Bill, I just LOVE you! You always manage to say the right words at the right time... Are you SURE you weren't one of the great Generals in a past life? ;-)

I'm glad you got the PJM and NRO gigs; it's delightful to have you writing so regularly again. After all, I need really good material to print and pass around to my friends!

Best blessings, and keep up the AWESOME work!

-- Kat

Very nice. I always liked Sheridan.

Damn I hate losing. But you know what I hate even more?
Losing TWICE.

Let's roll.

Awaiting marching orders, SIR!

To quote Lieutenant General Lewis Burwell "Chesty" Puller:

"We're Surrounded... That Simplifies Our Problems"

From that war came a great song of liberation. Ironically, this performance is done by four residents of Texas, a state that fought on the Rebel side in that war.

They do it a cappella. I'll fill in the drum part
barump. barump. barum-bum-bump.
barump. barump. barum-bum-bump.
...

We fight to make men free. There is no nobler cause.

Lincoln, speaking before the Civil War but clearly anticipating it, pointed out that this nation of ours must necessarily either endure forever or die by suicide.

The same is true of the modern conservative movement. We may win and lose electoral battles, as the shifting winds of public opinion and our transitory failures of will dictate, but we can only be permanently defeated if we decide to surrender.

Ready to roll . . .

Mr. Whittle, once again you find the best words for the occasion. To arms, indeed. There's much work to be done, but then lucky for us, hard work has never been a deterrent.

Well the rebels took their coffee, cause enough to go back for sure.

Lead on MacDuff....we got your back..

Da! You tell 'em, Bill!

We have not yet begun to fight!

- Tanka

Let's Roll!

Thanks, Bill.

As ususal, you see below the superficial and convey insights that are not only profound, but meaningful.

I have tears in my eyes now, and hope in my heart.

As the popular Marilyn vos Savant quote goes: Being defeated is often a temporary condition. Giving up is what makes it permanent.

As the Rangers who Lead the Way say: Hoo-ah!

We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in The Heartland,
we shall fight on the the rivers and the Great Lakes,
we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our uniquely American Way Of Life, whatever the cost may be,
we shall fight on the beaches,
we shall fight in the cities,
we shall fight in the fields and in the streets,
we shall fight in the hills;
we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Movement or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Friends beyond the seas, armed with the memory of America's greatness, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the the inherent sense of American Conservatism, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of of Our Great Land.

There is much to do.

Let's get to it, else - Then Who Will?

- MuscleDaddy

Sorry, this isn't nearly good enough.
(No offense, Mr. BW - I'm reading your book now, and I think you're tops :-).)
Ladiez and Gents:
I'm not a registered republican. However, I have always voted Republican - not because the candidate was necessarily so good (guys like Ron Reagan are a once a century thing), but after a rational, factual analysis, I've always come to the conclusion that the Democratic opponent has ALWAYS been the worse choice.

And I'll tell ya:
The Democratic party has been in the wrong on most issues - especially economic and military - for 40 years. What they've become after Clinton has been despicable - a venal, "It's all about me and whatever makes me happy and feeling good about myself" message, and an apparatus of over the top demagoguery, insidious propaganda, vicious polemic and treasonous LIES that would make Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Stalin, Beria and Goebbels weep with envy. Combined with a vindictive academia, a national media that is dominated by like-minded individuals, publicity from Hollywierd and even the backing of some very wealthy people (either from genuine misguided conviction or, I frankly suspect, seeking an opportunity to make gobs of cash), the current Democratic machine looks like a goliath that I fear could actually destroy this nation.
Of course, it didn't have to be this way. Ron Reagan completely dominated the media - hell, they LOVED him. But none of his successors bothered to learn how to properly deal with them. And, of course, over the last 8years the Republican party became FILTHY AND CORRUPT. How many republican holders of high office have been taking bribes, getting kickbacks on driving thru legislation or awarding contracts, or ranting about the evils of homosexuality while getting caught in gay affairs or molesting little boys????
At the same time, the GOP grew the federal debt by SIX TRILLION DOLLARS! S I X T R I L L I O N ! ! ! ! And I don't absolve the GOP during the Clinton years, either - after all, Congress was Republican for the last 6 years of Clinton, and the total federal debt grew from about $2T to $3.6T during that period. Republicans could have stopped that anytime - but they DIDN'T.
Call it exactly what it is, folks: the GOP has BETRAYED America.
Like I said - I've never voted Dhimmicrat, and I don't see that changing. But the GOP needs to earn my trust and respect back, and they have their work cut out for them.
A reqts list for the GOP:
1. Take the media back, you IDIOTS. Every single member of the party needs to get media training from the BEST in the business. The party needs to hire folks right out of Hollywood to help build promotional and advertising capability. Call on the small portion of the media that is still professional or even sympathetic: the NY Post, Washington Times, American Standard, National Review, Fox News, etc....and then start cultivating relationships with the rest of the MSM - if you hire the right folks out of Hollywood and the advertising biz, they'll show you how - and institute a regular program of briefing them and writing editorial pieces. Do this in an ORGANIZED and SUSTAINED way.
2. PURGE THE PARTY. Get rid of the CORRUPTION AND FILTH. And once the party is cleansed, KEEP IT CLEAN. Everyone who wants to hold higher office needs to first go thru an excruciating background check. They then need to sign a contract with the GOP with a Morals and Ethics clause. High level party members must constantly be monitored for compliance. Any violation of the clause results in EXPULSION from the party - and be bastards about it. The stakes are too high not to do so. There needs to be a permanent Legal team as well, who not only runs the monitor program, but builds cases against party members who stray and is the FIRST to alert authorities to potential criminal activity.
CLEAN THIS PIGSTY OUT. NOW.
3. Where's the money going to come for all of this?
Simple.
Everyone who wants to join the party needs to pay an annual fee. For simple members, it should be low. For office holders, it should scale based upon the 'height' of the office, with Senators and Congressmen contributing at least half of their government salaries at the top of the scale. Also: at the regional, state and local level, there should be a constant effort - not just during election periods - to reach out to people and to hold events both for fundraising and attracting recruits. MAKE A BUSINESS OUT OF THIS. The Dhimmicrats spent something like $1B on their prez bid. You need to be able to play at this level.
4. I didn't include this in #1 because it deserves its own discussion:
LEARN TO USE THE WEB, YOU MORONS.
Websites should be extremely attractive. They should show up on all sorts of searches right at the top of the search list. There needs to be a concerted effort to REACH people thru the web, and communicate with people to get support and elicit their opinions, feedback and criticisms.
5. HAVE A PLATFORM WORTHY OF THE NATION.
- ZERO deficit spending, no matter WHAT. Sole exception would be a world war.
- WORLD'S GREATEST MILITARY.And TAKE CARE OF THE VETERANS, DAMMIT!
- LOW AND COMPLETELY FAIR TAXATION. Maybe an across the board 15% rate or somethign like that.
- Keep govt SMALL. If various industries need guidance or control of any sort, there's other ways to do it besides legislate. As an example (and a bit of a wierd one, though unconventional thinking needs to be encouraged by the party rather than be mocked or avoided): Part of the massive health costs the nation suffers is due to a populace that eats poorly and doesn't exercise enough. OK - how about pulling together a private conference of the major packaged goods and/or fast food companies, and telling them they'd better come up with some detailed and effective plans to improve america's nutrition or the govt WILL legislate and regulate, and make sure they understand how unpleasant that might be. The companies involved will find a way to accomodate the goal and still make gobs of money - they'll be highly motivated to do so.
Do the same with the drug companies. And the insurance companies. And the HMO's and PPO's. And the AMA. And the Auto industry.
- a party of culture of COMPLETE HONESTY and NO SPIN.
- STAY OUT OF THE SOCIAL ISSUES. I don't give a damn about the christian right, though I am catholic myself. Premarital sex, abortion, gay marriage - MIND YOUR OWN FUCKING BUSINESS. If such activities don't jive with the sensibilities of the Christian Right members of the party, TOO BAD. They can form their own party. The fact is that 90% of Americans want to make up their OWN minds about that stuff, and they have a RIGHT to do so. Getting a political party involved with issues that tend to reflect on religious beliefs destroys the party's credibility, and creeps up enough on the issue of separating church and state to simply result in such issues becoming CHAINS on the party's ability to appeal to American voters.

