FederalRepublic.net

By Rich Lowry

The non-McCain primary has begun. There are two major slots in the battle for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination — one for Arizona maverick John McCain, the other for some other candidate. So the battle is on to be, as insiders put it, “the non-McCain,” the conservative who will try to stand athwart the sometimes unorthodox, party-defying McCain for the nomination.
   
McCain is assured top billing in the nomination race, and his challenge has little to do with other candidates — his imperative is to re-assure GOP regulars that they can trust him. But there will be clawing to get to the top of the non-McCain heap. Depending on how successful McCain’s reassurance campaign is, this fight could be for the inside track to the nomination. It is shaping up as a battle between Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Virginia Sen. George Allen.

Romney vs. Allen could well become a classic of intra-Republican conflict, featuring two equally formidable politicians jockeying to occupy nearly identical ideological ground. Romney is off to a strong start. He is a polished performer on TV, and people are noticing. He is good-looking, charming and articulate — so impressive that at times one has to wonder how he found himself tossed among all of us mere mortals.

The governorship of Massachusetts isn’t a natural launching pad for a Republican presidential run. But Romney has shrewdly leveraged his position there into an ongoing social-conservative credential. He has been in fights with liberals on every social issue imaginable — gay marriage, cloning, abstinence education, emergency contraception, gay adoption. At times, it’s almost been as if the conservative capital of America has been in that tiny slice of Boston occupied by Romney’s office.

Romney isn’t running for a second term this year, which frees him up for energetic presidential stumping and organizing, all for the cause of getting a leg up on Allen. The Virginia senator is as affable a politician as exists in America. The son and namesake of the famous football coach, Allen is such a perfect representative of football-obsessed, NASCAR-loving Red State America — down to the cowboy boots and the spit cup — that you couldn’t create a better specimen in the laboratory.

Allen’s natural political skills and his down-the-line conservatism have fueled the strongly favorable insider buzz about his candidacy. But Allen is running for re-election this year, limiting the organizing he can do in early primary states. If his Democratic challenger in Virginia is former Reagan Navy secretary and Iraq War critic James Webb, and if the situation in Iraq continues to deteriorate, Allen could find himself embroiled in a bruising, nationally watched referendum on the course of the war.

Allen’s circumstances are sticky in another way. A great populist wave is building against Washington, and he has been sitting in the Senate for six years, losing some of his edge. Romney is perfectly positioned to blast away at the bloated and out-of-touch Beltway, since he has never voted for any federal spending programs nor taken any congressional pork. After eight years of President Bush, there might be a thirst, even among Republicans, for a different cultural feel in a candidate, a sentiment that would help the smooth Romney.

But Allen has advantages of his own. For many primary voters, a conservative from Virginia will more naturally compute than one from Massachusetts. Although Allen doesn’t have flawless social-conservative credentials himself, he will be able to point to Romney’s stark recent conversion from pro-choice to pro-life. Perhaps most importantly, beneath Allen’s easygoing exterior is a fierce competitor who knows how to hit, and hit hard. Opponents beware.

Link

As a voter looking forward to hearing multiple views of conservativism in the Republican presidential primaries of 2008, I definately expect a brawl from Mitt Romney and George Allen. Allen, a self-described Jeffersonian Republican has demonstrated in his voting record and public statements he is a sound conservative, concerned with fiscal responsibility, a strong national defense, and promoting an ownership society.

I haven’t read that much about Mitt Romney, nor many of his political views, besides mainstream conservative values. However, the more I read about his character and political viewpoints, the more he grows on me. He even looks presidential. I have no doubt he’d make a great candidate - he’s a red state conservative governor in one of the bluest states in the nation. I think that shows enough at this point.

I look forward to the debate and look forward to the primaries. I do believe both these men are much more electable than Hillary Clinton or any other potential presidential nominee. The GOP will definately exhibit very interesting debates in the next few years.

