I would LOVE to be Obama's press secretary. Mind you, I wouldn't last 30 minutes before they fired me, but think what a GLORIOUS 30 minutes that would be!

Ann Coulter has also skewered Republican Presidents for their "accommodating" tendencies when it comes to appointing judges. While Democrats gamely go after the most blistering radicals they can find, and then act like everyone else is crazy for opposing them, Republicans simperingly search high and low for an appointment that will meet with Democrats' approval. It's as though they assume their job is to get along with Liberals, work with them, compromise with them, flatter them.

Liberals, on the other hand, understand that their job is to destroy America by any means possible and they don't pull any punches. They DEPEND upon our willingness to compromise to get half their agenda done. When was the last time a Liberal ever compromised on anything? I'll tell you.

Liberals learned long ago that Republicans enjoy being portrayed as willing to compromise. So they realized that if they want to get "X" passed, all they need to do is propose "20X." The GOP will be shocked and outraged at the proposal, but in the spirit of compromise they'll issue a counter-offer of only "5X." The Liberals grudgingly accept the offer, and instead of getting what they wanted, they actually wind up getting way more. That's how you play habitual compromisers for suckers all day long.

And it's how you take the greatest nation in human history and throw it into the toilet.

There are quite a few Democrats that seem to get it....but so what.

They will be an island of one against the rest of the party. Who really thinks Pelosi will be reasoned with, becoming more fiscally disciplined by a junior member of Congress? Not going to happen. If Bart Stupak and is merry band of 15 could not go against the grain, a freshman congressman will not.

Until the Democratic Party purges itself of the progressives in a way the Tea Party is doing to the Republican Party - a vote for any Democrat will always be a vote for Obama, Pelosi, and Reid agenda.

Here we go again. Unemployment is up. Republicans are blocking a jobs bill (that contains only God knows what since the so-called legislators have to pass it to find out what's in it) because it allows demoncrats to give their special interests $Bs more and more in giveaways. And obozo wants to double spend and tax since the first round put us where we are - just a little more and a little further along on his mission to crash the economy. And, yes, it is an EMERGENCY. The only emergency is the health of the country which is about to go on life support and get shipped to the ICU. To die.

Burt,

I couldn't agree with you more on the subject of electing Republicans. I've been saying for years that ANY Repbulican is better for this country than ANY democrat. It's a damn shame that it's come to that, and I regret it, but I certainly was not always of this mind. I come from democrat roots and I always thought it was noble and correct to eke out the best person and pull the lever for him or her. But, if nothing else, the healthcare bill and the stimulus bill should have demostrated to all that, whatever the quality of the democrat before being elected, it all changes when they gain office and democrat pressure is applied. They do the will of their masters, and their masters happen to be among the most radical leftists this country has ever given power to. So, bring on the heat. Because of this crop of leftist democrats and this administration, I will NEVER vote for any democrat again!

Does anybody remember Robert Bork -- arguably the MOST QUALIFIED candidate ever????????

Burt, I couldn't disagree more.

By continuing to elect simpering, accommodating RINOs we only prolong our decline. Either we elect real constitutionalists or we slither on down the road to self-imposed serfdom. By electing RINOs we sanction their Demo-lite corruption of our country and help create the illusion that "they are all the same".

Obama and the Dems are the symptom, but we, the voters, are the disease. It's time to take our medicine for over a hundred years of pandering to foolishness. We are ignorant and uniformed. And we are dishonest. We are urged to vote for any Republican on the theory that a petty thief is preferable to a bank robber or a mugger is preferable to a murderer. A little dishonesty is ok. "They all do it".

It doesn't seem likely that anything sort of a cataclysm that destroys the country and kills tens or hundreds of millions of "the sheeple" will be enough to make our citizens face and deal with reality. And that may just be what lies in store for us.

This election is not about who is worse, but rather about stopping what is going on. This election will only serve as a beginning to the 2012 election.

It will take a couple of election cycles to get on the right track. If those who are elected this year, out of frustration of the other party do not get it right, then they have to go in 2012. Eventually they will get the picture. Voting for an Independent will only split the Repub. votes. To bad it has come to that, only a two party system, but for know you have to play the political game.

You don't get the choice of voting "present" like

congress does, to show their gutless nerve so you have to vote up or down.