There's other things that can be done, I'm sure - reaching out to universities, various ethnic groups and so forth. But the above is a start.

Get to work, GOP. Right now you're on my s*** list, and if you actually love your country, you will heed my words.

StudSupreme,

Not a bad start, with the exception of the social issues issue. But that's a fight for another day.

Now get off the sidelines. Saying "You Republicans need to..." is is the same passive "I'm waiting for someone else to solve all my problems" attitude that makes liberalism so ghastly.

Pick up a weapon and come on board for the big win, adding your sweat to your suggestions, or you can take your s*** list back where it got s***y in the first place...

Bill, this is a little tangential although it does place in the spotlight the real values that conservatism aspires to. Knowing you're an aviation nut like myself, I wonder if you're aware of this project:
http://www.grayeagles.org/video.htm

I can't watch this video without being choked up by my admiration for the members of the greatest generation. And the decency of this warrior's family. With great young folk like this, America has a future as bright as its past, flirtations with demagogues and failed socialist memes notwithstanding.

Thank you, sir. We will recover, and we will win this. I am strangely more optimistic today than I was on Monday - because I have seen conservatives coming together to repair the damage and prepare for the next round. Let us find a way to solidify our party's hold on the principles that have made our nation great. I have seen enough of the world to know that it will not last forever. The people will once again become complacent, and we will have to pass through this again. But the better we do our work now, the longer it will be before decay sets in, and the further we will go before it does. Human dynamism cannot stop entropy, but we can keep pushing it back until Kingdom Come. I've begun my work online and in the flesh, and I won't stop. Keep up the good work, sir. We're with you. Oyster out.

Oh, Mr. Whittle:

My heart goes pitty-pat for you! Can't help it, since hot, conservative manly hunks are so few and far between. ;-}

I keep checking your blog and a few others like it to see if it was a bad dream and Doctor Who came by to make everything right again. (Somebody call Captain Jack Harkness at Torchwood!) I woke up on the 5th feeling like I was married to a guy I met in a bar the night before. I was never IN a bar, so you get the idea. On the 6th, with the help of a gent from work who was very surprised to find out that I wasn't an Obama worshipper, I exercised my 2nd amendment rights and the right to run up my credit card bill. After not speaking for well over a year, we're now "buds" again.

Please keep writing. We need encouragement. I'm one scared feline. I just want to hide under the bed, even though I know we can't.

Tyger

StudSupreme,
Your post is inconsistent.
First you say this: How about pulling together a private conference of the major packaged goods and/or fast food companies, and telling them they'd better come up with some detailed and effective plans to improve america's nutrition or the govt WILL legislate and regulate, and make sure they understand how unpleasant that might be...

Then later this: STAY OUT OF THE SOCIAL ISSUES. I don't give a damn about the christian right, though I am catholic myself. Premarital sex, abortion, gay marriage - MIND YOUR OWN FUCKING BUSINESS.

I believe you have fascist tendencies and should heed your own advice.

Abortion is about protecting life, period.

My children will not fall to the slavery of National Socialism ... they will not wear the uniform of the Youth Corps. They will live free, so help me God.

Proteus.....

knock, knock!
who's there?
Reality check with a cluebat.

1. In 2020 caucasian becomes a minority.
2. According to Ruffini, the youth vote gave Obama 73 electoral votes, and voted for Obama more than 2:1.
3. Obama gained most in college-educated brackets, but beat McCain in every bracket except the 65 and older.

Proteus.....

knock, knock!
who's there?
Reality check with a cluebat.

1. In 2020 caucasian becomes a minority.
2. According to Ruffini, the youth vote gave Obama 73 electoral votes, and voted for Obama more than 2:1.
3. Obama gained most in college-educated brackets, but beat McCain in every bracket except the 65 and older.

jinnderella,

How about the idea that ALL men have a right to be free, to pursue their own happiness, to own themselves and the results of their efforts, and to be left alone by his government?

How about the idea that NO man has the right to violate the rights of others no matter what?

How about the idea that both of these ideas apply to each regardless of the color of his skin, national origin, fundamental beliefs, age, sex, or ability?

OR:

Does the fact that one is over 65, Caucasian, of European extraction, AND a member of a minority imply that one's rights no longer exist nor need to be recognized?

Remember, if you believe and act upon the idea that rights don't exist and need not be respected, YOU have no rights that must be respected either. Anyone can do to you whatever they want for whatever reason they happen to have just as you would do to them.

Remember, we who are over 65 created the world you live in and we can take take it back. Sixty five is the new 45 and many of us are quite capable of doing it.

It is not we who need a reality check.

There is much to do. That a man with such overt Marxist ideas and such a history of association with virulent anti-Americans can be elected President should make it crystal clear to each of us just how far we have let fall the moral tone of this Republic. The great lesson from Ronald Reagan was simply that we can and must gently educate as well as campaign, and explain our ideas with smiles on our faces and real joy in our hearts, for unlike the far-left radical who gained the Presidency on Tuesday, we start with 150 million of the most free and intelligent and hard-working people in the history of the Earth at our backs, with a philosophy that -- unlike theirs, which has resulted in 100 million dead in unmarked graves -- has liberated and enriched more people and created more joy than any nation or combination of nations in our history.

Positively brilliant piece, Bill. And to the above quote, I give an Amen. Amen and amen.

Understand this, the leftists (I have a peculiar tic in my personality, I won't call them liberal or progressive...terms of theirs intending to defuse extremist worldviews.

The first order of business is to comprehend that language means something and allowing battles to be framed entirely by the opposing worldview, is hand-carrying your ammunition and depositing it in their camp.

In other words using their terms and phrases to fight against their ideas, is to start with one foot in retreat, while yelling "charge".

To make the point, Joe Lieberman is a traditional liberal, Bernie Sanders is a Socialist and William Ayers is a communist.

(I don't know what the hell a "progressive" is, but from what I can tell it's either a redistributive taxation amounting to theft of property or a laxative that speeds up the emptying of the leftist mind)

The other thing I never, ever do...is call the entrenched media "mainstream". If that is our main stream, I don't want to drink from it. It is vile, toxic and polluted.