The White House: President George W. Bush

These past three years have tested our resolve. We’ve seen hard days and setbacks. After the fall of Saddam Hussein, the terrorists made Iraq the central front in the war on terror, in an attempt to turn that country into a safe haven where they can plan more attacks against America. … More fighting and sacrifice will be required to achieve this victory, and for some, the temptation to retreat and abandon our commitments is strong. Yet there is no peace, there’s no honor, and there’s no security in retreat. So America will not abandon Iraq to the terrorists who want to attack us again. We will finish the mission. By defeating the terrorists in Iraq, we will bring greater security to our own country. And when victory is achieved, our troops will return home with the honor they have earned.

Link 

As we look back on the third year anniversary of Operation Iraqi Freedom, we have much to be proud of. Saddam Hussein has been captured and is currently on trial in Iraqi court, the Hussein sons have been killed, many terrorists from Al Queda and other terrorists groups have been routed, and freedom has been given to 25 million people.

In the spirit of freedom, we must remember the sacrifices millions of Americans have made in keeping America free. Freedom will always have enemies and if we are to be appeasing to those enemies, America will always be at risk. We must defeat those who hate us on their lands, before they kill us in our cities. May God be with our troops and our country.

By Jim Meyers

The expansion of benefit programs since 2000 has led to the greatest increase in social spending in American history – with entitlement programs now accounting for more than half of all federal spending.

A USA Today analysis released Tuesday of 25 major government programs – including health care, college aid and food stamps – revealed that enrollment surged an average of 17 percent from 2000 to 2005, while the nation’s population increased by only 5 percent.

It marked the largest five-year growth in enrollment since Medicare, Medicaid and other social programs were created during Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society” movement in the 1960s.

Spending on social programs was $1.3 trillion last year, an inflation-adjusted increase of 22 percent since 2000, according to the USA Today report.

Enrollment growth accounted for most of the spending increase:

-Medicaid added 18 million beneficiaries – a 50 percent increase since 2000 – and is now the nation’s largest entitlement program, costing the federal government $198 billion last year. Once a program for Americans on welfare, Medicaid has been expanded to include the working poor and now has an enrollment of 53.4 million.

-The number of Americans receiving food stamps rose 49.6 percent in the past five years and now stands at 25.7 million. Expanded eligibility led to much of the increase and helped put the 2005 tab at $33 billion.

-The number of college students receiving Pell grants increased 41 percent over five years, to 5.3 million. The program cost $13 billion in 2005.

-The five-year period also saw enrollment increases in child nutrition programs, unemployment compensation, veterans benefits and other programs.

The worse may be yet to come: The nation’s 79 million baby boomers will begin to qualify for Social Security in 2008, and for Medicare in 2011.

Link

Most of the time, I blame the liberal left for most of the problems in America. However, everyone in Congress and President Bush is certainly responsible for our growing deficit and our position when it comes to entitlement funding.

I blame every Congressman and Presidents Clinton and Bush for the outrageous welfare spending at the federal level. Not only do we have a massive deficit that the taxpayers will be unable to even get to a managed and/or comfortable level with for at least 30 years, we have so-called entitlement welfare programs that make up half the federal budget!

If Congressional Republicans would like to see our country on the road to conservative values and personal responsibility as we once were, they must end the entitlement mindset of this country, not only in the elderly who depend on Social Security and Medicare, but in the middle and lower class who shouldn’t even have these benefits in the first place.

Many people demand these programs of their respresentatives because of a mindset that government “owes me something” or always blaming someone else for their problems, instead of taking the responsibility to fix problems themselves. We must end that ”blame someone else first” mindset if we are ever to get the federal budget under control and end the coming United Welfare States of America.

From the Newsmax.com Wires

WASHINGTON - Democrats plan to push for more port security money while criticizing Republicans on the issue as the House debates a $91 billion measure for wars and hurricane recovery.

“If the Republicans are now deciding to get on board, then we welcome them, because for so long they have been on a sinking ship, basically saying that our ports are secure,” said Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, lead Democrat on the House Homeland Security Committee.

Republicans dismissed the criticism, arguing that they have increased port security money over the last few years beyond what the Bush administration has requested.

“What you saw was as much money as we could spend without just throwing money at the problem, hoping something good would happen,” said House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, suggesting that’s the Democrats’ approach.

