Spare Me The Drama And The Congress

Peggy Noonan isn't wrong in her frank assessment of Bush the Younger's years in office. But her writing has been laced with emotion for the last few years as she always seems to come back to a sort of longing for the Reagan years. They're gone, Ms. Noonan, move on.

Is it Bush's fault that Republicans in Congress squandered their mandate for change circa the 1990's? Bush had nothing to do with that.

Bush the younger came forward, presented himself as a conservative, garnered all the frustrated hopes of his party, turned them into victory, and not nine months later was handed a historical trauma that left his country rallied around him, lifting him, and his party bonded to him. He was disciplined and often daring, but in time he sundered the party that rallied to him, and broke his coalition into pieces. He threw away his inheritance. I do not understand such squandering.

Now conservatives and Republicans are going to have to win back their party. They are going to have to break from those who have already broken from them. This will require courage, serious thinking and an ability to do what psychologists used to call letting go. This will be painful, but it's time. It's more than time.

It isn't all Bush's fault. Social Cons, particularly the religionist Right, isolationists and other groups ... any coalition they represented, and I'd argue, still mostly represent, didn't just come apart due to Bush. There are a great many forces pressuring the GOP. The majority of them haven't changed their positions at all. One of the funniest things about the "Right" blogosphere is how quickly any notion of unanimity comes apart once you move away from the war on terror.

Why doesn't Noonan lament the failure of Republicans within the legislative branch? They didn't need Bush to lose control of both Houses. They were well on their way to that road on their own.

Last night a relative said to me, "You certainly have thrown Bush under the bus!" In a sense, yes; though I still believe history will be much more kind to him than are pundits today. I responded, "Republicans are lucky there was 9/11 and the Iraq War." If Bush had been free to govern domestically as he would have liked, he never would have made it to a second term.

Bush only made it in in the first place because of the religious Right. That alone secured him the mantle of conservative, when it never really fit. The majority of Americans who prefer limited government, a strong national defense and a culture at least occasionally checked from sliding completely into the gutter are still there. Maybe now, due to Bush's failures, conservatives other than those aligned with he religious Right will have a chance to prevail within the GOP.

They could always nominate a Mormon. ; ) Though, actually, I suspect Bush may be a nightmare more for Romney than anyone else. Conservatives will ultimately be less trusting of a less than pure conservative this time out. That could work well for Thompson.

It's time to turn the page - Bush is a lameduck - and there is plenty of blame to go around within the entire GOP. The grassroots needs to get focused on 08. The Dems are making the mistake of dwelling overly long on Bush. The Right should not join in.

So, spare me the drama, Bush and much of the current Republican Congress, too. What is it we are going to do to start electing conservatives and right-leaning libertarians instead of the Lindsey Grahams, Arlen Spectres, John McCains and other big government idiots of our current not very conservative GOP political world? Or do conservatives finally deserve, if not require a party of their own?

Comments

[daveinboca]

I have a semi-long rant riffing on sweet Peggy’s demure piece entitled “PN sees Bush Deranged” which exaggerates her ire:

“Peggy is being too kind. GWB has the lack of depth and perspective a C-student at Yale who never cracked a book might be expected to have. Although his reasons for invading Iraq were not ironclad, we gave him the benefit of the doubt. But he devolved the peace after the war into the hands of a total arrogant incompetant named Rumsfeld, who grabbed the development of democracy from seasoned “professionals like Jay Garner and his team, and gave it to a loyalist hack named Bremer. And GWB was somnambulent as Ken Lay was at Enron, allowing “experts” like Cheney and Rumsfeld to overrule Shinseki and do a peace on the cheap. Of course, it was new wine into old wineskins and the seams broke.”