The second order of business, is to pick battles like a general, not like a crazed kamikaze. Al Qaeda nutcases didn't invent the flying of airplanes and blowing themselves up. Japanese pilots and American leftists perfected the art of self-destruction long before.

At least the Japanese pilots had skill and courage.

The "tear down the system from within" crowd of Marxist wannabe's ran their planes into academia, hollywood, and the entrenched media where what remains is soaked in treason and the rubble of strangled dissent.

The triad of treason, (academia, entrenched media, hollywood), chokes off dissent, they sit in camp, eating your rations, reading your private mail, and rubbing your honor in the dirt.

But, it's been too easy for them. They have been playing checkers and you have been learning chess.

Pick the battles, Frame the issues. Take the moral high ground and do not surrender it.

Fight from a position of honor, decency, integrity and with a smile on your face, charm in your voice and compassion in your heart.

Own the language you choose, don't rent it from them.

Frame the issues, don't charge wildly into every skirmish...it's a waste of energy and you lose credibility.

Opposition, for opposition's sake is a trap for the unwary.

Don't disgrace the high ground by emulating their base behaviors.

Oppose ideas, not people...and certainly not personas or images. Don't fight with ghosts or holograms.

You can't defeat things that don't exist.

When you take ground, keep it. When you gain traction, press forward. Don't take the same ground over and over again...stuck on a battleground that has no forward movement.

And when you are right...never, ever, ever...give up.

Jinnderella, does your train of thought have a caboose? If you have a point, get near it. [yawn]

- Tanka (already a minority twice over in my home state)

Note to Lionel Griffith: you too are my kinda guy.

What are we waiting for? STAND AND FIGHT!!!

Tyger

So let’s see it took all of two days to go from:
As for our side... We have tried, and failed. Tomorrow we will try again. And then we will begin, with a confident and joyous heart, to examine how we have failed the American people in regard to making clear the moral and philosophical underpinnings of our philosophy…So again, to Senator Obama, Senator Biden, and all their families and supporters -- please accept my deepest congratulations on a spectacular victory
To:
a candidate shielded by a media so overtly that it can never be such a shield again, who appeared after eight years of a historically unpopular President, in the midst of two undefended wars and at the time of the worst financial crisis since the Depression and whose praises were sung by every movie, television and musical icon without pause or challenge for 20 months
You say that you have been magnanimous and gracious in defeat. No signs of defeatism. Then in the next paragraph you list all the reasons and conspiracies that “allowed” Obama to win. What is gracious about blaming the media (again) or all the other things you listed?

You are not looking inward to change why the entire country (with the exception of a southern strip that is shrinking) shifted towards the blue spectrum. You revert back to the attacks of Marxist, socialist etc. There is no internal review of why this candidate received a higher percentage of the popular vote (as well as the most votes ever, which isnt't as statistically relevant as the percentage) AND more Electoral College votes than any president in the last 20 years. You try to place yourself as a historian but then diminish this election by minimizing the “53%” and not even mentioning the (minimum pending Missouri) of 350 electoral college votes he received. 350 by almost all measures of elections past has been the break point of a landslide and 53% in a presidential election while not landslide proportions is still a large victory. To put it in perspective the Reagan Revolution was ushered in with just over 50% (one of which was my first vote ever) of the popular vote but a huge landslide in the electoral college.

To tie your opinions here with the example you used, Sheridan would have sent a congratulations messenger to the Confederacy complimenting them on their military expertise then sulked into his tent and called the rebs all kinds of names. Complained about the weather, the rough terrain they had to fight and sworn they had to have had spies in his army to do so well. Talk about all that was good about conservatism. Less government intervention, effective management, the intellectual high ground and its love of both the hard and soft sciences. Also you may want to try to use a different war for your analogies. You spent 6 or 7 years trying to compare one of our greatest presidents (Lincoln) to one who will leave with the lowest popularity ever. I have noticed that you have gone into the “He who wont be named” mode with our current president for the last year or so.

Tyger,

Agreed. Its way past time to get clear on our purpose and to become active achieving it. We have been in retreat for longer than I have been alive (71 years). Its time to say "Enough! Cease and Desist!" and make it clear we mean to enforce it.

Remember: Those who are free never surrender. Those who surrender were never free.

"It is a tribute to his skills that Mr. Obama, the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate, won in a country that remains center-right. Most pre-election polls and the wiggly exits indicate America remains ideologically stable, with 34% of voters saying they are conservative -- unchanged from 2004. Moderates went to 44% from 45% of the electorate, while liberals went to 22% from 21%."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122593304225103509.html

First thing you do...is own the language.

Second thing, own the facts and the truth, don't let anyone tell you something that is complete BS and simply by repeating over and over, give it traction.

Third, don't argue against a lie. Produce the truth and battle from the moral high ground

Fourth, don't fight sewer rats in the sewer. Don't wrestle alligators in the water. Your advantage is on firm ground.

Fifth, look for allies and take them where you find them. Moderates (independents) are the largest group by far in America, if you win them, it's a rout. You can't outflank an opponent if your middle is a gaping hole.

Alliances are not a sign of weakness or conceding.

Lastly, don't feed the imbeciles or try to fill empty vessels. Facts are facts, truth is truth. It can't be moved by the rantings of a madman.

..should make it crystal clear to each of us just how far we have let fall the moral tone..

I am hoping that your moral tone has just been totally outdated.

Greg in NZ,

Thank you for that.

- MuscleDaddy

You appear to be historically challenged, mako. Lincoln was excoriated by the opposition in terms much worse than the current leftists have used for GWB. The comparison is apt, actually.

As to the role of the media in shaping the populace and guaranteeing the election of an outright Marxist, if you deny that then we literally aren't talking the same language. You are so far gone in your unreality as to not recognize what's plain to everyone else.

This election just past was a clear demonstration of two basic truths. First, there is a leftist "elite" in this country which controls vast sums of money and has great cultural influence through its takeover of the media and academia. It is ruthless and admits of no legal or moral limitations on its acquisition and retention of power and control.

Second, moderate Republicans ("RINOs") had complete control of this past campaign from the candidate to the positions to the messages put out. They have shown that their brand of "moderate" statism doesn't sell. People saw both candidates as variations on a theme. The only possibility for the Republicans to win is for them to offer an alternative to Democrat statism, not just a slightly whimpier version of it.

mako,

I would rather stand alone on the side of reality than have the fantasy adulation of slightly over half the voting public. The reality is that the vote, whatever its tally, is totally and completely irrelevant with respect to what is, can be, and should be. Your opinion on the matter is even less relevant to what we can, should, and will do.

Join with us or not. Its your choice. However, your sniping from the sidelines will eventually be ignored and overrun.

I've thought for some time now that we conservatives are the new "Jews" in today's progressive society.

Like Judaism, espousing the conservative philosophy means taking responsibility for your own acts. It's not so easy to follow, which is why we're always in the minority.

And I don't think we'll ever be in the majority, because human nature likes to run riot and it's always easier to go downhill ("go with the flow") than it is to "scale the icy peaks of discipline."