In both the House and Senate, Democrats have long pushed for more money for ports only to have the Republican-controlled House reject their efforts, largely along party lines.

Link

Democrats are an interesting bunch. A party of no ideas or obstructionism at every turn, again the party manages to show the world why they haven’t been winning elections the past 12 years. In my opinion, the effort to boost money for more port security money is just a political ploy to throw more oxygen on a dying Dubai ports controversy.

The only Democrat I had even heard complaining about port security before the Dubai deal was none other than John Kerry, who has flip-flopped on every major defense issue not only during the 2004 election season, but right up to present day. That’s not saying much for the Democratic Party trying to be a party strong on defense.

I hear rhetoric everyday on television and the radio from Democrats complaining the Republican Congress has not put enough money toward this or that. However, you cannot just throw money at a problem and expect it to be corrected. We must look at the root cause of the problem or look at factors why the problem is occuring before we just throw money at it. It’s only common sense to look at problems in this way. I haven’t heard Democrats say anything to that affect; they only blame President Bush for not funding programs enough or not creating new ones.

I wonder why Democrats are even talking about raising funding for anything anyway. They want fund increases for all our country’s welfare programs, yet they continue to complain about the lack of balanced budgets and the rising deficit. Can Dems decide one way or the other? Yeah, didn’t think so.

By Chuck Colson

You may not know his name, but you have probably seen Jason McElwain in action. A recent videotape of his basketball exploits has touched an entire nation.

I pray that it does more than that.

McElwain, a senior at Greece Athena High School in upstate New York, is autistic. Like many autistic persons, he didn’t speak until he was five years old and has limited social skills. These didn’t stop him from serving as student manager of the basketball team.
In two years, Jason never missed a game, practice, or workout. Coach Jim Johnson and the players wanted to reward McElwain for his dedication by letting him play in at least one game.

With four minutes left in the last game of the season, Jason entered the game to deafening cheers. After missing his first two shots, Jason hit six three-pointers, including one that seemed to be launched from a different zip code, and wound up as the game’s high scorer with twenty points.

After the buzzer, the crowd rushed the floor, and his teammates carried Jason off on their shoulders. Coach Johnson called what happened “as touching as any moment I have ever had in sports.”

Sportswriter Mike Lupica called it “as perfect a sports moment [as] . . . any of us will ever know about.” The tape, which aired almost everywhere, made an autistic kid from upstate New York “the most famous basketball player anywhere.”

While watching the news reports, I felt great for Jason and his family. As the grandfather of an autistic child, it was wonderful to see a reminder that these wonderful kids can be helped and can exceed our expectations.

But, as a Christian, I was struck by a savage irony: At the same time that Americans were touched by one disabled child, countless disabled children in the West face annihilation.

For example, in the Netherlands, medical protocols allow for the killing of disabled infants. As Wesley Smith points out, “disabled” includes Down syndrome, hemophilia, and other conditions that don’t prevent people from living happy lives. All that matters is that the child’s death “serves the interests of their families.”

Here in the United States, children with Down syndrome have been systematically “targeted for elimination.” A combination of amniocentesis, abortion, and pressure from physicians has made bearing a child with Down syndrome an heroic act.

Given this track record, can anyone seriously doubt what will happen as more disabilities can be detected through genetic screening? The pressures to abort children with possible disabilities will be immense. Just last Sunday, the New York Times Magazine had a chilling story about doctors being sued for “wrongful birth” because they have failed to warn the mother of defects in time for her to get an abortion.

Link

I recall seeing this story on Fox News last week and one of my co-workers shared their thoughts we me: “The only reason they’re covering this story is that the kid is autistic.” I happen to agree with that very statement.

It’s always good to see some good news for once, as our televisions are filled with everything from sex to good old negative news stories bashing our president or the war in Iraq. This was good news, as the young man came off the bench to score 20 points. However, I feel sorry for others who may be succeeding in other ways.