“Peggy does a somber sum-up that reflects my own misgivings—especially about Poppy Bush and his singular insouciance about taxes and the economy that led to Perot. Then his son squandered trillions with a Republican Senate resembling Ali Baba and his forty thieves. GWB is now realizing that the Dems write the history books and is trying to salvage his reputation by serving as Teddy Kennedy’s tea-boy, the same Kennedy who in ‘65 promised that that Immigration Law would “not allow a million immigrants a year nor change the ethnic composition of the country.” both of which it eventually did. [ditto ‘86]”

“Now REAL conservatives will have to latch onto a real Republican of the Reagan/Goldwater stripe—not transplanted Rockefeller Easterners affecting drawls and down-home cowboy charm. Like Fred Thompson or Romney. Peggy continues with a sad summary of the Bush Betrayal Family Tradition, both father and son wobbly and spineless…”

But to keep the SCOTUS from turning us into a Eurabian dystopia, I’ll hold my nose and vote for Giuliani, as long as he has Fred or Mitt on the ticket.

[Rudy]

Sadly, Thompson is at death's door and no one is going to vote for a flip-flopping Scientologist. Tancredo 08!!

[Sean Hackbarth]

"One of the funniest things about the "Right" blogosphere is how quickly any notion of unanimity comes apart once you move away from the war on terror."

A brief look at conservative political history shows that national security was the lynchpin. Without the communist threat the different strands of conservatism started pulling away from each other. We have a similar situation with the current Islamist threat. When that's over you'll see the fissures grow wider.

[seekeronos]

Mixed dice I think, with Guliani's SCOTUS picks. For one, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has made a vow never to let a SCOTUS nominee pass muster unless (s)he is a social liberal, particularly concerning Roe v. Wade... and Sen. Schumer just happens to chair the committee that scrutinizes presidential SCOTUS nominees.

Given that, and Guliani's rather liberal outlook on abortion, as well as other left-leaning issues on "gender equity" and "(gay) marriage equity" and gun control.., that will tend to temper any SCOTUS picks he makes, which could also impact how we deal with the Muslim problem down the road. In the short run, Guliani will be a hammer against Islamists... still in my book, Rudy is King of the RINOs, not far removed from McCain (aside from glaring differences on the GWOT and possibly immigration).

Mitt "Flippy" Romney is probably a good catch on the social issues (assuming he doesn't flip-flop again)... but he strikes me as a RINO of opportunity. Plus that Mormon thing does set me on my nerves... it "looks" like a Christian and maybe to an pagan or unsaved person "sounds" like a Christian, but most definitely a died-in-the-wool Mormon is NOT a Christian. Do NOT expect him to court much of the "Religious" Right.

A viable Fred Thompson/Duncan Hunter ticket would make me about as giddy as a schoolgirl, but I'm not holding my breath on that. Barring a miracle, I'm fully expecting a close Hillary/Guliani battle in 2008.

America's too tired of Bush's and the GOP's mistakes in general, and the "catering" to the Evangelical community. I think most Americans want a center moderate or moderate left approach.

The next 4~8 years will be a shift to the moderate left under Guliani with a few reasonable checks to keep it from sliding too far to the left, or more left with Hillary, riding to a Euro-Socialist crescendo by 2012.

[templar knight]

seek, my advice is to get yourself and your family prepared for 8 years of Hillary Clinton, with a socio-European style government. Rapid increases in the numbers of both legal and illegal immigrants will change not only the face of America but the politics as well. None of these people come from countries with a democratic tradition, and they will be easily swayed to vote socialist.

The SCOTUS will be packed with judges who view the Constitution as a "living" document that can and will be changed to suit the purposes of those in power. The 2nd Amendment will be the first to go.

Who knows how things will turn out, but things will get worse quickly. Take my advice. Move to a small city in a small state, one that has good hospitals, etc., but has a small population. There are many cities that fit that bill, many in such places as Oklahoma, Arkansas, Kansas, and Missouri. This is a really nice area, particularly NE Oklahoma, NW Arkansas, SW Missouri, and SE Kansas. Lots of opportunites, beautiful scenary, friendly people, numerous outdoor activities, etc. Do it before it's too late.

[wardmd]

It's not that Conservatives need to get their own party, it's that Conservatives need to take their (Republican) party BACK (and kick out the RINOS who have infected the party) - let THEM start their own damn "Moderate Party".

