<Stop listening to Limbaugh, and start reading Buchanan.

Actually, I do both. Can't wait to hear Rush tomorrow with his new ear. I do not agree with Buchanan on trade and isolationist issues, but he has some good points in other areas.

A good part of that federal spending (read "your tax dollars") goes to service the debt, and that debt was run up during Reagan, and it came about because of over optimistic tax cuts.

This is a flat out lie, and I'm getting a little tired of hearing it. Federal revenues nearly doubled during the Reagan years. Unfortunately, spending handily outran the revenues. Neither Democrats nor Republicans were the model of frugality during those years, and blame belongs to both parties. As I mentioned in another post, Federal spending, adjusted for inflation, has doubled since 1974. This is frankly insane, and unless the brakes are put on, I see no end in sight.

I have nothing against a middle class elsewhere in the world, I simply want them to make enough money so they can both afford the fruits of their own labors, and freely purchase those of ours.

Absolutely no argument here. Wish I knew the best way to make it happen with a minimum of shock to the First World.

I think Bush Jr is done for, as I don't think he has enough guts to take control of the Republican Party from the Armey faction, and then simply tell Armey what he wants him to do. As President, the problems don't come at you one at a time when you want them to, they come at you all the time and all together. I don't think Bush Jr. can handle it, and that's why I think the Republicans are likely to lose control of both houses at the next election.

Liberals are always pressing for "moderation" and "bipartisanism" on the part of Republicans, by which of course they mean moving toward Democratic positions. Their solution for Bush: if he acts EXACTLY LIKE A DEMOCRAT, he will be popular, electable, and have lots of girlfriends like the Democrats do. The obvious question they don't want you to ask: if he's just like the Democrats, why not just vote for a Democrat?

I personally think the Republican Party, including Bush, should move further toward Dick Armey's positions, not try to distance themselves from them. The fact that Democrats advise exactly the opposite, as though they wanted Republicans to do well in elections, should be a major clue if nothing else is.

The greatest Republican political victories were won in 1994 when Republicans listed a set of precise, clear, and principled Republican positions in the form of the Contract With America. Go ahead, read it again. Despite squeals of anguish and warning of electoral disaster from Democrats, the Republicans promised to try to enact them if elected.

The huge victories in the House and Senate are a matter of record, as is the cause of them. The Republicans gained
gained 52 House seats, 9 Senate seats, 14 governorships, and 18 state legislatures. No sitting Republican was defeated in either the House or the Senate.

But while the The House eventually passed most of the Contract, it hit a brick wall in the Senate and in Clinton's veto pen. The entire idea of principled positions began to lose momentum. Later elections proved that the converse is also true: when Republicans lose, or compromise their principles, they lose seats.

* * *

BTW, I like these: Armey's Axioms