Don't do the wait and see method, because the Dems.

will use the Lame Duck on their way out.

Burt,

While I agree with your basic premise for the short term, these "lesser of two evils" choices have only succeeded in the same ol' same ol.'

At what point do we really attempt to change the guard. This guard is much of the same (RINO's) for the last few decades since Reagan.

Perhaps, as you indicate, it is best to have at least "republicans" in office in hopes they will side once in a while with Conservative philosophy.

But the problem with not only Liberals, but also "Moderate" republicans, is that they 'must become liberal' to garner future support and votes. That is, they must show some benefit to their constituents.

The problem is not the politician, but the American "entitlement mentality," republicans and Liberals alike. Until that is changes, we will continue to get RINOS, Leftists, and others who only serve to serve themselves. It is and always has been about holding their jobs.

A great article that gets one thinking. And I thinks we need to change the American entitlement mentality to change the guards' political philosophy. Until then, it will be the same ol', same ol.'

A flaw in our system, no doubt. Any suggestions to change that?

If you keep electing RHINOs, you keep getting cap and trade, card checks, tax hikes and amnesty for illegal aliens to ObamaCare, Government Motors and his loony spending bills. If you quit electing them, they'll quit coming. Retreating is retreating no matter how far, and continual retreat is a losing strategy.

I'm afraid what some of you, such as Mugwumps and John Work, overlook is that in primaries, conservatives and RINOs (Republicans in name only), not RHINOs, get to duke it out. If the RINO wins, so be it. The Republican voters have spoken. Even if the candidate isn't someone you'd vote for, he is still preferable to the liberal he'll be facing in the general election.

I just don't understand people who seem eager to let Obama destroy the nation so that we'll all learn our lesson and in the future only vote for people to the right of William F. Buckley. That's not a risk I am willing to take and I don't believe that any sane patriot wants to risk it, either.

Regards, Burt

Amen to Burt's final comeuppance to the "Bad is Good" distortion.

I had to take something for the nausea, but I went down and pulled the lever for old Elmer Fudd anyway, and shame on any Republican who stayed home in hopes that an Obama administration might rattle the unenlightened.

Well it has, and now 3 times the number of people are studying Chinese (if they're not they should be).

Burt,

My point was that we, the voters, are the problem, of which Obama and the Dems are the symptoms. Voting for RINOs is what has gotten us where we are today, and voting for more of them isn't going to fix the problem. I'm not eager for doom and gloom. I just think that most of us have our heads so firmly in the sand that it's going to take something cataclysmic to shake them loose (or cut them off). When the majority of us come to realize that government is force and that the only legitimate use of that force is for the protection of the freedom of the individual citizen, then we will have a chance. I don't see that day coming any time soon. In 1776 we were an independent people who fought for and gained the government they deserved. Now the majority of us are not, and we are all getting the government the majority deserves. Failure to think and act in a logical manner has consequences. As we are probably going to discover.

Burt,

I think any voter who's been paying attention for the last few centuries has to realize that most of our best choices in any election do not, in fact, much resemble James Madison. We are constantly called upon to make "lesser of two evils" decisions, but to stay home is to concede, and to vote for an unelectable third party candidate or cast some idiotic protest vote (Pat Paulson, Micky Mouse, Joe Walsh, Barney Frank, etc.) is to mock the whole concept of self-government. We must give ourselves every incremental advantage possible, every time out. God knows the left does.

In fact, the only thing I disagree with in today's column is that I think it's perfectly all right to ridicule Robert Gibbs.

My fear is that it will take the cartridge box and not the ballot box to turn things around. A big problem is the state legislatures telling the political parties what the rules are. Here in Wyoming you can show up on primary day and change your party affiliation. You can then vote and then change your party affiliation back again. And don't say it has no effect on the outcome. I was an election judge on the 17th. In my precinct approximately 180 people voted. About 20 changed their party affiliation to vote in the republican primary and then changed their affiliation back before they left the building. Are these people really republican party members? BTW, what gives the government the right to determine party rules? Doesn't this violate the First Amendment? And why are the citizens of the state forced to support a group they do not belong to by paying for the primary? In our primary for governor, McMead (oops Mead) won by much less than 10%. 20/180 is 21%. So the party switches in all probability effected the outcome. I expect to write in Taylor Haynes for governor, as Mead does not even qualify as a RINO. This may give the republican leadership (still an oxymoron) something to think about (oops I am giving them to much credit). Also any gun owner who votes for Mead needs a mental checkup. Mead was in favor of the Brady Bill and backed the BATFE in their suit against Wyoming.

oops that should be 11% that switched affiliation.