Their moto can be, "Elect us, we stand for NOTHING, but we'll go along with ANYTHING (if it'll get us TV time)!"

[templar knight]

OK, ward, I'm good with that, but how in the World can we get the entrenched elements out of the Party? People like Arlen Spectre have infected and control the Party in many parts of the country. They would rather see a liberal Democrat win than have a conservative Republican. They will run as write-in candidates in an effort to keep real conservatives from winning. I don't know, I'm pessimistic I guess.

[Sorry...but Noonan got it right]

I read Noonan's column last night and for the first time it finally became clear to me what issues I have with GW. He goes soft in the face of the opposition. Except in those cases where his heart truly lies...the unwavering support of the troops and the efforts in Iraq, and making illegals legal from what he perceives as the most "humane" way. He's caved on every other issue and bill brought forth by the left. How else can ANYONE explain him setting up for another alliance with Ted Kennedy?...gee the education reform alliance really worked out well. LOL!
He just doesn't get it and I wonder if he really ever has from the perspective of the Republican conservative base. Remember, in Texas he was the master of compromise with the Democrats. He parlayed that to the presidency...just so happens the game is played a little different in Washington.

[wardmd]

templar,

I understand your pessimism. Do you think it would be easier to form an entirely NEW party, or to run REAL conservatives against these linguini spined rinos? What made NO sense, was to allow the likes of Arlen Specter RUN committees (just because he has an "R" after his name, and seniority).

I guess I just believe in "tough love" - with my child, and with Elected Republicans (when THEY act like children)...

If you don't PUNISH them for doing things which they should not do, you only get more of it.

If it takes allowing Democrats to retake control of the Government (including the Whitehouse), and to cut-off contributions to the RNC, in order for the Republican Party to understand that WE (the base) will not tollerate this kind of betrayal, so be it.

When Newt lead the Congress with the (Conservative) "Contract with America", the conservative Republican (base) supported Republicans running for office. Once they got control, however, they were more concerned with "getting along" with their Democrat colleges and being invited to the Washington cocktail circuit than they were in fulfilling their promise to the Republican voters.

To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, I haven't left the Republican Party, the Republican Party has left me.

[Amarillo]

Oh my god...you are all so making me tired.

Geeze...guit bitchin'...

YOU GOT A PLAN???????

[Fight4TheRight]

LOL Amarillo! I completely agree. I have the start of a plan. It will work to both rid Congress of some of the Leftist matriarchs and at the same time, weed out the RINOs who have "caught" Liberalist - it's Term Limits.

Not sure if it needs to be an Amendment to the Constitution or not but a Representative of the House would be elected for a 3 year term and would be able to serve two consecutive terms for a total of 6 years. A U.S. Senator would serve for for six years but would not be allowed more than one term. Kennedy, Schumer, Waxman, Reid, Pelosi, Clinton, Obama, Emmanuel, Specter, Graham, Hagel, Murtha ....all of them would be gone within six years.

A true, conservative U.S. Senator running for election who then has six years to make his/her mark....knowing he/she CANNOT come back six years later will NOT abandon his/her true ethics and convictions....he/she will not fall prey to countless hours of listening to Teddy Kennedy rant about how guilty this Country should be for being successful - he/she won't absorb that drivel.

The Founding Fathers were part time legislators...for a bloody good reason - government was meant to be a part of an American's life, rather THAN an American's life.

[Buzzy]

Term limits are but a tool, maybe a good tool, to get where we need to go but a plan to either remake the GOP into a conservative party or, failing that, forming a conservative party will involve a lot of structure that will satisfy the various groups that can make conservative a popular majority instead of a small loosely joined group of various conservative factions who squabble incessantly. Are we still willing to vote in RINOs just because they're better on some issues than the Democrats? If we are then we'll never get this done. If we are not then the DEMs take power while we're cleaning house. Personally I think that if it comes down to Rudy / Hillary I'll look at 8 years of Hillary as time we can purge the RINOs from power in the party. It's gonna take a deep deep cleaning. I have hopes for Fred but we're still going to have to clean the Congress on a State by State and District by District Basis.