I agree with Mr. Colson here in that, while we focus on one child and his overcoming of difficulty, what about the other children in his exact situation? Are we not to celebrate their ability to overcome difficulty? Are we to denounce or deny there are other children celebrating life who might not be alive today if it wasn’t for a miracle from God? How outrageous that our society will celebrate and embrace overcoming of tragedy, yet forget so many others who have also overcome. I mean, does anyone really care about the others? Definately something to think about.

By David Kirkpatrick

WASHINGTON, March 15 — Republicans, worried that their conservative base lacks motivation to turn out for the fall elections, have found a new rallying cry in the dreams of liberals about censuring or impeaching President Bush.

The proposal this week by Senator Russell D. Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, to censure Mr. Bush over his domestic eavesdropping program cheered the left. But it also dovetailed with conservatives’ plans to harness such attacks to their own ends.

With the Republican base demoralized by continued growth in government spending, undiminished violence in Iraq and intramural disputes over immigration, some conservative leaders had already begun rallying their supporters with speculation about a Democratic rebuke to the president even before Mr. Feingold made his proposal.

“Impeachment, coming your way if there are changes in who controls the House eight months from now,” Paul Weyrich, a veteran conservative organizer, declared last month in an e-mail newsletter.

The threat of impeachment, Mr. Weyrich suggested, was one of the only factors that could inspire the Republican Party’s demoralized base to go to the polls. With “impeachment on the horizon,” he wrote, “maybe, just maybe, conservatives would not stay at home after all.”

For weeks, Republicans have taken to conservative Web sites and talk radio shows to inveigh against the possibility, however remote, that Democrats could impeach Mr. Bush if they gained control of Congress. Mr. Feingold’s censure proposal fell far short of a demand for impeachment. Most Democrats in the Senate distanced themselves from it, concerned that they would be tagged by Republicans as soft on terrorism. But the censure proposal provided Republicans an opening.

“This is such a gift,” the conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh told listeners on his syndicated radio program on Monday, saying the Democrats were fulfilling his predictions. “They have to go back to this impeachment thing,” he said.

The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board, a conservative standard-bearer, echoed the thought. “We’d like to congratulate the Wisconsin Democrat on his candor,” its editors wrote Wednesday in a column headlined “The Impeachment Agenda.” The Republican National Committee sent the editorial out to its e-mail list of 15 million supporters.

Brian Jones, a Republican spokesman, said the e-mail messages generated a higher response than anything the party had sent in several months, including bulletins about the Supreme Court confirmations.

“Clearly on our side it is something that is energizing our base a little bit,” Mr. Jones said.

Link

Republican voters didn’t come out in 1996 when Bob Dole was running for president. Although I think he was a subpar candidate for president, I simply believe he didn’t win because the Republican Party base didn’t have the passion to come out and vote. In 2004, Republican voters came out in droves and allowed George Bush to win by 3 million votes.

Why would the Republicans do that in 2004 and not in 1996? For one, voters demonstrated safety was their number one priority, and Bush has chosen time and time again to keep America safe. Second, there was a passion for conservative values and ideals that the liberal left could not match. If Republicans get their base out to vote in the 2006 elections, there will be no stopping the Republican Party. However, if the party does not take advantage of opportunities to unite, like Senator Feingold has so gladly given, expect to see federal spending and tax rates go up as Democrats take control of Congress.

By Ben Shapiro

Last week, Gov. Mike Rounds of South Dakota signed legislation prohibiting abortion in the state except in cases where the mother’s life is in danger. The bill passed in the South Dakota Senate, 23-12. It passed in the South Dakota House of Representatives with flying colors, 50-18. Members of both political parties voted for the bill; the bill’s chief sponsor was Sen. Julie Bartling, a Democrat.
 
Naturally, Planned Parenthood has pledged its opposition to the law. Sarah Stoesz, CEO of Planned Parenthood in Minnesota, South Dakota and North Dakota, states that Planned Parenthood will gauge public feeling about the bill before choosing whether to litigate. “We haven’t decided yet. We’re trying to sort out our strategy,” she explained.