Now we are stereotyped, villified, accused of ungodly acts, used as scapegoats, and dehumanized. Now thugs come into our places of congregation bent on forcebly "baptizing" us.

We can see into their hearts of darkness, but they cannot look into ours. Espousing peace, they foment riot. Preaching tolerance, they ruthlessly suppress all dissent.

We may be small, but we won't give up. The thugs may come and go, but we shall remain because our ideal is true.

I stand atop Masada two thousand years later and shout, "Never again!"

- Tanka (conservative and Jewish)

mako, that you see any inconsistency between the "from" and the "To" you reference is nothing more than willful blindness. You have conflated acknowledgment of the loss with moving on from that loss to determine what to do next. The first step in the latter is to identify what led to the outcome.

A spectacular victory, while it can be congratulated, isn't made legitimate by its magnitude (see also: Harbor, Pearl). And an analysis of the factors that made up Obama's spectacularly illegitimate victory is precisely what a good "general" would do, to carry on (what I believe is a misplaced use of) the "war" analogy.

So, citing facts and factors that led to an outcome is not "blaming". Reasons are not "conspiracies".

It is a fact that the entrenched media has demonized Bush, Republicans and conservatism for over 8 years now. In the gaping minds of most of their audience, they have transformed 'being Republican' and 'being conservative' from something less than merely politically incorrect to essentially uncouth. They have done this relentlessly, 24/7/365 at a deafening volume, abandoning all pretense of journalistic ethics and obeisance to objectivity since before the day Al Gore failed to carry his own home state in 2000. The result of this onslaught is that there are now fewer self-identifying conservatives than eight years ago. They didn't "stay home" Tuesday, as many people suggested. There are simply fewer of them. Nothing contributed to Obama's illegitimate victory more than this factor, and it must be addressed, immediately and directly, or any other strategies and tactics will fail.

It is a fact that Obama was molded and supported by a marxist-socialist milieu from (at least) the time he entered Columbia. Do you know what his Master's thesis was? I'll tip you off that this is a trick question; you'll learn why when you go look it up. Since that time Obama has surrounded himself with nihilist/marxist/anarchists like Bill Ayers and communists like Mike Klonsky. That the widespread acknowledgment of these facts has been actively suppressed by the entrenched media, which openly campaigned for him in violation of FEC regulations, is also fact.

To ignore these facts, and many others - Obama's illegal campaign contribution fraud and the still-open questions regarding his rise through the ranks of corrupt Chicago politics among them - would be to ignore the reasons for the outcome we just witnessed and, thus, to march down an erroneous path in search of a flank for counterattack.

You seem to think that "we" should come to the conclusion that "We have met the Enemy, and they are Us!" Wrong. There are RINOs in Congress who have facilitated the demonization pursued by the press. We need to expose and remove them. They are not "Us", and you've heard and read nothing if you haven't seen conservatives pointing out their self-destructive behavior for years.

tankascribe: Now we are stereotyped, villified, accused of ungodly acts, used as scapegoats, and dehumanized. Now thugs come into our places of congregation bent on forcebly "baptizing" us.

If you think about it, that fact frees us from having to worry about what "they" think of us (as if there was any reason to do so in the first place). We can become clear on our purpose, choose our own ideas and ideals based upon their validity, and choose our own actions accordingly. To hell with what "they" think or say. We shall think our own thoughts and decide our own actions to our own benefit.

I am not Jewish. In fact, I am an atheist of English/Welsh/German/Hungarian extraction ie a typical bald white guy American. I will stand beside you and shout, "Never again!"

Interestingly, a clear "No!" said soon enough would have ended it all. We are very likely way beyond that point. Still, we must learn how to say "No!", mean it, and make it stick.

Dear Lionell, you do me an honor. You said, To hell with what "they" think or say. We shall think our own thoughts and decide our own actions to our own benefit.

That puts me in mind of one of my favorite songs (one of many versions):

Die Gedanken sind frei, my thoughts freely flower.
Die Gedanken sind frei, my thoughts give me power.
No scholar can map them, no hunter can trap them,
No man can deny: Die Gedanken sind frei!

I think as I please, and this gives me pleasure.
My conscience decrees, this right I must treasure;
My thoughts will not cater to duke or dictator,
No man can deny: Die Gedanken sind frei!

And if tyrants take me and throw me in prison,
My thoughts will burst free, like blossoms in season.
Foundations will crumble, the structure will tumble,
And free men will cry: Die Gedanken sind frei!

Neither trouble or pain will ever touch me again.
No good comes of fretting, my hope's in forgetting.
Within myself still I can think as I will,
But I laugh, do not cry: Die Gedanken sind frei!

- Tanka

Like Tanka, I do see this as my Masada. Thank you for your voice Bill, and the others who share their well thought out opinions here. As to the silly people who come and expose their backsides here, you are just advertising why some day your world will fall. But dont worry. People like Bill, those wiser people who speak here and many unvoiced others, too busy producing to comment, will step into the rubble and rebuild what they can of what is left. In this world there are productive forces and forces of entropy, decide what you want to be...proud looter...or producer? There is great pride to be had even in cleaning and organizing a once dirty house, mucking a stall, repairing a roof, unplugging a toilet. Do not believe a university education and a desk job makes one better than that unwashed rural noob, that farmer can nail down any one of a thousand emergencies. YOu city folks who voted (D) seem to think food comes from a grocery store and that you will be safe without Troops sacrificing themselves for your silly asses. Well, what would happen if the troops stood down, and threatened to kill bad guys for you no more? What if your stupid ag policies are all voted through, and you have to live with the results on the food supply?
We are about to find out, i think.
I hope we can pull it all back together,after you are done.

Wow. Do those of you who responded really believe that the way to win is with the “you are either with us or against” mentality? It will send you and if the party listens to you to the hinterlands. The mainstream press is a business. During the initial part of Iraq war they where supportive because the people were supportive. They might not have liked it but they had no choice. Also this isn’t 1980. There aren’t the big three networks. Fox news and its off shoots are on every cable list. Every AM station that isn’t talking sports is filled with conservatives. The net allows sites like Bill’s to go from one person voicing an opinion to him publishing a book and writing on the web site of one of the most respected periodicals in the world. Quit blaming and start looking inside.

Ronald Reagan did many amazing things but one of the most amazing things is create a category of voters that is still discussed 28 years later. I don’t mean conservatives, they were there before. Reagan created the “Reagan Democrats”. Not only did he create them he did such a good job that they remain today (they just mostly voted for OB this time). By definition Reagan didn’t say you are with us or against us, he reached out, he gave reasons, he spoke to the people about what is good. The press hated him and there was no Fox News to balance it. He didn’t whine. He didn’t say: “Join with us or not. It’s your choice." "However, your sniping from the sidelines will eventually be ignored and overrun.” (Wake up you just go over run). He showed them why they would be better off. He gave them a reason to cross lines in a time when crossing lines was a big deal.

To say the McCain campaign was a run to the middle is insane. Sarah Palin “a run to the middle”? Supporting the tax cuts that he previously attacked “a run to the middle”? The list goes on.

