corpus means someone locked up by the government has a means for questioning the legitimacy of their detention, by forcing the government to reveal the evidence against them and to give them notice of a formal charge. It seems to this writer that the government has a prima facie case against the Guantanamo detainees (they are after all classified as enemy combatants/irregulars): they made war against the US. That’s all the "evidence" the government needs to hold them for the duration of the hostilities. Just like it did for every Wehrmacht soldier held as a POW in the States during WWII. These guys couldn’t march to the nearest federal courthouse and file a writ either.


Persumably, the comment above means the Dems., if elected, will "restore" habeas corpus. If what they call "restoring habeas corpus" means that we have to (a) either let the bad guys go or (b) put them on trial following rules of evidence and procedures not compatible with capture on the battlefield, which has the same practical effect as (a). This from folks who try to make the laughable argument that somehow America will be "safer" under their expert leadership.

If people are stupid enough to vote for democrats at this time of world crisis then they deserve the disasters that will befall them.

"If people are stupid enough to vote for democrats at this time of world crisis then they deserve the disasters that will befall them."

Well put, Pete. When you’re confronted by world crises, it is best to back the leaders who got you where you are. Pure genius.

Well, the people threw the GOP out of office back in 1974/76, and look what befell the country. Even if we take the "big bath" (as Bob Dole put it), it’ll be like pruning for renewed growth. We might even get a real conservative in the White House as a result (e.g., Ronald Reagan).

When you’re confronted by world crises, it is best to back the leaders who got you where you are.

So we should support Osama bin Laden?

"Enough with the "Founding Fathers" crap."

It seems this is the attitude of the whole adminstration, given the race to gut right to privacy, separation of church and state, and those other things that distinguished us from tyrannies.

"This from folks who try to make the laughable argument that somehow America will be "safer" under their expert leadership. "

America WAS safer under our leadership. So was the world. Even if you argue that 9/11 was Clinton’s fault, Bush had 9 months to prevent it. Can’t you see he dropped the ball? Can’t you see he dropped the ball on North Korea too?

Moser, do you not get sarcasm?

Don’t worry, Phil, I got it.

Oh, phew!!

Wait, that was that "sarcasm" thing again, right?

Leave a Comment

* denotes a required field
 

No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://nlt.ashbrook.org/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/9116