For Planned Parenthood, this should be an easy decision: Either the law is unconstitutional, or it is not. If the law is unconstitutional, filing a lawsuit is the only systemically correct decision — after all, the judiciary is supposedly the proper protector of individual rights. If the law is fully constitutional, it is disreputable to consider litigation as an alternative to the political process — filing a lawsuit to overturn fully constitutional public decision-making you don’t like is antithetical to our system of governance.

But this is what the American left has become: For the left, democratic processes are valid only when they win. If the left loses in the political process, they sue. The people are no longer integral to the process; politics is a heads-I-win-tails-I-sue scenario. When respect for the American people means so little that republicanism itself becomes secondary to certain political end-goals, our system of government is in serious trouble.
 
Yet if the past few years of politics teaches us anything, it is that for the political left, end-goals trump American democratic processes every time. “Democracy isn’t democracy,” the left argues, “unless we win.” That has been the message of the Democratic left since the 2000 election. How often have we seen the slogan “NOT MY PRESIDENT” plastered across a picture of George W. Bush? How often have we seen radical leftists declare that Republicans routinely steal elections? How often have we seen MoveOn.org members compare President Bush to Adolf Hitler? How often have we heard prominent Democrats like John Kerry describe the Bush administration as a “regime”?

Republicanism cannot survive such all-out assault. The principle of majoritarianism requires that communal decisions be respected, even as minorities try to persuade majorities to change their policies. Constitutional laws created through a legitimate political process are not binding only for those who vote for those laws. When leftists refuse to accept that President Bush is their president regardless of whether they voted for John Kerry, they undermine American republicanism.

Link

Another well written article about the obstructionism and unpatriotic actions of the American left. It is common knowledge in conservative circles that the left continue their assault on the American voter, denouncing them every chance they have. For example, you didn’t hear Al Gore saying democracy prevailed in the 2000 presidential election, when the clear winner was George W. Bush. You didn’t hear John Kerry or the liberal left saying democracy prevailed when Ohio gave George W. Bush 25 electoral votes and a second term as president.

I’ve heard so many times about how the Democratic Party wants to revamp their message. You would think the Democratic Party would clue into the fact that Americans don’t want socialism! They don’t want a party weak on defense running the defense of this country. People don’t want a party who had admitted to wanting to get rid of the tax cuts of 2003. Get a clue Dems! Americans don’t like your policies of socialism and obstruction!

By Rebecca Hagelin

Thanks to the outrageous, profligate spending habits of our elected officials, every taxpayer reading this is in serious trouble.

As Heritage Foundation budget expert Brian Riedl notes in a recent Web Memo, lawmakers are spending at such a frantic clip that if they don’t stop the madness, within a decade taxes will have to increase by nearly $7,000 per household just to balance the budget. And that’s on top of the $18,000 per family Congress is already collecting.

According to Riedl, the current spree has expanded government by 45 percent since 2001, and it shows no sign of slowing down. You and I must live within our means, but Washington politicians act as if they have absolutely no responsibility to do something as basic as paying their own way — to make sure they don’t spend more than they have, confident that somebody else will foot the bill when the party ends.

But help may be on the way — if, that is, lawmakers have the guts to get serious about changing their ways. A new budget proposal by the Republican Study Committee offers such a blueprint. Titled “Contract With America: Renewed,” it outlines the tough choices necessary to get spending under control and thus avert the crippling tax increases we would otherwise face. The RSC proposal would, for example:
 
• Balance the budget by fiscal year 2011.

• Reduce the net deficit by $392 billion.

• Promote tax policy designed to encourage economic growth.

• Eliminate all pork projects from the recent highway bill. The money, earmarked for numerous long-term projects, hasn’t been spent yet and still could be rescinded.

• Return the gas tax and the federal highway program to the states. As Heritage Foundation President Ed Feulner writes in his new book, “Getting America Right,” it made sense for the federal government to build roads in 1956, when the lack of a country-wide highway system compromised interstate commerce and national defense. But it doesn’t make sense today. As Feulner writes, “Absent a clear and present national danger, are highways really Washington’s business?”

• Pare back education spending, which has soared 137 percent since 2001.

• Eliminate dozens of programs such as the Advanced Technology Program, a “notorious bit of corporate welfare,” Riedl notes.