As far as the attacks on the moderate republicans, I am one. Wake up. Without them you will not win. At best the country identifies itself as 34% conservative. Without the RINO’s and Reagan Democrats the Republicans lose. The “good or bad Americans” mentality has driven Republicans to feel they had to vote for someone else. Many moderates that did vote for McCain did it on the belief the “real McCain” would come back to the middle if he won. If you keep eviscerating the moderates they may not come back and god forbid if you create a category of “Obama Republicans”

His election was won and lost in suburbs. In North Carolina black voters as a percentage of the total vote WAS DOWN from 2004. And OB still won. That’s how many new voters came into the system. That’s the moderates that you will think you will “ignore and over run”.

Right now the democrats have a leader that can cross party lines and they won. When will we have one of those? Until then get used to being on the out looking in.

Sheridan at Cedar Creek is as good an example of inspirational leadership as can be found in the annals of military history. But let's not wait for our Sheridan to appear. Let's also look to Maj. Gen. George Thomas, who carefully and methodically prepared his troops for the Battle of Nashville and then relentlessly crushed John Bell Hood's Army of Tennessee in one of the most decisive victories the Union Army ever won. Let us do likewise: find our opponents' weaknesses and exploit them without fail; fortify our own weak points; provide the sustenance that our "troops" need for the battle, and then some; pick the time and place to begin the engagement on our terms; probe the weaknesses you've discovered through your "reconnaissance" and press the ones that hurt him the most; and once the enemy has broken and fled his positions, keep up the pursuit until his forces have abandoned the field in disorder, never to fight again.

Obama has promised much to many. It is only a matter of time, and probably a short time, before those promises start to be broken. That is the opportunity to win back those who should rightly be on our side, but who succumbed to the momentary thrill of voting for the "cool" candidate. This thrill won't last, and let's be there to welcome these "prodigal sons" home. CFBleachers also provides some good advice: use our language, not theirs. Get the idea? Let's get started. And then when our Little Phil shows up, we'll be ready. Starting in, oh, about 2010 or so.

This is what you said: That a man with such overt Marxist ideas and such a history of association with virulent anti-Americans can be elected president should make it crystal clear to each of us just how far we have let fall the moral tone of this Republic.
These are the facts. Obama has surrounded himself with such obvious non-Marxists as Warren Buffett and Paul Volker.
I think you have overstated your argument - by a long shot!

mako, as far as my search function on this browser can see, you're the only one in this thread who's used Hillary Clinton's "you are either with us or against us" line.

The entrenched media is more than a business. It's a business made up of individuals. These individuals are currently overwhelmingly registered as Democrat and as any fool can plainly see in their "reporting" these past years, they have done far more than merely tilt the public's perception in support of their political party. They have done this by demonizing the opposition. Don't see it? Can't help you. The same thing is happening in academia, where tenured radicals are freely defining the language and context of social discourse for the generations to come.

Also, this may come as a shock, but FNC is just as hard on Republicans as it is on anyone else. You present it as though it somehow balances out the overwhelming bias and mendacity of all the rest. Sorry, no. The only thing you got right was that there's no longer just three networks. Today we have AP, Reuters, CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, PBS, CNN, NYT, LAT and BBC - and all their subsidiaries and affiliates - all spewing the same line.

Since you obviously weren't paying attention, McCain's selection of Sarah Palin was the one and only thing he did to seek support from the conservative base. That and the media's attack on Joe Wurzelbacher were the ONLY things that kept his loss from being a double-digit popular majority.

McCain allowed himself - and Palin - to be painted with the same demonizing brush used to destroy Bush, the Republicans and conservatism. He refused to fight back in terms that would have made a difference. He gave the impression of coddling Wall Street by supporting the bailout. His campaign's attempt to play to the middle - which is exactly what they did - failed spectacularly.

Finally, there's no evidence that Obama can cross party lines. None. He is the single most left-leaning member of the Senate. He now has what he and his handlers view as a mandate. Reaching across the aisle - except to steal someone's wallet to spread the wealth inside - is not something he's going to be concerned with. Laughably, some folks think his choice of Emanuel for CoS bodes ill for the opposition. Nothing could be sillier. His selection is intended to whip the now-majority in line before pushing the "Fairness Doctrine", the new Assault Weapons Ban and activists judges throughout the country, as well as the SCOTUS. Don't kid yourself. Obama and ilk have won THE decisive battle in their eyes, and they're going to go into "mop-up" mode, not defensive mode, let alone anything remotely resembling bipartisanship.

Mako,

Your analysis would be excellent, if only it were true.

First, you might want to get out your calculator. You will discover that the massive, massive, unprescedented shift to the middle you speak of di not actually happen. Voter turnout in 2008 may actually have been slightly SMALLER than 2004. I know this doesn't fit in with your narrative. That's because your narrative is wrong.

The highest ratings McCain got, poll-wise, were right after Saddleback and right after he announced Sarah Palin.

The moment the wheels came off his numbers was the moment he announced he was to the left of Senator Obama on buying $300B of other people's mortgages. If all of these new voters came out for Obama -- and many did -- and yet the total votes cast was almost identical to 2004, that means a lot of people sat home. And there was not ONE democrat who sat home in 2008.

Finally, I would appreciate it -- not that it will matter to a person with your manners -- if you permit me more than one blog post a few days after an election before you assay what my intentions are and how the Republicans plan to build a majority.

There was no more "moderate" Republican candidate than John McCain. All of that talk about winning the moderates and moving to the center turned out to be hooey. You know why? Well, I heard a comenter somewhere today say McCain ended up trying to do the same things Obama wanted to do, only with a pissed off look on his face.

McCain failed for many reasons, not the least of which was that he was a Moderate into the convention who THEN had to secure his base, rather then the other way around. We will not know what would have happened if a conservative had addressed the financial crisis as a failure of personal responsibility, rather than a guy handing out "Republichecks!" because they tested well and are only SLIGHLY less liberal than the Democrats.

And let's see how blue these moderates and suburbs look once the liberal policies they elected actually have a chance to have an impact.

Obama won because only one in ten people know anything about him. TWO DAYS after the election, Evan Thomas of NEWSWEEK -- who in 2004 called press bias worth 15 points, and it must be double that now -- Evan Thomas is already saying Obama "is a little creepy" and "we don't know much about him." Real shocka getting that bulletin out on Nov. 5th, but watch for more of it and then see what happens when he actually tries to govern.

That candidate, and your theory, are about to go down in flaming ruin. Just you watch, although frankly, I'd prefer you watched from somewhere else as I find your tone a little too hostile to be in front of so little original thinking. ("Wake up, you just got overrun." -- no foolin'? Wonder why I would write a post about what to do AFTER you've been overrun?)

- Obama has promised much to many. It is only a matter of time, and probably a short time, before those promises start to be broken.

That prediction is already obsolete. Note: read the original story, not the whitewash preface, which is no different from the entrenched media's refusal to admit the cause of the last two day's stock market plunge, or Bill Maher's claims that there won't be anything "funny" about Obama's Presidency. Welcome to Somewhere-In-Europe, ca. 1937.

Mako, you have it backwards. We don't believe we have to join liberals. Every time we have, we've lost.