[templar knight]

I assume this idiot named Charles Warren is educated to some degree. The failure of our school system is put on display every time he speaks. God save us. Because the politically correct bullshit now being bandied as public policy is going to be the death of these United States. Apparently, that is exactly what he, along with the liberals and leftists want. What they desire in its place is too insidious to comtemplate. But think Stalin.

[Fred Beloit]

"You can't have a Victorian sized government without a Victorian culture and society." writes Mr Warren. Who originally wrote that,sir? Was it your favorite author Marx?

[Phoenix]

Term limits is a good idea. But purging the party of those who are not true conservatives? What a conundrum. I don't even know what a true conservative is anymore. It seems we'd have to purge everyone but the democrats and then what would we have. Chaos has made its mark and I don't think you can name one thing that has caused this flux or point to politicians for the blame. Conservatives don't embrace change and we have to - despite our great intent. Progress is leaving us behind, and we ignore it at our peril. In other words, I don't think all the blame can be laid at the feet of footloose man. People who once were staunch conservatives are neo-conservatives on the war and disgruntled moderates on everything else. Some of the social issues that the far right whine about .... well, I don't know, but when I hear them I think - 'You're stupid.' I hear the far left and think, "You're nuts." Somewhere in the middle is where many of us have staked a claim simply because we're sick to death of listening to the extremes. Heck if I know.... Just get us a leader with some guts and a good sense of reality and rational, pragmatic thinking abilities. Someone who can't be bought.

[templar knight]

Thanks for the advice, LOL, you have shown in the past how concerned you are for the GOP and conservatives, so we should listen to you, right?

[templar knight]

Uh, Charles, you completely, stupid, idiotic dumb ass!!!!!!!In a country with a modern culture with 2 children or less, YOU tell me how in the hell such a program as you envision has any chance of being paid for. Look at Europe, dumb ass. Jesus, you're stupid.

[Purple Avenger]

"simply because we're sick to death of listening to the extremes."

In reality, this country has never seen what the extremes look like yet. The rest of the world sees little difference between the democrats and republicans.

[southdakotaboy]

Hi Everyone;

Have been very busy out here in South Dakota doing some farmiing (corn, soybeans) moving cattle around and getting ready to start putting up hay.
My thoughts on this is that yes we need to throw the bums out in both parties. We on the right need to just start donating our money, time and vote to the Libertarians. I know they are full of nuts but hey they have a national party and somehow manage to get on the ballot in all 50 states every election. For those of you on the left go Greens.
Right now both parties basically think that they can do whatever they want because there is no place for those of us who are unhappy with either party to go. It is time to just hold our noses and take the plunge. It is the only way that change will happen, if you think you can reform a party from the inside your trying to pee into the wind. Once the two major parties see that they are losing large numbers and big money to the third parties change will happen. To paraphrase the old saying nothing focuses ones attetion like the prospect of being hung.

[Fred Beloit]

Both-ways Charlie wants us to believe two contrary ideas. What the baby boomer public wants, the public gets. He gleans the baby boomers desires are revealed in polls. Ergo, we will get socialized medicine. But he also tells us the baby boomers want us to get out of Iraq. The elected officials of baby boomers, the Dems, are a majority in Congress. But they do not do what they know they can do to get out. Defund the war. Why is that? It is because the polls seem to them to be wrong. The American public (the Dems in Congress seem to think based on their actions) are really not for retreat in Iraq. So the boomers are not getting what Charles says they want. Now, Mr. Warren, instead of simply stating your case, you resorted to an opening insult. "Stupid idiots..." and more. Why did you do that? Because you have the manners of a Liberal. And, further because you are a poltroon, a scoundrel, a clown, a jerk, a swine, a jabbernowl, a skunk, a knave, a rascal, a fraud, a rapscallion, and a stinker, in my opinion. It is not courteous to insult people you don't know, is it.