In addition, the RSC budget includes important budget-process reforms that would change the bias toward spending that taints Washington budget-making. One such reform is a line-item veto to help shrink the federal budget. A serious proposal for a line-item veto emerged last week. Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., is sponsoring the Legislative Line Item Veto Act, which, he says, would allow the president to eliminate wasteful spending and special-interest tax breaks from specific bills.

Lawmakers are never going to stop spending beyond their means (or, I should say, our means) as long as they’re able to stuff every spending bill with tons of pet projects and other boondoggles. As Feulner says in “Getting America Right,” just as it’s irresponsible to spend what you don’t have, it’s irresponsible to waste what you do have. As stewards of the people’s money, members of Congress have a duty to ensure that every penny is used as wisely and carefully as if it were their own personal funds.

Link

As I’ve written before, legislatures need to be wise with the people’s money. In this case, Congress must be wise with the people’s money. I recall a phrase I first heard on the movie “Spiderman” that said “With great power, comes great responsibility.” Now, I know I should’ve heard that somewhere other than a movie, but that is not the point. Congress has the most powerful responsibility in my view, granted by the Constitution - the power of the purse. With the power of the purse, comes a great responsibility to use it wisely. The wise thing to do in this country would be to, in addition to cutting taxes, cutting the budget and social entitlement programs.

The reality is, this country in it’s present course, cannot live within its means. Though we all have credit cards for emergency spending (Congress has the deficit), even emergency spending does not allow us a blank check. There are economic consequences to being in a deficit, including trade imbalances, loss of foreign investment, rising fiscal costs, and many others. It is important that Congress and the president through his veto power condemn massive pork barrel spending and appropriations with unclear need. Though it is Congress’ responsibility to “lay and collect taxes…to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,” it is also the Congress’ duty to be responsible with the people’s money. This is something the Congress just refuses to do, even under Republican Party control.

By Paul Greenburg

It shouldn’t have come as a surprise when the U.S. Supreme Court came down firmly on the government’s side in Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights (FAIR) - not after the justices had given short shrift to the other side during the oral arguments. That was the side of some of the country’s most prestigious, ivy-covered law schools.

The result of this difference of legal opinion was summed up masterfully by the headline over The Wall Street Journal’s editorial on the subject: “Army 8, Yale 0.”

(What about the ninth member of the court? The court’s newest member, The Hon. Samuel Alito, got to the game too late to participate in the court’s deliberations.)    
    
The scrimmage line had formed some years back when Congress passed the Solomon Amendment cutting off federal funds for universities that refused to let the military recruit at their law schools. The law schools demurred, claiming any such penalty was unconstitutional. Their theory of the case, not to put too fine a point on it, was that the universities should be able to go on receiving U.S. dollars even if their law schools barred the U.S. military from their hallowed precincts. That’s not just creative thinking, it’s real nerve.

But the Supremes weren’t impressed. At least not in a good way. By the time he was through handing down the court’s unanimous opinion, its still new chief justice - John Roberts - had found more holes in the law schools’ case than in the Houston Texans’ line.

And he’d opened up one or two of his own: Not only could Congress put conditions on its federal aid, he wrote on behalf of the court, but it could require that universities give the military access to their campuses whether they received federal aid or not.

Because, as the chief justice noted, “The Constitution grants Congress the power ‘to provide for the common Defence,’ ‘(t)o raise and support Armies,’ and ‘(t)o provide and maintain a Navy.’” Yep, there’s still nothing like reading the Constitution to determine what it means.

In their own defense, as opposed to the country’s, the law schools could offer only a tortured reading of the First Amendment: Allowing military recruitment on campus, they argued, would violate their freedom of expression. Since it would imply that the schools were endorsing the military’s policies, specifically the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell rule that puts a special burden on homosexuals in the military.

The law schools aren’t happy about that rule and, truth to tell, I’m not crazy about it, either. But I’m not about to boycott the armed forces of the United States on account of that policy. Because I owe them too much. Like loyalty and gratitude and respect. And a decent welcome when they drop by to make their case. Don’t all Americans owe the military that much, even those who teach law?

