I consider myself a defender of the constitution and a limited government advocate before I am a Republican. There is no more clear evidence that Republicans cannot be trusted any more than Democrats with united government than the first six years of the Bush administration. Out of control spending, rampant corruption, biggest new entitlement program since LBJ, explosion of earmarks, massive deficits, gutting habeas corpus, immigration, on and on. The Dems will be hard pressed to match that record, but I’d rather not find out if they can get there by giving them all the keys.

I have been beating the divided government drum for two years on my blog. I voted for John Kerry to get divided government in 2004 and lost. I supported a straight Dem ticket in 2006 to get divided government and won. This year I will vote to re-elect divided government by supporting John McCain.

This scholarly article from a Constitutional lawyer puts more than a little academic cred behind the divided government thesis.

Anyway, Ed – FWIW I recently initiated a “Coalition of the Divided” blogroll for anyone who says anything vaguely positive about divided government. You are now a member in good standing.

None of that sounded particularly unreasonable.
Personally, I would be for a ballistics test of every gun before it is sold.

That is completely unresonable. Ballistics tests are a joke. They have no value whatsoever.

McCain’s reputation as a maverick would prevent that.

Tell me you’re joking. McCain’s reputation as a “maverick” rests entirely on his willingness to shaft his own party and work with the left wing of the Democrats. I’m not seeing how that makes him an effective countweight to a Democratic Congress. His immediate instinct would be to work with them to pass all sorts of far-left bills. Hell, that’s what he’s been doing in the Senate.

Michelle Malkin at HotAir considers Will’s divided government argument risky, but agrees that it should be “one of the arrows in the quiver”. …

Union thug intimidation is what that bill is all about.

No secret ballot to protect voters from the vicious intimidation of the unions.

My Dad was in a teachers union in CA for years. He obviously HATES the union.

Will’s advice is divisive. The better way would be for
McCain/Palin to campaign on behalf of republicans running for both houses.

Their pitch in each case would be along the lines of: We need help. A veto is a negative thing – if the democrats win, I’ll be vetoing legislation like the sham energy bill, like the free choice act,, and we’ll end up fighting them on every issue for another four years. but if you send “Joe” to congress, then together we can achieve positive things like a real energy bill, like… and so on and so on.

Send_Me on September 18, 2008 at 9:00 AM

None of that sounded particularly unreasonable.
Personally, I would be for a ballistics test of every gun before it is sold.

Which do you think was a more formative experience in John McCain’s life: 26 years in Congress or 5 1/2 years as a POW?

Answer: Obama does not know hard times. McCain does. Hard times don’t last, but hard leaders do. McCain has toughness that Obama can only dream and write about. McCain is a leader, Obama is a figurehead. Case closed.

Break out the power of the veto pen, Will advises, and remind voters that they need a counterbalance to a Democratic Congress.

Precisely what Lady Lynn Forester De Rothschild, on Greta, explained – how dangerous it w/b for this country to hand all over to Obama, under Pelosi/Reid.

This lady, Lynn Forester De Rothschild, a democrat for Hillary, gave W. Blitzer the most elegant shelacking I’ve ever seen. She will be an incredible asset to the McCain/Palin ticket, and she said on Greta that she told her family that she’d campaign until the hour of voting.

We can see what happens.
Tommygun on September 18, 2008 at 10:01 AM

What I’d like to see happen is for you to start your own blog.

The world will flock to it, I’m sure. For the righteousness.

I’m all for divided governments. Gridlock is a feature, not a bug.

Lehosh on September 18, 2008 at 8:23 AM

Great one, Lehosh…and fortunately, in the past, the American people have very clearly voted for divided government many times. Even my home state of Kansas–generally regarded as the most Republican state in the union–regularly puts in a Democratic governor.

In discussions of “gridlock,” I often hear people refer with admiration to the British parliamentary system, in which, of course, the head of the majority party is also the chief of state. That admiration tells me everything I need to know about that person’s view of government in general.

On the other hand, I fear much more that which we don’t know yet. Who could have predicted–at the time of Bill Clinton’s election in 1992–that the current turmoil in the housing market would be the result of tinkering by Democrats to help minorities buy houses? We simply don’t know what good intentions of the Democrats will lead to their next act of colossal stupidity. And it’s a waste of time to even try to predict what it will be. Instead, we need to think about Democratic economic policy being like a hurricane wondering in the Gulf of Mexico and us having no idea where it will hit shore.

