That's not stupid, it's rational.

"Trillions of dollars are now under direct government control. It's not wise to put that money under one-party control. It's just too tempting. You need a second set of eyes on that cash. You need oversight and accountability. Otherwise, you're going to wake up two years from now and find out that a Democratic president, a Democratic Senate and a Democratic House have been funneling a ton of that money to their friends and allies. It'll be a big scandal -- but it will be too late. The money will be gone. Divided government is the best precaution you can have."

You mean basically what happened to the US from 2000-2006, right? You know, the GOP-led government that bankrupted the country, gave no-bid contracts to all their friends, and paved the way for the current economic disaster?

But it was okay then, I suppose.

yeah. Good luck with that.

"You need a second set of eyes on that cash. You need oversight and accountability."

Wow. This from the party that did everything it could for the last eight years to eliminate oversight and accountability. The hypocrisy is strong with this one.

Not a bad idea from the GOP perspective actually. Anybody can see the writing on the wall about now.

I've been hoping for Gridlock '08 for years. Preferably a Republican legislature with a Democrat president, like we had for a while under Clinton.

I'm seriously considering voting for McCain in the slight hope that the Democrats don't take everything. I don't trust them to do much better than the Republicans did.

The GOP needs a timeout for a few years to regroup. A nice little cleansing/beating, and get back down to their core of small government, rational spending with a tax rate that will be fair to all and get away from social issues (that will work itself out eventually).

parkedr: I've been hoping for Gridlock '08 for years. Preferably a Republican legislature with a Democrat president, like we had for a while under Clinton.

I'm seriously considering voting for McCain in the slight hope that the Democrats don't take everything. I don't trust them to do much better than the Republicans did.

How about, instead, you just vote for the people you agree with. I had morons tell me in 2000 that they were voting for Bush in case the Democrats took Congress. How did that work out? Vote for the guy you agree with. Congressional seats are up every two years. Presidential elections are every four.

Also, gridlock doesn't work when one party believes Jesus rode dinosaurs, then buried them all in Alaska so we could burn oil until the rapture. No sane person should vote for Republicans until they get rid of the anti-intellectual fundies.

John Paul Jones: You mean basically what happened to the US from 2000-2006, right? You know, the GOP-led government that bankrupted the country, gave no-bid contracts to all their friends, and paved the way for the current economic disaster?

But it was okay then, I suppose.

My boss was telling me on Friday that the economic mess is Nancy Pelosi's fault since she has been Speaker of the House for the last six years. Well, he also blamed Obama, Frank and Dodd because of the Democrat controlled Congress we've had since Bush has been President. Then he but, but Clintoned the argument. I lost some of my respect for the guy.

I'd go back to the Republican party, but they need to completely tear themselves down and start again. They need to shovel the zealots and religious nutjobs out, or at least make them realize they are what hurt them. I would love to have a second viable party, or even a strong third.

It would be nice if both parties had to share power, then we could see what kind of uniter Obama can really be. But he is going to have a rubber stamp for his policies for at least 2 years, more than enough time to cement their power for a generation.

YES. DO THIS.

/anything to increase Democratic gains.

inebriated brain: But he is going to have a rubber stamp for his policies for at least 2 years, more than enough time to cement their power for a generation.

Because the Republicans really cemented their power for a generation from 2000-2006... Permanent Republican majority, am I right?

Oh and the republicans don't need to tell part of their voting base to go take a hike. What they need to do is govern like conservatives. They blew this with expanding entitlements, spending like drunken sailors, and laws that were clearly unconstitutional. All of which I lay at the feet of GWB.

cousin-merle: Because the Republicans really cemented their power for a generation from 2000-2006... Permanent Republican majority, am I right?

If they had governed like the conservatives they claimed to be, then yes, they would have the overwhelming support of the nation. But they did not. They tried to buy votes with Medicare part B. Doubled federal spending. Buy hispanic votes with amnesty.

So in short, from '00 to '06, they blew it. and here we are, about to elect the most far left candidate in american history.

inebriated brain: and here we are, about to elect the most far left candidate in american history.

What's sad is that you believe that.

cousin-merle: What's sad is that you believe that

what's sad is you don't see it. He supports wealth redistribution, not taxing to fund government, but taxing for fairness. Supports government sponsored health care. That's just two issues. Votes with party 97% of the time, when he does actually vote. So there is no telling what other beliefs he is hiding. I guess we'll just have to see.

inebriated brain: So there is no telling what other beliefs he is hiding.

parkedr: I'm seriously considering voting for McCain in the slight hope that the Democrats don't take everything. I don't trust them to do much better than the Republicans did.

Thing is, I'd rather just write the money off than give in to the creepy Republican social agenda. It's the supreme court nominations that worry me most with Republicans.

ArbitraryConstant: parkedr: I'm seriously considering voting for McCain in the slight hope that the Democrats don't take everything. I don't trust them to do much better than the Republicans did.

Thing is, I'd rather just write the money off than give in to the creepy Republican social agenda. It's the supreme court nominations that worry me most with Republicans.