Link

I was pleasantly surprised when I heard about the Supreme Court’s decision. Pleasantly surprised because, for once, the justices came together in a common sense manner to promote a unanimous majority decision. The Ivy League schools mentioned in this case not only had no case, but they promoted an environment of discrimination and unconstitutionality.

It’s only common sense that while schools may not agree with government policy, they are free to give up federal funds to uphold their disagreeing point of view. As Congress has the power of the purse and is expected to uphold their constitutional responsibility of raising armies and providing for the common defense, the schools have no choice to comply with Congress’ mandate.

By David Limbaugh

Yes, Republicans are experiencing great difficulties right now, but the good news — politically speaking — is that Democrats are in even worse shape. While they can feast on their anti-Bush cuisine between elections, they’re eventually going to have to come up with a menu of their own.

Today, they not only have no menu; they don’t even have recipes for basic dishes. Their problem is not that they have too many cooks in the kitchen, but none. All of their chefs are in the Republicans’ kitchen, and they don’t know how to return to their own.

Their negativity alone is not going to get them back into the White House or majority status in Congress. Eventually — by all rights, it already ought to be too late — they’re going to have to come up with an agenda.

But so far they can’t be bothered. They’re busy — doing the people’s work in slandering President Bush and nobly ferreting out the “culture of corruption.” Their self-appointed function is to undo, rather than do.

Democrats promised to produce their legislative agenda by November 2005, to give voters a full year before the 2006 elections to absorb their proposals. One wonders what they were doing the rest of 2005, or since 2001, for that matter.

But one need not wonder. The answer is that they excused themselves from developing an agenda because Bush-bashing was a far safer, easier and more satisfying pastime. One can only imagine the irresistible temptations they face to delay the unveiling of their sure-to-be earth-shattering blueprint. Once they do, they won’t be able to focus the nation’s attention as sharply on the evils and incompetence of President Bush. The release of their plan, in fact, will be an annoying distraction. But worse, it will require them to stand behind and defend something of their own.

As it turned out, November 2005 came and went. Dem honchos decided it was too early to release the plan. Too early? Too early for what? Surely not too early for a nation they have been telling us is in dire trouble. No, too early to allow them to best capitalize on the plan’s publication.

Not to worry. They said they would have the plan ready by January. Once again, the party with all the answers failed again to give us any of them. They have since scheduled and missed two more “deadlines,” but House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi assures us the document will be ready in “a matter of weeks.”

Just so there is no confusion here, the “plan” concerns their proposed legislative agenda. They can’t even get their act together on domestic issues. But they’re in even more chaos when it comes to ideas about the War on Terror, especially Iraq.

What do they suggest we do? Withdraw outright? No, that’s just the Murtha/Clooney brigade. The Biden faction wants us to withdraw soon, but only if the political conditions in the country don’t improve. That’s bold of you, Joe.

What does John Kerry want? Who could ever know? The poor man didn’t even tell us during the entirety of his laborious presidential campaign. Not long ago, he and his fellow geniuses were demanding more troops, then quickly reverting back to their withdrawal demands.

Link

The Democrats are today defer much from the Democrats of the mid-20th century. FDR was not afraid to use overwhelming force to protect our interests in Europe during WWII. JFK was not ashamed to promote and help to enact tax cuts to grow the economy. Today’s Democrats have continued to promote an environment of obstructionism, and even call for the immediate withdrawl of U.S. troops.

One must think, what would have WWII looks like had Democrats like these been in office then? Would the United Stated even had joined the allied powers to defeat the corruption and despotism of Adoph Hitler? The Democratic left not only shows they’re weak on the defense of this nation, offering up solutions of appeasement, but can’t even find a unified message on anything, let alone a worldwide war on terror.

Democrats continue to promote an attitude of defiance and appeasement, offering up obstructionist tactics on everything from tax cuts, to medicare, to bashing President Bush at every turn. The recent proposed censure of President Bush by Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold confirms the state of the Democratic Party, a party of no ideas and no urge to protect their constituents.