I must disagree with you for two reasons:

1. “Perspectives that challenge” is not the same thing as “undermining the war effort,” and some alleged need for such “perspectives” does not justify such “undermining.” Lincoln called for removing Congressmen doing such things. I must agree. The Cause is more important than such academic exercise, which is destructive at any rate.

2. The more I look at Ed’s articles, the less defending I am of him. Ed is better than AP in some substantive ways, but my previous defenses of him are being shown to be flawed.

Tommygun on September 18, 2008 at 9:39 AM

Your “point #1″ reeks of totalitarianism. Even Lincolns threats (while possibly justified) were illegal and itself threatened the constitutional right to criticize our government. While you use the term “undermining” to re-shape your argument, others are reminded of the totalitarian monarcys that proceeded our government where dissent was met with persecution. Very slippery slope here my friend.

Your #2 point inforces exactly what I wrote above. Your right to defend or dissagree with Ed and Allahs perspectives are clearly not in jeopardy, (even if a majority of the “crew” would have you thrown overboard or into the brig with no rations.:) Where else in this world could you find tolerance and dissent allowed in the same venue with out your life threatened by those who disagree with your views. By all means, speak your mind—-but I might suggest you practice the art of treading water. :)

Tommygun on September 18, 2008 at 10:01 AM

No offense intended, but I sincerely doubt anything will happen. AP and Ed have been criticized before. I haven’t seen them ban anyone over it or even change their writing styles (thank God).

I wrote something because I consider those comments rude. If you don’t like what they’re doing, then you might prefer going somewhere else.

At least, until the “fairness doctrine” tells them otherwise.

Tommygun on September 18, 2008 at 9:57 AM

I hope that not a single one of us will tolerate such an anti-American law.

Esthier on September 18, 2008 at 9:44 AM

and

Tommygun on September 18, 2008 at 9:57 AM

But all that being said, I do appreciate your point. I have made my point as to the effect of the current editorial practices, and others have seen it as well.

We can see what happens.

I have joked with my friends for years that the ideal situation really is a Democratic Congress and a Republican President, preferably with a line-item veto. Democrats are better at spending money and doing the micro-stuff of government. Republicans are better at defending the nation and managing the bureaucracy (or at least we used to be, I can’t defend this Administration).

“Get Allah out of the house”!

Nah. AP has a mean streak, but that’s about it.

TG, with all due respect, AP works here and you don’t.

BigD on September 18, 2008 at 9:17 AM
I’m not sure what respect is due there.

AP and Ed run this blog. Tommygun is someone who has the privilege of posting here. Hopefully the difference is obvious enough.

Esthier on September 18, 2008 at 9:44 AM

And they are free to exercise their authority on this blog. At least, until the “fairness doctrine” tells them otherwise.

justincase on September 18, 2008 at 9:49 AM

A lot of truth there. Good points!

What is happening to Palin from the lefties is strong-arm tactics, and people need to know that the democratic congress wants union powers to be able to use those tactics on every worker. You want your e-mails hacked? Fine. Vote democrat and you may as well have a bulls-eye target on your back for union thugs to shoot at. Sarah Palin won’t be the only “little guy” who has to face crap from America’s political machine.

The only weapon the “little guy” has against that machine is his ability to shine the light of day on it & get the public to apply free-market pressure to keep the power players honest, since those who are supposed to enforce the law and/or ethics are part of the political machine, the mob – the unionized Congress that won’t ever really go after one of its own no matter how corrupt.

But democrats want to take that weapon away too. For instance, every article saying that Palin’s e-mail was hacked would also have to say, “But some say she deserved it.” The Fairness Doctrine would silence alternative voices to the same MSM that is tearing Alaska apart looking for dirt with which to destroy a “little person” who dared to look Washington in the eyeballs.

The establishment media and the establishment Congress are scared shi!tless of you and me – the little people who just might be able to find a voice to counter their own, unless they are silenced for their own good. That’s why they have to coerce people into union taxation for the democrat party and silence dissent.

Chicago thuggery soon showing at your hometown.

If America is up to an earnest discussion about this, now would be a good time (perhaps the last chance) to have it.