Amen. I like the idea of divided government, myself, but no way do I want a fkn Republican choosing the next 2...3...4 SCOTUS Justices.

Yeah, a heavily Dem Senate would probably prevent any (obvious) wingnuts, but the trade off is "President McCain" and "Vice President Palin."

Fk that shiat all to hell.

hey way to go! don't speak a word of issues, just tell me I'm just paranoid. You may trust him, but I do not. And with good reason, first of which he is a politician.

I don't really see what there is to salvage. Dems aren't going to take over the house or senate, they'll just maintain majorities- which is totally unavoidable to begin with.

Frum should be worried about the growing divide between the Evangelical Palinites and conservatives that actually have brains (Noonan, Brooks, Buckley, Fukuyama). Bush started this war on intellectualism and Palin will take it to nukular proportions. If she runs in 2012 you can kiss republicanism as we know it goodbye.

From the party of the Permanent Majority hubris?

Someone give that moran a cookie and a corner to go sit in.

inebriated brain: hey way to go! don't speak a word of issues

Practice what you preach, I see.

OK, so basically the GOP/Republican party is pulling a "Do as I say, not as I do" move.

If there are more people who react to this the same way I do, they'll be getting a nice "up yours" in reply.

No, I'm not happy with a one party government, but I haven't been happy with a two party government either. I'd really like to see both parties splinter into smaller groups to make them compromise more.

/voting for Obama to keep McCain out of the White House

FarKnight: If she runs in 2012 you can kiss republicanism as we know it goodbye.

I would look to see Bobby Jindhal being one of her competitors in that 2012 primary race, so I wouldn't send republicans down the river just yet.

Coming Soon: 1994 II: Electric Boogaloo

McCain has maybe a 1 in 10 chance of winning the presidency.
The Republicans have NO chance of gaaning ground in the House.
The Republicans have NO chance of gaining ground in the Senate, but a strong chance at avoiding FAILibustilarity^TM.

The GOP will be back big time in 2010.
The international corporations who own the American media love the republican platform of borrow and spend combined with massive tax breaks for the wealthy.

The GOP needs to just start from scratch the way the Dems had to after they lost both Congress and the White House to the GOP. They need to figure out what exactly they stand for and believe in, whether they want to appeal to independents or to right wing extremists, and maybe then they will have a shot at recovering some congressional seats in 2016. I figure once the economy recovers enough people will believe they are rich enough to afford GOP policies.

A little too late guys. You had eight years of unaccountability and the party is over.

cousin-merle: John Paul Jones: You mean basically what happened to the US from 2000-2006, right? You know, the GOP-led government that bankrupted the country, gave no-bid contracts to all their friends, and paved the way for the current economic disaster?

But it was okay then, I suppose.

My boss was telling me on Friday that the economic mess is Nancy Pelosi's fault since she has been Speaker of the House for the last six years. Well, he also blamed Obama, Frank and Dodd because of the Democrat controlled Congress we've had since Bush has been President. Then he but, but Clintoned the argument. I lost some of my respect for the guy.

Uh, you might want to show him the mid-term elections of 2006, which was when the Republicans lost their majority in the House and Senate. Pelosi didn't become Speaker of the House until January of 2007.

cousin-merle: inebriated brain: and here we are, about to elect the most far left candidate in american history.

What's sad is that you believe that.

What's sad is that he's apparently never heard of Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Second, the political culture of the Democratic Party has changed over the past decade. There's a fierce new anger among many liberal Democrats, a more militant style and an angry intolerance of dissent and criticism.

So...they've become more Republican?

That's smart.

Can't copmletely pull out of the prez race, though. Have to save face. But it's a really smart move to allocate resources to the senate and house races.

RminusQ: The Republicans have NO chance of gaining ground in the Senate, but a strong chance at avoiding FAILibustilarityTM.

Citizens Against Hard To Pronounce Words would like a word with you.

An easy, short word with you.

Frum, while making a shockingly atypical fact-based realization about the GOP's chances, simultaneously holds strongly onto the wharrgarbl here.

Second, the political culture of the Democratic Party has changed over the past decade. There's a fierce new anger among many liberal Democrats, a more militant style and an angry intolerance of dissent and criticism. This is the culture of the left-wing blogosphere and MSNBC's evening line-up -- and soon, it will be the culture of important political institutions in Washington.

Um. Mote, beam, etc.

Unchecked, this angry new wing of the Democratic Party will seek to stifle opposition by changing the rules of the political game. Some will want to silence conservative talk radio by tightening regulation of the airwaves via the misleadingly named "fairness doctrine"; others may seek to police the activities of right-leaning think tanks by a stricter interpretation of what is tax-deductible and what is not.

Besides the obvious projection of GOP tendencies here, he's playing a game of "We must stop them NOW because of what they might possibly do in the future!". And no one is talking about "silencing" right wing radio except, well, right wing radio.

Gotta say, though, after the last eight years of the GOP clamoring to devolve more and more power upon the Executive, it is really hard for me to shed a tear for them when they suddenly come to the realization they are faced with all that power in the hands of a Democrat.

