Which I take to mean this:

Don't wipe out all the liberal programs - accept them as a necessary evil. But lay down internally consistent rules, set standards, and audit liberally.

In other words, take a _liberal_ program, and implement it (or reimplement it) in a conservative fashion. Free market orientation, small government orientation (minimize the bureaucracy), and standards set to measure the impact in a less bureacracy-supporting fashion.

Welfare, Social Security, back to health care. etc.

Am I the only one who is starting to feel that "gob-smackingly vile" is, well, gob-smackingly vile? Let's be honest.

Let's have more "let's be honest" around here. That one cracks me up.

Respectfully,
Someone with no status, standing, insight, wisdom, or knowledge to make judgments.

I take that to mean something far simpler. A warning to the 'base' not to get too big for their britches. That happened to the Democrat 'base', and they lost. The Democrats listened to them and veered to far to the left. The same will happen if the Republicans veer too far to the right.

If they do, my fellow swing voters and I will go to the Democrats again.

"gob-smackingly vile"

Sounds not like you but like something andrew sullivan would write. Yes, I am in a 'take no prisoners' mode. (See also 2nd comment above.)

Otherwise you may have a point, but I will still fight for the right.

Kathy is right, as is ACE. The Reps have some advantages with the public, but if they go too far right, the Dems are back! I also believe the Republicans, the Party of the Rich, have shown they are bigger spenders than the Democrats to dish out the pork to their benefactors....and are worse than the Dems in not trying to pay for their spending this generation, but foisting it on the next generation to have to repay the Chinese, French, and Saudis..

Free trade has proven to be a great danger to the American middle class, as it is slowly being destroyed, it's 200-year rise being chomped away by fatcats who have made labor, innovativeness, and brainpower fungable global commodies, not treasured American national assets.

You still can't trust the Democrats on national security, and their cultural agenda is despicable....but the Republican Right may find the American Public, in very short order, reviling the phrases - "Neocon"; "Supply-Side Borrower& Spender"; "Pro-China Globalist"

I don't think that I could count as many real conservatives in DC as I have fingers. The guy in the White House now isn't the guy I voted for my Governer twice( in two different elections- I'm not a Dem)

Party of the rich?

The Republicans?

I give you the top ten millionaires in the US Senate and their net worth:

John Kerry, D-Massachusetts: $163,626,399
Herb Kohl, D-Wisconsin: $111,015,016
John Rockefeller, D -West Virginia: $81,648,018
Jon Corzine, D-New Jersey: $71,035,025
Dianne Feinstein, D-California: $26,377,109
Peter Fitzgerald, R-Illinois: $26,132,013
Frank Lautenberg, D-New Jersey $17,789,018
Bill Frist, R-Tennessee: $15,108,042
John Edwards, D-North Carolina: $12,844,029
Edward Kennedy, D-Massachusetts: $9,905,009

Can anyone name which party eight out of ten of them belong to?

It's not the 1930s anymore, guys. Time to find a new songbook.

Ace,

Depends on what you mean by "conservative revolution." Attach "social" to the beginning of that phrase, and I'd agree with you. That's not what the most people are looking for.

I'd say there's a lot more enthusiasm (or willingness to accept) a free-market/ownership society/etc-type reform movement. Bush's compassionate conservatism rap never wowed anyone. Real conservatives cringe. Liberals howl.

Of course, the real point of that phrase is to not scare the middle, and i"m very unconvinced that it gives 'em the warm and fuzzies as intended. Bush can capture people not strongly ideological in either direction because of his personality, not marketing and branding tricks. It was the Dems who tried to use that stuff as a replacement for character or strength on issues. We all know how that ended up.

1. The reason foreigners are eating our lunch is that Americans are too lazy and demanding. If we got off our fat butts and did something for a change, instead of sitting in front of the TV and whining about not being paid $1,000.00 / hour or not getting 50 weeks / year vacation time, nobody would be taking a job from an American.

And even at that, we'll still be alright. There is a constant amount of work to be done in the world and there's plenty to go around. Besides, sooner or later, all those Indians and Chinese and Mexicans are going to become rich, lazy, and worthless and things will begin balancing the other direction.

2. The danger is not that of going "too far to the right." The danger is that of attempting to restore Constitutional government too quickly. It took a long time to shred the Constitution; it's going to take a long time to tape the pieces back together. Two steps forward, one-and-a-half steps back.

3. Bush is NOT the man to make sweeping changes. There is far too much ignorance in the general population and a good communicator who can gently instruct is necessary for this task.

Traditionally, Conservatives were those who believed change must be gradual, if it takes place at all. It's a winning strategy and we need to remember it.

Smack -

With a 60 billion a month trade deficit, you think the loss of high-paying manufacturing jobs is all due to stupid, lazy, overpaid Americans.

And we'd be OK if it wasn't for all those stupid lazy Americans that created and built the world you live in..and sooner or later, once the Chinese, Indians and Muslims take the jobs and somehow deal with the 3 billion unemployed remaining willing to live 20 to an apartment and work 80 hour weeks for 12 cents an hour...after many decades...why everything will be OK again!!

Because you believe all those free trade, globalization, articles of faith - the neocons say you must believe to be a proper Right Wing Republican.

Given your economic views, I see ACE was right about swing too far right, and encountering the Ayn Rand reactionaries - that have utter contempt for the Americans of industry in the Red States that work with their hands - and the old industrial cities of the Blue ones - giving their sneering opinion of non-graduate degree Americans that mirrors what the Dem elites feel.

I'm beginning to very much regret my vote for Bush. If he keeps playing games with border security and illegal immigrants, I'm not so sure his track record of keeping our soil safe will continue as such a clean slate.

Depends upon what you mean by too far to the right. If you mean prohibiting Gay Marrige, the homosexual agenda, fixing social security, undoing government sponsored discrimination against white people and men, trying to make us competitive again by eliminating frivilous lawsuits, government regulations and burdensome mandates on employers, fighting terrorism as if it really were an Evil Force From The Dark Side determined to kill us all, restoring the rightful place of God and Church in our lives again, then no ACE you are slippin'. But Cederford does have a point. The Reps are fast becoming the Party of Pork and people are beginning to notice. And when even Jeffery Sachs began to question free market capitalism as the savior of the world I thought he had lost it. But I'm rethinking that now for I see no way out for us as we all slide slowly down to a world wage and living standard. There are things we could do but right now there is no consensus and even less will to do them. And as Lee Iacocc said in his biography, "we can't have a country in which we do nothing but sell each other hamburgers."

If you do what's RIGHT, if you take a stand and don't waver, then people will follow. Thing is, it takes an immense amount of courage not to play politics when you're a politician. Reagan had courage because he set the rules, which made him a bad politician and a good president. Clinton was a coward because he played by the rules, which made him a good politician and a bad president.

The Crats put us in this hole over 40 years and we can't change things -- like spending -- overnight. BUT, we HAVE to distinguish ourselves from the Crats fiscally, because you can't win elections on a tax-and-spend message (right, Mr. Kerry?). Most people are fiscally conscious (if not conservative), and now that the social difference in parties is clear, the Republicans MUST put their money where their collective mouth is and PROVE they believe in small government and less spending. If we don't, the party WILL lose its grip on the majority regardless of social stances.

Later,
bbeck

Glad I could annoy you, Cedarford. It's my mission in life.

By the by: YHBT. YHL. HAND.

Cheerio!