and how to pay for all the socialism AND the military, only the latter of which is constitutionally manddated?

It's a fair question, although the constitutional mandate is a red herring. I think the American people will make a statement about which priorities to pursue here in a couple weeks - we'll see what happens after that...

You buy into the fallacy that the republicans were ever truly interested in cutting spending

Well, again, that kinda depends on which ones you were talking about. Even there, the problem with cutting any spending amounts to the third rail. and how to pay for all the socialism AND the military, only the latter of which is constitutionally manddated?

"Dantheman,

There is a strong case there are major differences between legislative filibusters and filibusters meant to block judicial nominations. I would think so and the WSJ thinks so as well."

Yes, there is a case, I don't know how strong it is: federal judges serve for life, and therefore fillibusters are more justified than for laws.

Of course, that probably wasn't what either you or the WSJ meant, was it?

And where was the WSJ when Hatch was exercising his 'pocket fillibuster' against (IRRC) ~60 of Clinton's judicial nominees?

Contrast this with, for example, defense spending and Iraq. We had six years of de facto republican majorities (Jeffords notwithstanding), and the republicans didn't even try to pay for missile defense, let alone speding on the "war on terror." We can fairly debate the wisdom of all government spending, but both parties are equally guilty of having pet projects; both cost enormous amounts of money which require enormous amounts of revenue. The difference between the parties' approaches lie who benefits and who pays for it.

The beneficiaries are obvious, as stated above. The problem is that the republicans clearly have no intention of paying for anything, and are bankrupting the country in the process. This is as "liberal" as fiscal policy can get, and I for one would gladly pay a few more taxes today for a job tomorrow.

But more importantly, all those "conservative" policies came at the cost of radically expanded government powers, a huge deficit, and increased (yes, increased) spending. The point is, that it wasn't the lack of a mandate that led republicans to trend toward using government for their own gain - it was power itself.

Well, not initially, no. Initially, it came from 'compromise'. The kind of compromises needed to get ANYTHING done. Reagan, as good as he was, could only get half of what we really needed through. Example;

On the goal of lowering he deficit, Reagan lowered marginal tax rates. This spuured economic groth, as he predicted, and also caused the pie itself to grwo, providing increased tax revenue even at the lower rate. Had the Democrats followed through on their part of the deal... IE Cutting spending,as they promised they would, our deficit would have disappeared before the end of Reagans second term. Of course, they went in the other direction, spending $1.65 for every dollow of increased federal reevnue.

Compromise.
With whom?
The hard left.

See, Americans have gotten used to leftists for so long they're unwilling to make such a dramatic change to true conservatives... The Republicans know such people would never get elected in the climate that's developed. So the Republicans do all that they can do, which is to offer, at best centrists.

As such, I don't accept your read.

Wanna know why Republicans havebeen tilting left? It's beacsue they've never goteen a clear mandate. A small majority doesn't constitute a mandate for major change, sorry.

I think you're correct, to a point, but that didn't stop the small majority of republicans in power from crowing about the clear mandate the American people gave them in subsequent elections, from claiming the opposition was obstructionist when it suited their needs, and from pursuing "conservative" policies which were designed to entrench power in their own hands, to reward their cronies, and to punish their vanquished "foes." On that score, paybacks are a bitch.

But more importantly, all those "conservative" policies came at the cost of radically expanded government powers, a huge deficit, and increased (yes, increased) spending. The point is, that it wasn't the lack of a mandate that led republicans to trend toward using government for their own gain - it was power itself. True conservatives would have reduced the ability of elected officials to seek self-aggrandizement and enrichment at the expense of the taxpayer; in contrast, the modern republican party has consistently demonstrated its willingness to screw the American public in order to line its own pockets.

Yes, but they don't seem able to stop anything as a majority party either.

Well, there again, it comes down to the narrow margins, in combination with the blue dogs among the Democrats, or the liberal republicans from the opposite end of the scale.

That's what's been annoying me so greatly when this subject comes up; basing a party's effectivness based on a small majority of votes of one party or the other, seems to me to inore that neither party is stacked with ideological purists. If it were the smallest of majorities would suffice to enact a good deal of a party's agenda, whatever that might be. Clearly, that's not the case, particularly among Republicans who seemingly have a wider ideological spread than do Democrats.

So, we come back to it; We keep hearing from Obama that trying the same set of conditions over again will produce the same results. Know what? He's right, that far at least. We've tried a Demcrat supermajority and got the the spread between The 'great society' and Jimmy Carter, with the centerist Nixon tossed in for good measure. The one combination in the last century and a half that's been left untred is a Republican super-majority.

And Billy, this is for you, too. Wanna know why Republicans havebeen tilting left? It's beacsue they've never goteen a clear mandate. A small majority doesn't constitute a mandate for major change, sorry.

A WSJ editorial makes the most compelling case for electing John McCain, one that the campaign has barely touched upon: the need to check unalloyed liberalism.

It's only compelling to the right-wing base. McCain would have had a hard time simultaneously arguing independent voters should support him because he'd get things done by reaching across the aisle and because he'd create legislative gridlock. In a year that "change" is the theme, when people feel the country is in a mess that requires action, inaction is a losing platform.

Far more effective as a minority than as a majority, Michael. It's far easier to stop something happening, than it is to make it happen, after all.

Yes, but they don't seem able to stop anything as a majority party either.

I don't get why the WSJ hasn't brought this up earlier. Almost all my votes are intended to stop liberalism more than advance conservatism.

Mine too Steve - just a different flavor of liberalism than you. Which is why I'll be voting straight democrat this election.

We haven't had a truly conservative party for whom to vote in decades. I wish that republicans would admit this.

You weren't here back then, but that was my complaint.... that the Republicans didn't ahve enough of a majority to keep the Democrats out of it. think, now; we've done every other possible combo over since the Civil war. The one thing we've never tried is a veto-proof Republican majority.

There is a strong case there are major differences between legislative filibusters and filibusters meant to block judicial nominations. I would think so and the WSJ thinks so as well.

I don't get why the WSJ hasn't brought this up earlier. Almost all my votes are intended to stop liberalism more than advance conservatism.

Perhaps that's because given the narrow margins of majority following 2004, they weren't 'unbound'.

Because the Democratic minority was sooo effective. Hell, they can't even put up much of an opposition as the majority party.