[templar knight]

The surprise would be your having the mental capacity to understand whether something outside your Leftist dogma was intelligent or not. As for your predictions, we shall see, but look at Europe, and the demographics. Same here, genius. There will not be enough working people to support the ones not working. And let me see, I'll try to explain this in a way that even a mental retard like you might understand.

There is not enough money in the United States to do what you propose. It is not possible over the long term. Do you understand that? The unfunded liabilities of Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid dwarf the ability of the country to repay now, and you propose a 2 trillion dollar(2,000,000,000,000) a year program. I realize there will be some savings from incorporating Medicare/Medicaid into your proposed program, but it will not be nearly enough. Those statistics you used should make that apparent, even to you. Got it?

[Fred Beloit]

You know Mr. Warren, I suspect that you are an ape in sandals, a dull fellow, a jackass, a reader of runes, a blow broth, a useful idiot, a slaughterer of the North American bison, a bridled goose, some one who is soon parted from his money, an unbundler of cardboard, an SUV driver, a dealer in green tickets, a seller of indulgences, and a heretic of the global warming faith. Please repent before it is too late. Have a nice day.

[templar knight]

Fred, I figure Charles is a 60 yr. old hippie who still smokes dope. He is probably gay, has no children, and worshipped at the alter of Hegel and Kant. He thinks Castro and Chavez are the bomb, and he drives a worn out Volvo. And his yard is overgrown, most people want nothing to do with him, so his advocacy of stupid programs is his life. Pathetic individual. Since he has no one to care of him, he wants to force the government to do the job.

[Fred Beloit]

Very possible, my friend Temp. I don't mind someone attacking my opinions or ideas, I have certainly had some of both that deserved it, especially in my Liberal student days. Just don't like confrontational insults, except in self-defense of course.

[southdakotaboy]

Charles is a good example of the selfishness of the left, he doesn't really care that how his actions will effect the next generation of this country. One only needs to look at Europe to see that the welfare state system is falling apart, hell even the Europeans themselves know this and are electing people who will change it. And yet people like Charles want to inflict this failed system on us just so some one will take care of them now that they are getting older and realize that all that self indulgent behavior they did while younger wasn't so smart.

[Purple Avenger]

People better get used to eating Alpo, driving Lada's, and being in queue for 20 hours to get a bandaid if Charles gets his way.

[wardmd]

Charles, "Even corporate CEO's realize that universal health care is inevitable"? NO, they see that IF "universal health care" is available, they why the hell should THEY pay for thier employees health care (which, by the way, is NOT a "right", it was added in to compensation packages by employers in order to attract workers [giving them something that "the other guy" wasn't offering]). Now, of couse, it's EXPECTED (try and hire someone WITHOUT offering these "benefits")...

You Liberals are SO TYPICAL - just keep doing the same thing (like socialism), and expecting different results.

Can you cite for me a SINGLE country which has (A) a vibrant economy, (B) has this socialized medicine, and (C) allows TENS OF MILLIONS of illegal aliens into their country to receive this FREE medical care?

[Renate]

Republican Party catered to the Evangelical Right? Pray tell me when that happened these last 7 some years?

[Renate]

"It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible. Do not ever let anyone claim to be a true American patriot if they ever attempt to separate Religion from politics." George Washington.

[wardmd]

Phoenix and Buzzy,

I hope you're not waiting for some LAW enforcing "Term Limits" on members of Congress... You've GOT Term Limits available to you NOW... They're called ELECTIONS. There's NOTHING forcing you to vote for these bastards over and over again (other than the idiots we allow to vote in this country)...

I'm reminded of an election many years ago, when I was in Massachusettes... The question of "Term Limits" was on their ballot. IT PASSED! Hypocritically, they also re-elected Teddy Kennedy (again) in the SAME election... You explain that one to me...

SouthDakotaBoy,

Might I suggest a different tact? Donate your money to an individual CANDIDATE (or candidates) - NOT a stupid PARTY which supports morons like Arlen Specter and others who have helped drive "the base" away, or makes no significant impact on the elections (the Libertarians).