Reagan didn't join the Democrats; Reagan persuaded Democrats to join us and he didn't do it by compromising on our principles.

We have had the misfortune to be represented to the public with a series of inarticulate leaders. The party apparatchniks apparently believed that the only way they could deal with the blaring opposition voiced by the press and newcasters (for I won't dignify them with the title of "journalist") was to become more like them. This had the inevitable effect of emboldening the opposition, not making them become similarly co-operative. Whereupon the GOP redoubled its efforts in the wrong direction and we lost even more ground.

I'm not sure what you mean when you use "moderate" but I'll guess that means you lean liberal in societal matters. In fact, those of us who are truly conservative have plenty of room for such a viewpoint, because we believe that government shouldn't be involved in our private lives or shaping society -- government should be protecting our country instead of picking our pockets to run some batty social experiments that keep failing miserably.

Hear me: I don't care how people feel about abortion, or health care, or welfare, or what people do in their bedrooms, so long as government keeps the hell out of our lives. Let the states meddle in that arena or let people decide for themselves and settle it with their own consciences and their own G-d, if they own one.

McCain was not our candidate of choice; those open elections where Democrats crossed over and voted for him brought him the candidacy. We had to make the best of it, but most of us knew his chances were bleak from the start. Palin's advent injected a false bubble of hope, which is why we're so depressed now. Without Palin, we would have gone to the polls pretty much sure we were going to lose it, but resigned. Instead, we got tantalizingly close to our goal, which just made the letdown afterwards twice as devastating.

We will have to get a lot more savvy at presenting our views to fight an uphill battle against the endless agitprop pumped out by the media, and we should start by getting people like Newt Gingrich and Fred Thompson to lead us.

- Tanka

Bill - you are the BEST. Thanks for being there. I will share your words with all of my friends and we will either stand up or shut up. I will stand.

Out Paladin was defeated but what he fought for was not.

Your story reminds me of Grant. I can't remember the exact words, but it was when enemy shells started falling within the perimeter of his field HQ, the commanders in a panic suggested they move the camp back to a more safe location. Grant looked at them squarely and told them to deal with the cannons instead.

Stop moving back.

I was listening to some of Reagan's old speeches on Youtube and was openly moved and saddened by the election results.

I relate the macro to the micro (me/my family). I believe in free speech because it allows me to listen to the radio shows and read the blogs I want to. I believe that we have a right to bear arms because I want to have the means to protect myself and my family. I don't believe in "spreading the wealth" because a lot of my wealth is already taken and spread. Spreading more of my wealth takes from my own dreams of educating my children in the schools of my choice and not going into debt to do it. Also, by keeping more of the money I've earned, I can choose to live in the Rockies and enjoy the mountains or live in Hawaii and enjoy the beaches. The macro idea of "Freedom" really means I get to make these choices and many more that effect my quality of life and that of my family. I don't want the government controlling any aspect of my life because I do an excellent job myself. The idea being tossed around that our hard earned 401(k)'s may be controlled and absorbed into the social security pot makes me physically ill. EVERY SINGLE CITIZEN IN THIS COUNTRY HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO WORK TOWARD THEIR DREAM. You can read any number of stories about people who have come from nothing, WORKED HARD and were successful (IRONY ALERT; Oprah Winfrey).

The federal government has done a poor job at everything it has ever tried to do except for the military. And that's something that can't be done except on a federal level. Who will be successful relying on the government? Who would want to? Who are these people that have been convinced (and by whom) that they must depend on the government for, well, almost everything?

I'm a producer and I am a charitable one at that. More so than Obama and Biden ever were (based on the information they released). I give enough. And I am offended by politicians whot tell me I am selfish if I want to keep my wealth. I already pay more taxes than 95% of the country. I give more to charity than Obama, the man who called me selfish and Biden the man that says I'm not patriotic enough. This is a world upside down.

My life will change if tax rates go up. My life will change if they reintroduce the so called "Fairness Doctrine." My life will change if they demand we turn in our guns. My life will certainly change if they cut the military by 25%.
My life will change if they try to "improve" the Constitution. And none of this "change" will be for the better. Obama made this election about the producers VS those that expect something. What a pathetic way to frame a campaign. And even more pathetic are the ones who fell for it.

Thank you, Bill. I have hope that the conservatives are organizing when I hear Rush Limbaugh quoting Orson Scott Card and OSC quoting you. The radical change that our President-elect has promised is certainly upon us. But, we have true cause for hope as long as we continue to be vigilant.

I would advise everybody to look up an old book that is particularly relevant again - The Naked Communist, by Cleon Skousen. The book was written in 1958, nearly buried by Communists at that time, was forced to be self-published, but eventually sold tens of millions of copies. I would advise getting the collected works of Cleon Skousen on DVD-ROM for $39.95, as opposed to the single book for close to $20.

Here is a link to the Communist Goals, which we can see are being accomplished.
http://www.schwarzreport.org/SchwarzReport/2003/September%202003.pdf
Skousen's book includes a chapter on what individuals, parents, teachers, religious leaders, and business persons can do to combat the socialization of your community and country. For every person, like me, who has asked themselves "but, what can I do?", there is an answer. Not only that, it is probably things you already doing, since you have found Bill Whittle's blog and are reading the comments.

Thank heaven not everyone published on NRO is pledging cooperation, accomodation and all that other foolishness!

We got trounced because we lost sight of the mission.

Now let's up off the ground, focus on the objective, and have at them!

Churchill didn't give up and neither will I; "[W]e shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender..."

Thanks Bill, we needed that.

Art

Mare, I've definitely with you.

And the macro is hitting the micro here pretty badly. We live in California and my husband works for the state (or, as he ironically says, "We don't work, we're employed.") -- well, the news coming out right now is that California is so far in the hole that the Governator is furloughing all the state workers one day a month for the next 17 months. By "furloughing" that means my hubby's paycheck is going to be one day short for the foreseeable future. Additionally, there's going to be a 1.5% sales tax increase, and we already pay something like 16% sales tax (can't remember the amount, somebody can correct me if they like 'cuz I try not to think about it) here in the San Francisco Bay area.

I know Bill is going to feel the pain of that, too, as the price of everything will go up. We already pay more for gas than anyplace else, and this latest is really going to hurt if the state legislature passes it, which I'm sure they will because they got themselves into this corner and there's no way out.

Now add the prospect of higher income tax and There Is No Joy In Mudville nor around my ol' homestead, that's for damn sure. We'll manage because we both come from poor families so we know how to budget, but don't expect me to be the least bit happy over having financially clueless Democrats piloting the ship of the state.

- Tanka (poor as well as undaunted)

Let me respond to a few of the comments on my rather overly long post:
Orrin Johnson - I hear you. However: I suspect my ideas are too out-of-character for the GOP at the moment. I need to see some indication - ANY indication - that the GOP and I are starting to 'converge' on the same wavelength. If I just walk into a regional party HQ or meeting and start spouting this stuff, I have a feeling they'll throw rocks at me or call the cops. ;-)

Rockdalian - I'm sorry, you lost me. 'Fascist tendencies'? How did I leave you with such an impression? Also - the (rather extreme) example I gave involved only the THREAT of legislative intervention, not the act. And there is a LOT more to that example I gave - it would just take a full page to discuss it.

