However, they have been incapable of enacting effective policy and that is why, despite political organization and ability, they are losing.

I think its a mistake to think Republicans are incapable of effective policy. They just haven’t been honest about their true goals. They’ve been about cutting taxes on the wealthy, eliminating rules and regulations on big business, stripping workers and whistleblowers of rights against retribution, and channeling federal funds to their biggest political allies. It’s all about their moneyed interests.

They’ve been extremely effective on all these fronts.

Small government hasn’t truly been a Republican objective for decades and even religious values have been talking points rather than real objectives for the party.

Since this is going to be a continuing problem, I suggest that our government work out a longterm solution that isn’t a global black eye for America’s reputation, and makes a better attempt at weeding out the truly dangerous combatants.

Trouble is, there is no foreseeable end to this conflict. When do you think the WOT will end? 10 years? 50 years?

That’s certainly an issue. It would be required if one were following the letter of the Laws of War though.

An additional problem is when their home country does not want them back. Deport them somewhere else and it’s “extraordinary rendition” or keep them forever.

Personally, I think we should negotiate with their country of origin to return them after a certain period of time with some level of guarantee they will not return to the fighting.

> The 2008 election will probably be like the 1996 election.

Indeed. The Republican field is laughable, with quasi-Dems in the lead!

And who is out there who could be a real candidate? (Jeb Bush? Ha)

Don’t forget that Dubya’s father had the election won ahead of time and then proceeded to lose it. (In fact, let’s wait and see if the media and the other Dems bring frequent attention to that fact, “like father, like son?” in the coming months.)

The father, son W … what does that do for Jeb’s chances? Maybe no harm, given that W. was elected twice. It will depend on how bad the Dems are later.

Unless something odd happens between now and November 2008, I’m already saying it: “President Clinton. President Clinton. President Clinton.”

*scowl*

By the way we are investing in the war- we are investing in weapons systems that either are not ready or don’t really work dependably, or are not useful in fighting a war of counterinsurgency. Remember defense contractors Wilkes and Wade? They have now been indicted in the Duke Cunningham corruption case.

We are also investing in a future presence in the ME by building a 600 million dollar embassy ( staffers don’t speak Arabic or Farsi, lol and there are not enough interpreters because Cunningham’s buddies were supposed to supply them) and permanent bases. I guess we want to make sure Iran has no access to Iraq’s oil resources.

I do not recall anyone calling for more defense spending by calling it an “investment.”

If you “invested” in every 18 y/o by sending them to college, all that anyone would accomplish is to so cheapen a college degree that it would be as worthless as a high school diploma.

I guess this shows a difference in the how the the left and right values education. The left puts in the value on attendence. The right (more than the left) buts the value on knowledge and skills gained.

“Even if the people at GITMO were declared EPW’s since the beginning, they’d still be detained until the end of the conflict”
————————-
Trouble is, there is no foreseeable end to this conflict. When do you think the WOT will end?
10 years? 50 years?

I was specifically talking about Congress, but point taken. Indefinite detention without charges is not illegal. Even if the people at GITMO were declared EPW’s since the beginning, they’d still be detained until the end of the conflict like any other EPW.

What does money have to do with warrantless domestic surveillance? Or indefinite detention without charges, counsel or trial?

Those are precisely the sorts of things conservatives should have opposed, if conservatives actually believe in limited government – and not only didn’t they, they applauded and supported those things.

Yeah, Republicanism is certainly different. No one, apparently, is immune to the effects of Federal money regardless of their ideology.

No, I actually haven’t been reading Andrew Sullivan, but maybe I’ll take a look.

It strikes me as a bit ironic that the party which has spent the last several decades turning liberalism into a four letter word would be doing the same for conservatism.

If the money spent for the DC public schools is an investment, then it is time for to indite the “investment managers” for acconting fraud.

You can call it many things but the most of the funds spend by the government on education is a waste. It is much more of a social engineering “investment” than an education experiment.
The same goes for much of what the government spends of the environment. The feds are spending $10 million dollars an acre to clean up ground that is worth a few hundred dollars an acre. Look at the high level waste repository that the government has overspent, is decades behind schedule, and has failed every mandated passed on the subject.

No. Reagan said it outright: Government is the problem, not the solution.

And what ‘things’ should government not be involved in? Personal medical decisions? Sex education and birth control? Science education curriculum? Religious matters? Conservatives want the government to get involved in all of these areas – to enforce a very fundamentalist Christian ideology.

To be fair the conservative perspective is not that government is a problem but government’s power should be limited – specifically that there are things government should not be involved in.

As for defense, it has always been the primary function of any government.

In fact I see the latter being caused by the former.

If your governing philosophy is that government is the problem, not the solution (except in defense) then government only serves as a source of sinecures for one’s political allies. Why bother to do anything else? Witness Green zone staffing, FEMA, the Miers nomination, the current USA imbroglio.

Republican disdain for government causes Republican incompetence at governing.

As we have seen, a stalking horse developed by the party during its long years in the wilderness as an almost permanent minority, hasn’t served well as a governing philosophy.