More Strategy

I agree that advocating fiscal conservatism would be a great strategy. I would be even greater if the people advocating it actually practiced it. Both parties have run absolutely amok when it comes to spending, and there is ample room on the right side of fiscal issues for candidates to exploit. Personally, I don't really hold out much hope of the Democrats embracing fiscal conservatism. Instead, it seems to me that the only hope for fiscal conservatism lies in fiscally conservative Republicans challenging their less-than-responsible co-partisans in the Congressional primaries. Furthermore, there really doesn't seem to be much in the way of political risk for Republicans if they vote out incumbents who feel that a dollar (or a few million; there's plenty of money to go around) spent in their districts is a vote earned. As you've pointed out, the Dems really don't have much chance of taking back the House until 2012 at the earliest because of the way Congressional districts are structured, and recent history indicates that a bloody Republican primary doesn't guarantee a Republican defeat in a Senate race. When it comes to spending, Republicans have lost their way, largely due to the lack of leadership on fiscal issues that is needed from party leaders such as Tom DeLay, Bill Frist, and especially George W Bush, who seems bound and determined to force the Federal Government to get spending under control by spending money like drunken sailors on speed until there isn't any more money to spend.

Re:Dem Strategy

Isn't that the strategy you've been advocating for the past four years?

As far as a Congressional election strategy goes, it may well work. However, if it does work in '06, what effect will it have on Deomcratic prospects in '08? It seems to me that the only way such an argument can hold water is if Republicans retain control of one house of Congress, most likely the House. After all, if divided government the reason for giving Democrats control of Congress (I know you restricted your comments to the Senate, so the problem isn't as apparent.), doesn't it undermine the Democrats' attempts to gain control of both Congress and the White House in '08?

On a purely practical note, what reason is there to believe that putting Democrats in control of Congress would lead to more fiscal responsibility? Part of the reason it worked in the '90s is that Republicans were bound and determined to cut spending in certain areas and President Clinton didn't want those areas touched. President Bush, on the other hand, has shown no commitment to fiscal responsibility and has expressed a desire to work on a bipartisan basis. It therefore seems more likely that spending would go through the roof as Bush's lack of fiscal restraint combined with his desire to accomplish things on a bipartisan basis would lead to ridiculaous increases in spending as anyone and everyone had his favorite program funded.

Also, fiscal conservatives split with the Bush Administration long ago. The only reason there haven't been any practical political consequences is that all of the alternatives at this point seem worse.

What a Mess

German election results can be found here. If its economic and demographic situations weren't evidence enough, yesterday's election is further evidence that Germany is bound and determined to throw itself off a cliff.

I have to say, this situation shows the superiority of the American electoral system on a couple of fronts. First of all, the fact that all of our Congressional elections are local means that in order for a party to win any seats, it has to acutally win an election, not just show up in the polls. This allows Congress to be governed by straight majorities as opposed to having to rely on unstable coalition governments. Secondly, the fact that the president wields most executive power, as opposed to a chancellor/prime minister, inconclusive legislative election results do not cripple the ability of the executive branch to function.

Terrorism's New Operating System

Mansoor Ijaz on al Qaeda's new structure. Frightening, frightening stuff.

This Could Be Huge

North Korea may be about to agree to give up its nuclear programs, both military and civilian. Apparently some details need to be ironed out, but the fact that the parties involved feel confident enough to announce a near-deal indicates that it may be possible to reach a diplomatic solution to this serious problem, and soon.

That said, I don't trust North Korea. From what I've seen of them, I have no reason to think it likely they will honor any agreement reached. Furthermore, it is my suspicion that even if they do hold to the agreement, they will either maintain a small program out of the sight of the IAEA or dismantle their program by selling its components to the highest bidder, and this includes the weapons they have supposedly manufactured. Ostensibly, the U.S., China, Russia, Japan, and South Korea will have insisted on measures to prevent the latter, but their effectiveness would ultimately be dependent upon North Korean cooperation. I hope I'm wrong, but I fear I may be right.

A Disgrace in the Eyes of the World

Now that Germany's election has resulted in a great big mess, I just couldn't resist making that comment in light of all the flak the United States took over Florida.

Re: DeLay

His comment perfectly illustrates why I consider myself a conservative as opposed to a Republican.

I Say We Egg the Chicken

There are two primary components to religion: rituals and beliefs. The freedom to practice the rituals of a religion; to hold a set of religious beliefs; and to live and act in accordance with those beliefs is more critical to freedom of religion than is the freedom to express publicly a set of religious beliefs. I will allow that the line is somewhat blurred when a religion has an evangelistic element because evangelism requires an expression of religious belief, but this is because expression and practice become one and the same, not because religious expression has supplanted religious practice in importance.

Mike DeWine Is an Idiot

He just asserted that freedom of speech is the most important right in the constitution, the right which underpins more than any other, our liberty. The two rights which more than any others underpin our liberty are the right to freedom of religion and right of private property.

Liberty is the freedom to fulfill our moral obligations. The right to freedom of religion gives us the freedom to discern what our moral obligations are, and the right to private property gives us the means and resources to pursue them. Freedom of speech is critical in securing our liberty, but it is not as critical as either freedom of religion or the right to private property.

The Worst Moment in the Hearings So Far

Sen. Tom coburn getting choked up when reflecting upon the polarization of American politics. Maybe someone should get him a mango biscuit.

I Just Heard

Dick Durbin say, intentionally or otherwise, that the Senate should evaluate Supreme Court nominees after the conclusion of their tenure on the Court.

The Roberts Hearings So Far

Having watched the first two-and-a-half hours of John Roberts' confirmation hearing I can say unequivocally that pretentiousness, stupidity, silliness, and empty rhetoric are bipartisan qualities.

Reprehensible

Maybe it's just me, but isn't the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee supposed to be concerned with running Senatorial Campaigns, not trying to effect personnel decisions by the White House and using this advocacy as a fundraising tool?

Idiotic

The French are threatening to impose new taxes on oil companies if they don't cut gas prices. Needless to say, this will only cause prices to rise further. Of course, with taxes accounting for about seventy percent of the $6.77 French motorists have to pay for gas, you'd think maybe getting rid of the gas taxes, or even cutting them in half would do more to relieve the burden on French motorists than threatening to raise them. Of course, you probably wouldn't be French if you thought that. Frankly (no pun intended), it is disgusting that France would impose such a burden on its drivers and then blame oil companies when the burden becomes too much for them to bear. It is also moronic that they would propose as a solution a measure that if implemented would only make the situation worse.

Re:Ah

Can weekends get any better? They can if you have two tv's.