Bill,
I am pretty good with numbers so I don’t need the calculator thanks. However your response does confuse me. If as you say the turnout is lower in 2008 than it was in 2004 how do you explain a 4% change in the popular vote and a 14% change in the Electoral College without there being a fairly dynamic shift in the electorate towards the middle (or left, I like to think middle). Are you trying to tell me the liberal extreme didn’t turn out en mass to vote against Bush in 2004? And if the conservatives stayed home, then that means that my “increase” in voters made up the difference and made the difference. Both of those options seem to fit a narrative. I wouldn’t be as bad mannered as to offer a calculator but I am curious.

As far as me allowing you more than one post after the election. That was my whole point. You made a gracious and intelligent acceptance post. In that you stated that right did not make their case. My disappointment came when I saw that the next post you are right back on the attack. No where was there the soul searching I hope the party as a whole does. It was right back to blame the media, insult Obama etc. This was not a one time event; the dems will pick up 20 seats for two straight elections. That hasn’t happened for them in decades (which by the way, calculator or not, shows the shift.) I remember your post after the last mid term elections where you described the republicans as bloated out of touch etc. They didn’t change in two years and the results showed.

Obama will be remembered as either Reagan/Kennedy: someone who changed the party and the brand; or he will be Carter/George W Bush: someone that destroyed the party and the brand. If you are right about Obama then it will usher in a new rejuvenated Republican party. But it won’t happen with out the moderates and Reagan democrats. You need to reach out to them.

I am not sure how my disagreeing with you is bad mannered, but it is your blog so I will “move on” I hope that you post this. I will continue to read your writings, some of them are brilliant. I have become a huge fan of OODA (and Boyd) because of you and thought some of your points on the surge were dead right on. I know you regularly use science fiction analogies. Let me apologize in advance for not knowing the episode name or some errors on my Star Trek reach, but between you and your sworn enemies on the left I feel like Kirk staring at the half black half white fighters as they explain that he “is white ON THE LEFT SIDE. Cant you see it” I hope you have a happier ending then they and their planet did.

I will continue to read the comments because I would like to hear your response, I have made two responses to people who either insulted me or I agree with. But will honor your request to not post again.

Goy, you might want to expand your web search feature. While you will not find the phrase “with us or against us” you will find the phrase “Join with us or not. It’s your choice.” (From Lionel) and a quick count of last paragraph in your response to mine results in 4 “us” or “we”. As does the admittedly asinine (and I might add bad mannered) use of the phase “you will be overrun”, which I changed to a whopping you were overrun. That phrase does not appear in my original post, it is from Lionel response. No where in my original post do I use the term us or we. And in my response I start it by qualifying that the post was for those that went right to the us vs. we argument.

Tanka,
I am sorry I didn’t make myself clearer. I agree with most of your words. I don’t want to become liberal I want someone that will reach beyond the extremes. Your description of me is dead on and your wishes are the same as mine for government.

mako, you might want to expand your understanding of English. "Join with us or not" does not have the same meaning as Hillary Clinton's "you are with us or against us", so your characterization is flawed from the start. The former is a sentiment with which I heartily agree. Either join us in fighting back, or don't. It's your choice. No one will think the less of you if you don't. In fact, no one will give you any thought at all. And it's clear you understand that. Which is why you keep posting.

Mako, I did have to go back and re-read your words. I think like some others, that right now we're overly sensitive and any little thing just rubs our fur backwards.

We've gotten so used to getting slapped with the "right-wing extremist gun-toting religious nut case" label that our response is more often a snarl than a cogent reply.

I for one am tired of having my party associated in the popular mind with that label, and would like to be represented by somebody who will take us firmly outside of that artificial designation.

I don't want to hear debates about abortion and gay marriage. I want my party to stand up and say, "That has nothing to do with running a government, which is what we're here to do."

Now if we want to talk about how best to run a society, we can do that. But government shouldn't shape society -- it should be the other way around. Government doesn't have a conscience, society does. Society should also have a strong sense of moral values, because governement has no reason to. Government is "they" but society is "us".

Ah, I don't know where to go next. I feel like I've got a front row seat at a replay of the Fall Of The Roman Empire. It's only reading Bill's essays and reading the posts of folks here that keeps me from feeling that our ideal of America, the America that brought my great-grandparents here from Europe, is totally dead. You guys keep me from going insane. I'm surrounded here at work with wonderful, intelligent people who are nevertheless infected with the do-gooder virus of liberalism. They never seem to wake up to the fact that they're being played for fools and that for all their good intentions, they're killing our society and our country. They mean well. They're generous (with money they don't have and isn't theirs, although they can't be brought to see it), they have the highest of ideals. And they're killing us. They can't see it, they can't understand it, they don't want to understand it. They are such a gang of happy imbeciles, and all this talk about being "inclusive" means "join us in our happy cloud-cuckoo land" and I can't. I won't.

- Tanka

And while I'm at it, I'm tired of being labeled and pigeon-holed.

I'm female. I'm married. I'm childless. I'm Jewish. I'm not very religious. I'm an artist. I'm a systems programmer. I'm a singer. I'm Caucasian. I'm a Baby Boomer (just barely). I'm a writer.

But that doesn't describe me. Everybody out there doesn't know me, yet they're falling all over themselves to put words in my mouth. I shouldn't care, but it hurts.

I'm sick to death of it.

- Tanka (now utterly guilty of having a keyboard barf, herself)

just this: you were a good choice for nro. great rally cry. my sentiments exactly.

tanka, fwiw I'll barf with you - if by that you meant your rant about being sick to death of people assuming you follow their stereotypes of identity politics. It's the single most aggravating and demoralizing aspect of political discourse today.

I'm male. I'm married. My child is estranged, and believes the Constitution is a "living document" as a result. I'm Gentile, but was raised a minority among Jews (hence the handle). I'm not religious at all. I'm a guitarist. I'm a cellist. I'm a 3D graphic artist (of sorts). I'm an applications programmer. I'm a singer. I'm Sicilian. I'm a Baby Boomer (also just barely). I'm a writer. I'm former ASA, Viet Nam Era Vet. We have oodles in common, but we're completely different because those things don't describe Us.

Neither do the social and geopolitical positions I hold describe me. Have an abortion, or keep the child - either way don't expect me to fund the decision. ERA and DMA are equally stupid: marry whom you like but, again, don't expect preferential treatment for the decision. Spreading more of my wealth around is not something I'm going to accept. I'll cut back my productivity and start applying for every social service I can find if that becomes the norm, since the sooner such a doomed system is overloaded and breaks down, the better. Same with "universal" health care, which is not health care at all, but universal health insurance - and comp. health insurance is what's at the root of skyrocketing health care costs in the first place. I support my wife's efforts to better the lives of intersexed, transgendered and transsexual folks. I've been ostracized by most of my gay friends because of that, and of course some het' friends too. Go figger. Islamist fanaticism is a social cancer. As is marxist-socialism, proved many times over. I will not stand for either and support any military or social action aimed at ridding the world of those diseases.