The main objective is to get the socialists out, even if that means electing a RINO in the interim.

Even the RINOS are feeling the heat from conservative voters, tea partiers, 9/12ers, and the like conservative minded folks.

This heat if consistently applied and maintained for extended periods (i.e., a couple decades or more), should serve to slowly move some of these RINOS further right.

Good cases in point, look at John RINO McCain. He was previously for a form of Amnesty, but has rightly jumped on the illegal alien band wagon partly as a result of the up swell of citizens against illegal immigration. He, like others, sees and will see the writing on the wall if pressure is sustained.

Scott Brown was a temporary expedient, a pressing means to an end. He was elected by "national electorate" because people wanted a buck- stop against the liberal Communist Health Care onslaught. Unfortunately, we know how that turned out.

Nevertheless, baby steps my conservative friends, baby steps. Elect RINO "Republicans" and we'll either weed them out later, or convert them to true conservatives in the future.

Thanks for the great discourse on this important subject Burt!

I don't see why so many people want to elect RHINOs and help O'Obama dump on AMERICA. If you want to give up your constitutional rights, keep voting them in. If you quit electing them, they'll quit coming. I'll waste my time once more. If you keep giving it up in pieces, it'll all be gone. When it's gone, it's gone for good. No more America. Ever.

NO one wants to elect a RINO. But the point that's being made here is that if your choice, after the primaries, is a RINO or a democrat, any democrat, you're better off voting for the RINO, because the democrat will invariably vote with reid or pelosi! If you vote for the democrat as your alternative to the RINO, you certainly will help obama continue to dump on America. I don't see why that's so hard to understand.

I tire of responding to the historically, economically uneducated who obviously lived in a myopic bubble during the 90's.

How about someone enlighten our socialist friend True Patriot about why we really had, as he put it, the greatest economic expansion in the 90’s?

Conversing intelligently with a socialist is difficult at best.

After second thought, forget it. He will likely say it is right wing misinformation, make up excuses, or say it is Fox News propaganda. Don’t waste your energy!

Can anyone say Republican congress?

"Till shade is gone, till water is gone,

into the Shadow with teeth bared,

screaming defiance with the last breath,

to spit in Sightblinder’s eye on the last Day."

--Robert Jordan

Burt Prelutsky with this editorial has captured the essence of our failure. We conservatives are too nice. It's time to forget manners and fairness and all that other civilized crap that the left-wing has never subscribed to. No compromise. No reaching across the aisle. That time has passed with us holding out a hand untaken, standing there foolishly, arm outstretched while the world titters.

John Work--I do not agree that the voters got us into the bind in which we now find ourselves. At least not the 47% of us who voted against Obama. Place the blame where it belongs, which is squarely on Obama, Pelosi and Reid, along with the sheep they lead. Frankly, I knew what an evil piece of dreck Obama was during the campaign; what I did not envision is that the folks in the House and Senate would follow him off the cliff, many of them committing political suicide, as we'll see in November.

I regret, Bob W, that I don't possess your self control, but some nonsense simply can not be allowed to pass unquestioned. True Patriot, it was Newt Gingrich's Republican congress that was responsible for the economy of the 90s, just as it was Pelosi's congress of 2006 that did so much to scuttle Bush's economy. Or perhaps just as you never seem to have heard of Mr. Gingrich, you are unfamiliar with Chris Dodd and Barney Frank.

Burt

Case in point-I voted for Chuck DeVore in the primaries. My next choice is between Barbara Boxer and Carley Fiorina. Need I say more?

socalcon: So you don't get to vote for Ronald Reagan or Chuck DeVore. That's a shame, but it's not the end of the world. Fiorina is better than Boxer. Much, much better. Need I say more?