When WE, as individuals, contribute to individual candidates (rather than the party's "machine"), then the "machine" gets the message that they no longer represent US (that's how unions have been dying a slow death - they no longer represent the best interests of the WORKERS, only in maintaining the UNION's power [and cash flow]).

[Phoenix]

I didn't know George W. was that stupid. I know he was a brilliant general and a bit of a renegade of bravery.

In fact, after studying the syntax of that supposed quotation, I will say it's fraudulent and that George never said anything so ignorant.

[Phoenix]

Ward,

"There's NOTHING forcing you to vote for these bastards over and over again (other than the idiots we allow to vote in this country)..."

You nailed it. Now let's pass a law about term limits so that the lumpen can't vote them back in. Jaysus, people are stupid. We can't control them, but if their candidate cannot serve, oops.... bummer.

Your last suggestion makes a whole lot of sense.

[seekeronos]

"It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible. Do not ever let anyone claim to be a true American patriot if they ever attempt to separate Religion from politics." George Washington.

Posted by: Renate

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Spot on, Renate!

And here is where I aggravate the local libs here nice and good:

(grin)

To echo what was said earlier about "seeking the Old Paths", we Americans would defintely do well to "go back to a Victorian" society. That timeframe indeed, saw a great revival for Christ, and even the morals and the family-centered lives we lead gave us a much more stable folk structure than this time of isolated semi-families whose only time together is spent plugged into the "Hell"-ivision and/or looking up porn or playing video games on the Net...

and for my "extreme right wing" take on Constitutional and congressional reform:

Let's modify the "No tests" clause and make it a REQUIREMENT that all seated congressmen and senators be godly men who have been properly baptised, born-again, bible-believing Christians, or faithful, Torah-observant Jews. Toss Keith Ellison out on his Islamist back-side, and tell his mostly Somali cab-driving immigrant "base", and other supporters in the "Islamic Republic of the Great Lakes" to mind thier Ps and Q's, or they'll be getting deportation officers paying them a visit in the wee hours of the morn'.

Let the Senate be limited to no more than two terms, and have the state legislatures select their respective senators, vetting them for their testimony and fruitful Christian lifestyles, or for Jewish candidates, their adherence to the Torah. Double bonus for Messianic Jews. As for the Congressrats, limit them to a total of three terms of two years duration, with Senate Faith Elections Committee responsible for vetting them prior to allowing them ballot access.

Restrict suffrage to sensible men and women who have attained the age of 21 years, and for military members 18 and up, and make gun ownership and training of all Americans not only a right, but a DUTY. Sensibleness for voting shall be ascertained by a simple pass-fail test to root out potential loonies, communists, socialists, sodomites, lawyers, and "people who think they are scientists who think that farts and SUVs are responsible for the coming of Science's Wrath", i.e. Al Gore...

OK, I'm done... got that outta my system. :)

[Fred Beloit]

wardmd is someone whose comments I respect and in theory agree with. I say in theory because a democracy means anyone people vote for can remain in office. But, we live in a republic, rule by elected officials not by the people directly. That means term limits would be perfectly legal and the Presidency and many legislative offices are in fact now term limited. The reason I favor more and tighter limits are as follows: Strom Thurmond, Ted Kennedy, Sen Byrd, John "not at this time" Murtha and the myriad of other pols who have risen to their level of incompetence of office and are afflicted with the terrible, disabling, and contagious disease of power. These life members of legislation are often at the bottom of our most severe Congressional problems. Those who are new to Congress are often those devising and supporting the best ideas; though they must bow to their seniors in all things and are basically powerless. Like dead fish, we cannot expect these new members to improve with time.

[seekeronos]

Oh! That reminds me:

"Congresspersons who have completed one term in either Senate or House shall be barred from representing, colluding with, receiving employment or remuneration from lobby organizations".