What does all that make me? Conservative? Yes. Liberal? Yes. Moderate? Yes. Leftist? No fracking way.

Remember what Colin Powell said when he endorsed Obama:

"Taxes are always a redistribution of money. Most of the taxes that are redistributed go back to those who pay it -- in roads and airports and hospitals and schools -- and taxes are necessary for the common good, and there's nothing wrong with examining what our tax structure is and who should be paying more, who should be paying less. And for us to say that makes you a socialist I think is an unfortunate characterization and is inaccurate."

- ...there's nothing wrong with examining what our tax structure is and who should be paying more, who should be paying less...

Sorry, but if there's some difference between that and "from each according to his gifts, to each according to his need", it's pretty subtle (read: nonexistent).

The questions (in Powell's version) are these: Who does the "examining"? Who decides who should be paying more/less? Who decides how much more/less? On what criteria are these decisions made?

Powell's statement is pure irrelevant thesis. Few people have a problem with paying taxes for sustaining infrastructure, military, and all the things the Constitution says the government is responsible for. That is NOT redistribution of wealth, and Powell damn well knows it.

The issue here is whether or not we should - to use Obama's words - SPREAD THE WEALTH AROUND. Doing that makes one a socialist, and it's not an unfortunate characterization, it's perfectly accurate.

Ryan, had Obama not said we are selfish and Biden not said we were not patriotic I could possibly stomach Powell's comments.

Instead, his words sound like someone sneaking up on you with a sock full of batteries.

Yes, let's have the discussion of who should pay more. I think people who leach of the system should pay more. I think people who provide opportunities for others to prosper should pay less.

And believe me I pay plenty already for airports (which I use), hospitals (public, which I don't), and schools (which I don't use, my kids go to private schools because the public schools stink and appear to be indoctrination centers).

Remember also that taxes are far lower now than they have been in the past under many conservatives.

For several years under Reagan, the top earners were paying over 50%. Under Eisenhower, the top earners paid over 90%. No one would call either of those men socialists, let alone communists.

Mare, don't forget that taxes also go to roads, bridges, police, firemen, our national defense, and plenty of other state and national services we've grown so used to that we hardly notice them anymore.

We've always spread the wealth around. The question is "what degree is the right degree?" And the right answer to that changes with the times; part of Obama's job now is to find the right answer for today's economy.

One other thing while we're on the subject: Say what you want about Clinton, but under his "tax and spend" policies, we actually had a budget surplus, and were paying down the national debt; under George W., who cut taxes for the rich in a time of war, we now have the worst budget deficit in history, and almost twice the national debt we had when he took office.

And that's part of a larger problem; the modern GOP is at odds with the ideals of many Republicans. The Bush Administration talked about fiscal responsibility and smaller government, then plunged headfirst into debt and created the biggest government we've ever seen.

It goes without saying that the GOP is suffering from a major schism now; one side says Palin pushed too many voters away, and the other side says Palin was all McCain had going for him, and that the next ticket should be Palin squared. It's a fact that McCain's numbers spiked when he first chose Palin, but it's also a fact that those numbers declined, further and further, as Palin's lack of qualifications came to light; in fact, some polls among Republicans had Palin as their number one concern.

Now, feel free to disagree with Obama's policies, but he's a smart guy, and -- as I saw firsthand volunteering for his campaign -- his organizational skills are top-notch.

And more than that, he brings all kinds of people together; working for his campaign, I saw young people, old people, men, women, blue-collar, white-collar, people of all ethnicities and educational backgrounds. He draws 100,000+ crowds for a reason, and it's not just because he speaks well. It's because he has the skills of a leader.

Now, the obvious response to that is, "But he'll lead us in the wrong direction." And that's a fear many people have held for a long time. But many of those fears are based on rumor and misinformation and exaggeration -- again, compare his tax plans to Eisenhower's. We all want this country to prosper. As Obama's said more than once, "we may call ourselves Democrats and Republicans, but we are Americans first. We are always Americans first."

Colin Powell wasn't the only Republican to endorse him in the race, remember; so did the son of William F. Buckley. So did Reagan's chief of staff, Ken Duberstein. So did the former publisher of National Review, Wick Allison, who wrote:

"Today it is so-called conservatives who are cemented to political programs when they clearly don’t work. The Bush tax cuts—a solution for which there was no real problem and which he refused to end even when the nation went to war—led to huge deficit spending and a $3 trillion growth in the federal debt. Facing this, John McCain pumps his “conservative” credentials by proposing even bigger tax cuts. Meanwhile, a movement that once fought for limited government has presided over the greatest growth of government in our history. That is not conservatism; it is profligacy using conservatism as a mask.

"Today it is conservatives, not liberals, who talk with alarming bellicosity about making the world “safe for democracy.” It is John McCain who says America’s job is to “defeat evil,” a theological expansion of the nation’s mission that would make George Washington cough out his wooden teeth.

"This kind of conservatism, which is not conservative at all, has produced financial mismanagement, the waste of human lives, the loss of moral authority, and the wreckage of our economy that McCain now threatens to make worse.

"Barack Obama is not my ideal candidate for president. (In fact, I made the maximum donation to John McCain during the primaries, when there was still hope he might come to his senses.) But I now see that Obama is almost the ideal candidate for this moment in American history. I disagree with him on many issues. But those don’t matter as much as what Obama offers, which is a deeply conservative view of the world."

(Now, of course, his definition of "conservative" differs greatly from what the GOP stands for today. But that's part of the problem the GOP is having right now.)

The Republican party--the fiscal conservatives, the social conservatives, the evangelicals, and the neocons--will need a long time to sort out what they stand for as a unified front.

In the meantime, let's what a smart, capable, inspiring leader can do for this country. If he does wrong by us, we can always vote him out -- but hey, let's give him a shot. :)

Google is pushing this via Google Mail Sponsored links - anyone seen it before?

goy, I had not seen that. Talk about a target rich environment. Wonder how long that piece will stay online, or unchanged...

So nice that Google is ready to push that as news. Much easier than having to buy Pravda every day to find out what's officially true.

Ryan, President Obama will have the allegiance due all U.S. Presidents until such time as his past is fully exposed and it comes back to bite him - assuming someone has enough of a death wish to perform that feat, or he has the bad judgment to piss off the entrenched media that has protected him so completely (and which holds all his skeletons).

In the meantime, he'll get respect once he's earned it. Given the outright fraud perpetrated by his campaign, the intellectually dishonest manner in which he and his minions have defined down "middle class" and "rich", and the blatant disrespect he's shown the electorate by not fully revealing and accounting for all aspects of his past political and financial alliances, earning any thinking person's respect will take some serious doing on his part.

Goy, are you surprised they're busily rewriting history?

Why do they have to do it? Why can't they ever admit to having been wrong, that they made a mistake?

But now watch them move next into making us say that black is white, or white is black, or whatever they decide is the line of bull they're selling on this particular day. Well, perhaps it's doubleplusungood of me, but they can't get inside my head and edit my memories. Because I was there and I know what happened.

- Tanka

Ryan G.
You are mistaken re Palin's influence in this election.

"69% of GOP Voters Say Palin Helped McCain"

"Ninety-one percent (91%) of