Regards, Burt

To the person who thinks of himself as "true patriot," if the economic downturn began during the administration of President George W. Bush, obama is completely destroying the economy. Either he and his gang are so inept as to have no idea how to help it, or they're destroying it on purpose. One almost has to suspect the latter, but, incompetence figured in, flip a coin.

Well "True Patriot" strikes yet another blow against intellectual thought. Another lesson for you and yours. Who was in control of both houses when "Bill Clinton" got your Kudos? The Republicans under Gingrich. The economy was cooking after the dot com bubble burst 2000 and 9/11. The economy was in trouble and started it's decline as a result of Democrat banking laws and the Community Reinvestment act(Jimmy Carter D) that was put on steroids by Janet Reno(democrat). In 2007 the housing bubble burst,. right after the Democrats took over Congress. So why exactly are you blaming Republicans?

The concept True (?) Patriot, and others of his ilk, fail to grasp is that the president is not the one responsible for the state of the economy, congress is. Much of the economic boom of the 90's can be directly traced back to Reagan's so-called "trickle-down" economic policies. Gingrich merely continued down the path the Gipper led us to.

Burt,

You and I have had this discussion on several occasions. I cannot agree with your any Republican is better than a democrat.

I give you Arnold Schwarsenegger in California, Scott Brown in Massachussets and Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins. I give you John McCain who has flopped like a fish out of water so often he has become Mr. Limpett. Would you have supported Charlie Crist in Florida if he hadn't come clean and displayed his true colors?

John Boehner as Speaker of the House scares me as much as Nancy Peolsi. Same for Mitch McConnell in the Senate. Gamesmanship is all they know and all they will practice. Neither Boehmer nor McConnell with have the stomach to fight it out with the fallen progreesives and their media sycophants.

The collective republican leadership needs an enema and then instruction on how to fight this war. No retreat, no surrender and no prisoners. Throw all of the bums out on their collective backsides. NOW!!!!!

Duke

Duke--Throw out all the bums? Has a nice ring to it, but it's meaningless. I will settle for throwing out the liberals and let you worry about giving the Republican leadership an enema.

Burt

Why not devote the time to reaching out to friends and family and enlightening them to our nations plight rather than bicker in a comment section? If we spend time debating the mechanism for victory rather than instilling in others the same values that lead to life and prosperity, don't we do ourselves and our collective cause a disservice?

The real battle is informing and convincing a propagandized populace that we are on a final precipice from which we will not be able to re-ascend. If that involves electing people who will do less damage until we can get bolster electoral forces, then so be it for the sake of the country.

Duke, we had a perfect example of "throw all the bums out," here in PA. A few years ago voters here revolted against "everyone," and one of the victims happened to be Sen. Rick Santorum, a perfectly good Republican senator with seniority. In his stead they elected Robert Casey, a democrat do-nothing whose only existence, it seems, is to parrot everything this administration comes up with. I agree about Swartzenegger and the rest, but at least we can count on their support much of the time. With a democrat....well, you know. What we need is stron conservative leadership to keep the existing RINO's in line.

"The main objective is to get the socialists out, even if that means electing a RINO in the interim."

How do we get rid of the socialists by electing socialists in disguise?

Burt, I always look forward to your blogs, but your idea that feeding the Republican "moderate" (yeah right!) establishment by continuing to vote for their pedigreed RINOs is going to make them shape up and start putting the nation first by following Constitutional Law is pretty absurd. It's never worked in the past, so why should it now?

It's all you, Burt. I give up!

Burt, I have been grinding my teeth for years as a lawyer watching politically appointed judges implement their political agendas with complete disregard for the law. Why was the queer judge in California allowed to sit on the Proposition 8 issue? Weak-kneed opposition, that's why. Why was the lawsuit against Arizona not promptly dismissed on a jurisdiction issue? Weak kneed opposition. The effect of appointing federal judges who care not a whit about stare decisis (what has been declared the law previously should still be the law) and are intent upon implementing and imposing their political views is going to wreck America. Guess why divorce laws are so bad. It is because it is judge made law after legislatures hashed it up for a few years. Republicans in Congress have been the biggest wimps to approve of the super liberals appointed by clueless Republican presidents who should be horsewhipped and dragged behind an old pickup truck with barbed wire tied around one ankle. Republican congressmen should "Bork" each and every liberal judge nominated for the Supreme Court, or any federal bench.