[wardmd]

Fred,

Thanks for the "vote" of confidence... I'm not saying that it would be illegal to pass term limits (though I'm sure there would be a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of such limits). I'm confident the challenge would focus on the Article I, Section 2, Clause 2 (for members of the House of Representatives) and Article I, Section 3, Clause 3 (for members of the Senate) enumeration of "restrictions" for qualification of serving.

Specifically for the House, "No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen"

and, for the Senate, "No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen"

The argument being that THESE phrases enumerate the "only" restrictions for being elected, and that ANY modification to those restrictions would require an amendment to the Constitution (which, by the way, I support).

Perhaps, since these Senators and Members of the House are, in theory, OUR representatives (of the several states), that adding wording along the lines of the 22nd amendment would be appropriate (why they didn't include Congress in the 22nd amendment beats me). Probably better, though, would be to have wording placing the "term limit" for each states' representatives in the hands of the legislators of the several states, "in such Manner and for no term(s) exceeding that which the Legislature thereof may direct" (regarding the election process of each Senator and member of the House). That would reserve to the STATES, the authority to determine their own term limits for their own members of congress.

Unfortunately, this would require getting CONGRESS to write/pass this amendment (basically putting an end to their own "careers") - I'm not optimistic that they will EVER do such a thing. The Founding Fathers NEVER envisioned needing to place such restrictions on Congress (oh, wait, they DID envision RESTRICTING who could vote, so this MESS was started by the 15th amendment - allowing ANY MORON to vote).

[seekeronos]

I don't foresee us ever going back to the good old days where only land-owning white men over 21 were given the right to the franchise.

I mean, like ya said... who in the "minority" of non-white male landowners would vote for such a thing? :P

[wardmd]

seekeronos,

I've not seen the demographics, but I really don't believe that white men constitute the only land owners these days (and I'm not in favor of THAT restrictive a policy in voters, in any event) - and I didn't say that.

But it is CLEAR that the Founding Fathers didn't think that EVERYONE should have a voice [vote] (simply based on citizenship). Isn't is SCARY that 10% of the American population actually believes that Elvis is still alive, and that if they sent him a letter, that he would get it? YOU think that THEY should be allowed to vote? WHY?

Why is it that lawyers can kick these types of people off of juries for no "good" reason (preemptive challenge), but these same morons are allowed to vote?

[seekeronos]

Ward, I was being somewhat facetious in my earlier tone with the post above. Although, in the late 18th century Republic, the frnchise was practically limited to the wealthy agriculturalists and plantation owners, most of whom were of the same stock that the Founding Fathers were cut from. At that time (and in some ways, even now) wealth was influence.

These same Founding Fathers for the most part, would be considered elitist by our standards. The thought of women voting was preposterous, and African residents in the colonies/early USA had no expectation of freedom, much less a vote, to say nothing of the Indian nations that were still in existence. The bulk of this landed class were descended from British and to a much lesser degree, Dutch (prevalent in New Amsterdam/New York) French, Scots-Irish (the deep south) and tiny fractions of Swedes and Germans (scattered in various communties in NJ/DE.

With the bulk of the region being directly under British Crown rule, and the vast majority of the Founding Fathers having extensive, if not exclusive business ties to England, it only followed that they saw fit to preserve the Republic they had framed, and to keep it in the hands of educated free men of noble character (without being "nobles" in the Eurpoean sense).

Over time, non-whites and females gained the franchise, and the franchise has been extending to even more people, with the prospect of it being extended (supralegally) to "undocumented (sic) workers".

I do agree that there should be limits though. My dream would be to say the majority of Americans saved (i.e. become faithful, Bible-believing and faith-obedient Christians) and have their state legislatures call for a second Constitutional Convention to give it a bit of an upgrade more in line with the needs of our nation. It will probably never happen, as there are waaaaay too many entrenched interests in the status quo that would block such a thing from happening.

Don't get me wrong, the Constitution was a masterpiece of legal thinking and was put together in the height of the Age of Enlightenment. The minds behind were, to my deep chagrin, mostly Deist or secular humanist with an acknowledgement of Divine Providence among other obfuscating references to Diety in their writings showing evidence that they tended to disdain the devices of religion of their day. Few men at that time would lay claim to being an "agnostic" or an "atheist" (the 18th century terms being "carnal" and "godless", respectively), even though there was a significant majority of men who claimed to be "Christian" in that era.