Cyborg77: The GOP needs to just start from scratch the way the Dems had to after they lost both Congress and the White House to the GOP. They need to figure out what exactly they stand for and believe in, whether they want to appeal to independents or to right wing extremists, and maybe then they will have a shot at recovering some congressional seats in 2016. I figure once the economy recovers enough people will believe they are rich enough to afford GOP policies.


I sadly disagree.

It took fluke timing of a major economic crisis to move the polls this cycle and even now I don't see this election as a done deal.

By 2010 the media will have 'explained' to the American people how Clinton caused the crisis with the CRA and how Obama is at fault for making it worse.

As long as the religiously intolerant are the largest monolithic voting block and the national media is owned by organizations with wider interests that benefit from borrow and spend the game is the GOPs to lose.

inebriated brain: cousin-merle: Because the Republicans really cemented their power for a generation from 2000-2006... Permanent Republican majority, am I right?

If they had governed like the conservatives they claimed to be, then yes, they would have the overwhelming support of the nation. But they did not. They tried to buy votes with Medicare part B. Doubled federal spending. Buy hispanic votes with amnesty.

So in short, from '00 to '06, they blew it. and here we are, about to elect the most far left candidate in american history.

Do you honestly believe that? It's so patently false.

There's something to be said for having one party control the presidency and the other controlling congress, to keep each other in check. I'll agree with that.

But why didn't the GOP say anything about this when they were poised to win control of both congress and the presidency in 2000, 2002, and 2004?

PirateFreedom: Cyborg77: The GOP needs to just start from scratch the way the Dems had to after they lost both Congress and the White House to the GOP. They need to figure out what exactly they stand for and believe in, whether they want to appeal to independents or to right wing extremists, and maybe then they will have a shot at recovering some congressional seats in 2016. I figure once the economy recovers enough people will believe they are rich enough to afford GOP policies.


I sadly disagree.

It took fluke timing of a major economic crisis to move the polls this cycle and even now I don't see this election as a done deal.

By 2010 the media will have 'explained' to the American people how Clinton caused the crisis with the CRA and how Obama is at fault for making it worse.

As long as the religiously intolerant are the largest monolithic voting block and the national media is owned by organizations with wider interests that benefit from borrow and spend the game is the GOPs to lose.

In the future, "Idiocracy" will be considered a period piece.

cousin-merle:
Also, gridlock doesn't work when one party believes Jesus rode dinosaurs, then buried them all in Alaska so we could burn oil until the rapture.

Curse you for making me look up what Creationists say about dinosaurs! Now my head hurts :(

inebriated brain: cousin-merle: What's sad is that you believe that

what's sad is you don't see it. He supports wealth redistribution, not taxing to fund government, but taxing for fairness. Supports government sponsored health care. That's just two issues. Votes with party 97% of the time, when he does actually vote. So there is no telling what other beliefs he is hiding. I guess we'll just have to see.

Voting with your party 97% of the time means nothing. The democratic party says "we support voting yes/no on such and such bill" about 40% of the time that vote is identical to the votes of the Republican party as the bill if fluff or its obvious.
Another large percent of the time while the Rs and Ds might disagree on a bill its often something that isn't far left or far right just a simple disagreement. I'd say less than 10% of all bills in front on congress are "far left" policies. Analysis Obama's voting record on those actual bills and get back with me.

cousin-merle: I lost some of my respect for the guy.

you could just about fill the grand canyon with the amount of respect i've lost for people over the last 10 months...

my heart nearly broke when my mom uttered the words "I like what he stands for, but I don't think I can vote for a muslim"

CynicalLA:

In the future, "Idiocracy" will be considered a period piece.

I fully expect the next member of the Palin clan to be named 'Mountain Dew' ;)

This country needs radical change. Gridlock or "going halfway" isn't gonna cut it.

Oh God, the iiiiirrrrrrooooonnnnnnyyyyyyyy. I just...I just can't take it.

Frum is talking damage control in the most poignant way possible.

The GOP/Republican label has been poisoned by the party itself, by the administration, by Congress, and by McCain's Campaign. I'm not talking gaffes or any unintentional misspeaking. People in the middle shrug that off easily enough. It's the decisions and actions that have been intentional. It cost the GOP their hold on Congress two years ago, and it's not over yet.

The more intellectual and intelligent conservatives are worried, and rightly so. The GOP could be totally marginalized at the Federal level. Take that in for a minute. Meaning the Democrats would have little reason to give the time of day to any Republican in the House or Senate. They become unnecessary for day-to-day functions of the Federal Government.


newmoonpuppyhead: Do you honestly believe that? It's so patently false.

So you're saying they didn't really have 6 years in control, and didn't pretty well blow that time and go snooker-loopy on all of their core beliefs? Sure as hell looks that way.

PirateFreedom: I fully expect the next member of the Palin clan to be named 'Mountain Dew' ;)

Its got electrolytes, they're what Palins crave