First of all, thank you Burt for taking the time out of your day to come back in here and interact with commenters. To my knowledge, you're the only columnist here that does so. It's enormously appreciated and has gone a long way toward making you one of my favorite columnists.

Second, to the Left-wing Apologist calling himself a "True Patriot":

"1992-1999 was the greates economic expansion the country has ever seen."

No. That's nothing but bald-faced propaganda put forth by the Democrats in order to help diminish the legacy of Ronald Reagan.

Nevertheless, the flush times of the 90s were indeed quite robust. However, just like Welfare Reform (which Clinton fought tooth and nail, and then when it was clear the GOP had enough votes to override his veto, he smiled and took credit for the very thing he derided and worked to defeat), Clinton took all the credit for an economic expansion that he not only never created, but which took place despite his best efforts to dismantle it.

The dot-com boom carried our economy for the better part of a decade, fueled entirely by private enterprise (such as Intel, MicroSoft and the visionary Steve Case, among many others). What did Clinton do? He tried to smother the private sector with massive new taxes, gigantic new entitlements and the ever-infamous, though thankfully defeated, HillaryCare.

The only reason Clinton didn't touch off a big recession was because after 2 years of his radical policies, the country reacted by electing the largest Republican majority in living memory. Newt Gingrich and the Contract with America, thoroughly derided by the MSM and the Democrats, restrained Clinton's far-Left ideological policies, enlivened private enterprise, and reined in the Clintonista expansion of Big Government by reforming welfare, among other things.

BTW, for those Liberals who spent the last 10 years lamenting NAFTA, it's amazing how short your memories are. Clinton campaigned on that treaty, lobbied to pass that treaty, and signed that treaty. That's yet another fact conveniently left out of the Leftist histories.

"The Republicans brought the country to a near collapse after 6 years."

Sorry, but the facts totally belie your brave but foolish statement. First of all, the economy was doing fine until the Democrats took control after the 2006 mid-terms. Liberals love to blame the Iraq war as the cause of our economic problems, but frankly the CBO puts the lie to those assertions. Their studies, which have received a great deal of attention recently (except on Leftist media outlets, not surprisingly), show that spending on Iraq amounted to a tiny fraction of deficit spending during the entire 7 years of the war. Indeed, the entire bill for the entire war didn't amount to a $400B, yet the Left lost their minds over every dollar. Meanwhile, Obama plows through money like a drunken ex-wife, to the tune of TRILLIONS -- not in 7 years, but in 1 -- and the Liberals cheer every time he threatens to spend more.

The GOP ran the country into the ground? Let's see. After 9/11, we experienced a minor recession that ended promptly and was followed by 6 years of prosperity. Then the Democrat-engineered sub-prime mortgage bubble burst in 2007-8 and things went downhill quickly. Yet, 3 weeks before the ax fell, Barney Frank, Chairman of the House Banking Committee and former sex partner of a Fannie Mae exec, testified that there was nothing wrong with Fannie or Freddie "and anyway even if something happens, the government will just bail them out." That followed 18 months of calls to rein in the sub-prime industry, with 17 calls by George Bush for Congress to tighten lending rules in 2007 alone.

When the recession hit, every sane economist advised a return to sane lending rules and letting the market readjust to realistic conditions. The recession, though a bad one, would run its course in 18 months. Instead, Democrats rejected Americans' calls to refrain from irresponsible spending, refuse to issue bailouts (which began under Bush and continued into hyperdrive under Obama), and start behaving responsibly again. They spend TRILLIONS of dollars, all of it either borrowed or imaginary, which means future generations will be saddled with that crushing debt.

If that's what a "true patriot" considers success, I'd love to know what planet he grew up on.

Somebody tell me. Where is the Republican today who has the guts to stand up to the Democrats and with the "If they mean to have a war, let it begin here" courage?