The trouble is, it is a 220+ year old document built upon that 18th century world, a world of commonly accepted institutionalized slavery, a world where the USA was not a supoerpower, much less a major power in any sense of the word, and one at the very beginning of the Industrial Age. We were also a much more homogenous nation ethnically, with the vast bulk of the eligible voters of English or other northern European descent.

Ammendemnts have come and gone, as the march of time has pressed on; revisionist and legislating judges have attempted to supersede the authority of the Constitution, others twist its clear meaning, and really get carried away with the parts that are open to interpretation.

That is why I say that we should convene a new Constitutional Convention, hopefully within the next 5-10 years, and revisit that venerable document, that Law of our Land, and perhaps even emerge with something greater that can meet the needs of our time now, while still preserving the hard-won freedoms we cherish, and to properly secure God's blessing upon it, we should do no less thing than to publicly acknowledge Him as the Fount and Source of all Law and Authority in the "supreme law of our land".

I do not advocate "theocracy" of the John Rousas Rushdoony stripe, or any other heresy of "dominion theology", but rather think that we would do much better to model our laws after general, best basic Christian principles, leaving behind the bits that have no active functionality in our society.

[Fred Beloit]

Well, ward, good comments, but take West Va. That state would probably enact a 75-term limit so Byrd could stay in the Senate until death. Same with Mass for Kennedy and Ct for Dodd. It seems the majorities of some states prefer monarchies or aristocracies to good representation. Bless their hearts.

[Phoenix]

Touche', Fred.

"Those who are new to Congress are often those devising and supporting the best ideas; though they must bow to their seniors in all things and are basically powerless."

Herein lies the problem with both parties but especially the change/growth-resistant Republican party. I'm a traditionalist, empiricist conservative, but I'm also a realist who understands that stasis in the face of hugely dynamic progress is a disasterous place to be.

Ward,

"But it is CLEAR that the Founding Fathers didn't think that EVERYONE should have a voice [vote] (simply based on citizenship)." No kidding. And I agree. Bless they little hearts, those Elvis fans, but they don't get to vote. The end.

[Phoenix]

Seek,

I understand your enthusiasm for the G. W. quotation, but read it carefully. America has never had the desire to 'rule the world', and the second sentence is horrid syntax and uses the word 'ever' twice. Nah.... Contemporary Americanese. A 'George Washington' may have written it, but he's still alive.

[whitneymuse]

daveinboca, my sentiments, too.

I have to tip my hat to Peggy Noonan; however, because her "voice" as that of Ronald Reagan's finally came out and said it, that Bush is a squander-er of what might have been great...and then, (((((poof))))...nothing..what a major disappointment...I admit, I projected "great" onto him and just couldn't make sense what was going on with this GW Bush...I wanted him to be more.

There were those who tried to warn us that the "emporer" truly had no clothes...

Just please get off the stage George, before the Pelosis and Murthas make this bloody for everyone and your legacy is firmly understood by what conservatives still consider themselves someone who wouldn't loogie on your legacy.

Please just get off the stage. Thanks.

[seekeronos]

"It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible."

There is some doubt that the First President (G.W.) said that. (The second half of it, about "not separating religion from politics", while it attempts to communicate a good idea, does so somewhat ineffectively, and seems to be of considerably greater doubt concerning its authenticity as a Geo. Washington quote than the first half).

Neverthless, I believe it to be a trustworthy statement on the merits of its wisdom; God is the source of all authority and sovereignty, since He is Himself the Most High God.

[Phoenix]

Whitneymuse,

You said it well. I did the same thing. Maybe I should put that in the present tense because I still have a strong loyalty to Bush. It may be that I'm just sad the job wore him out. I don't know how he's still standing.

"I admit, I projected "great" onto him and just couldn't make sense what was going on with this GW Bush...I wanted him to be more."