Mugwumps, I fail to see what point you are missing here. A vote for any Dem at this point is a vote to hasten the demise of America. A vote for any 3rd party candidate, whether you want to admit it or not, is a vote that gives away a chance at stopping the O-train to hell. The only chance that we have is to stop the bleeding as quickly as possible. The ONLY way that we can accomplish this is by voting for the Republican. We can stop the funding of Obama's rape of America if we elect enough Repubs. If we allow the Dems, ANY Dem, to get into office, Cap 'N' Tax is a certainty and we're through. I don't want to lose everything that I've worked for to Obama just because someone wasn't willing to accept the reality of this election. You can bet the dems will do everything possible, spend many many millions, and tell ANY lie, however outrageous, to try to keep their majorities. You can also bet that the Dems are going to outspend the Repubs in the run-up to November. The vote this November is to STOP Obama from destroying any semblance of America. In 2012, we then have to get rid of the absolute WORST President ever, by any measure. He's planning on spending another $40 Trillion over time. No one with a brain can possibly think that those types of spending levels are sustainable.

Burt, please don't confuse Republican with Conservative. It's not enough to vote Republican, we need to vote Conservative. Most Republicans on Capitol Hill can't find the Constitution with a seeing eye dog and a Boy Scout guide -- we need to get rid of them (primaries have done a lot of that already for us this year).

Most importantly, WE NEED TO VOTE. Sitting home and hoping Congress gets things right is how we got in this sorry state of affairs. Get off your butts, America -- go vote! Take out the trash on 2 November!

kev,

I agree that Santorum should not have been tossed. But, the campaign he ran in the face of anti-Bush rhetoric evidently didn't work for him.

The problem is Republican leadership is the same as "military intelligence;" an oxymoron of the first magnitude.

The is NO Republican leadership. The so called leaders want the same type of puppets that Nancy and Harry and the messiah have. That DOESN'T and WILL NEVER work.

Throw all of "da bums" out, including Boehner, McConnell, McCain, etc. That may give cause for the newly elected to realizie who the paymaster is. If not, throw the idiots out again and start over again and again until the idiots get it right.

The people deserve good government not mediocre trash that is better than some other type of mediocre trash.

Voting for the lesser of two evils is the philosophy that put us in the predicament that we are now in. CHANGE IT!!! CHANGE IT, NOW!!! NO PRISONERS, NO RETREAT, NO SURRENDER.

Duke

P.S. Jsmith,

HERE! HERE!!!! That is the point that I have been trying to stress.

Everyone has some good points in their comments, but many are overlooking the most important thing about the coming election. If we don't get rid of the Democrats' control of both houses, it won't matter if we "take our medicine" and learn from the mistakes of those idiots who elected Obozo and his ilk in 2008. If the Republican vote is diluted by those voting for independents just to throw the bumbs out, we won't have a viable country left to worry about by the time 2012 rolls around. By then it will be too late, if it isn't already.

The voters are stuck with the candidates the parties selections committees pick for them. In 2008 we had a choice between a black man (don't vote for him and you're racist), a women (don't vote for her and your sexist) and a really really senior citizen (don't vote for him and your ageist).

For the last 60 years, except for JFK and Ronald Reagan, both parties have conspired to give us nothing but the worst they could find. Candidates they could hold the most power over. This left the electorate with a choice of Tweedle-Dum or Tweedle-Dee. Not much of a choice.

It's time for both parties to either give the voters good candidates or fold up their tents and let us start from scratch.

Pete: I don't see how anyone can seriously suggest in 2010 that there is no difference between the parties. For almost two years, Obama and his cronies have tried to foist a radical leftist agenda on America, and it has only been the Republicans in the House and Senate that have fought back and to some extent kept us from drowning in a liberal wet dream.

Repeating the mantra that the two parties are the same does not denote political sophistication. Quite the opposite. What's more, it plays into the hands of Democrats who would love to see Republicans throw up their hands in frustration so that they could hold on to the House and Senate on Nov. 2nd.

Finally, the people are hardly stuck with the candidates hand-picked by the party. In several cases this year, we have seen those candidates losing out in the primary elections.

Regards, Burt

Burt,

As usual, spot on!

Thanks

Has anyone noticed that certain far left posters here and on other blogs, take the liberty of choosing names that indicate they're patriots, or rationalists, or some other moniker which can only be labeled false advertising?

MichaelSSEC -

Well said.

Democrats always seem to misunderstand that it's congress who writes the laws and holds the purse strings (until now that is), and blaming Bush and praising Clinton illuminates that misconception on their part.