Get that to go and I will register as a Republican.

You don't understand, Silence. We have to put Republicans in office FIRST and THEN we get tax reform.

I found myself getting excited about the possibilities as well, but I was brought back to earth by Speaker Hastert on TV this morning. He lamented all the reform legislation passed by the House that has been killed in the Senate by failure to call a vote. (Tort reform, and others I can't remember.) "It effectively requires 60 votes to pass the Senate now," he said.

My disillusion, Johngalt, is that Republicans "aim low." When they champion bold ideas that die in the Senate, that inspires me to campaign enthusiastically for more votes.

When, conversely, GOP-ers pile on the pork, like Senator Stevens of Alaska, fight tax cuts like Senator Voinovich of Ohio, and repeal the First Amendment like Senator McCain of Arizona -- it takes the wind out of my sails.

Well then, there's your answer the next time someone complains about the "lack of diversity" in our two-party system. That Olympia Snowe and Dick Cheney can be in the same party is proof that it's far from homogeneous.

Sorry, but I won't come on board with just a pie in the sky possibility. There is too much other baggage in the Republican party for me to ignore without some real action on tax reform. It's not like the tax code got so convoluted and full of counter productive tax breaks just because of Democratic sponsored bills, both parties pork out equally well. Take a look at all that reform legislation and I bet you find each and every bill skewed toward that party's special interests.

The only party Dick Cheney belongs in is the Totalitarian party. He is energized soley by issues which bring him unfettered power.

That was my point. The nonsense in the tax code is bipartisan. To fix it will require bold ideas like a flat tax or consumption tax. I heard this rumor from a more reliable source than Drudge, Silence -- W may go for it. I'll get you the forms. I'll drive you to the courthouse.

The antipathy that VP Cheney generates is beyond me. He's a tough pol, not the devil incarnate (that would be Senator Carl Levin, I believe...)

Silence, are you saying that you believe VP Cheney should switch to the DemocRat party? After all, totalitarianism is anti-life and the left *is* consistently anti-life.

.

Could anyone kindly provide me an example of Dick Cheney's or even of John Ashcroft's evil doing? I'm aware of the perception liberals have of these men but I'd love a concrete example of what they have done to deserve that perception.

Thanks for the ride JK, and I am serious, if they make it a major plank in the platform I'll switch and buy the beer for a toast afterward. I truly believe that it would fix so many ills in our government, although the cynic in me wonders how fast the barter system will take hold...

Now, it seems some examples are in order.

Dick Cheney beleives that his power as vice president should simply not be questioned, wether it is who he meets with to map out energy policy or giving an order to shoot down an airliner on Sept. 11. It is not simply a question of his defending his actions, it is the attitude that no one has the right to even ask.

John Ashcroft shares this view. He was called before the senate armed services committee to answer to wether he, or anyone in his office had given the president advice on the legality of using torture on "enemy combatants". He refused to answer the committee's question. As Sen. Joe Biden correctly informed him, he does not have the right not to answer a question. He may try to invoke 5th ammendment rights or executive privlidge, but he may not refuse to answer or risk being held in contempt of congress. Ashcroft did not invoke either, but simply maintained that his communication with the president was confidential, and that congress had no right or jurisdiction to ask him to reveal said information.

Heat, oxygen, and fuel lead to fire. Power, loyalty, and secrecy lead to tyranny, and these are the fundamental beliefs of these men.

TOTALITARIAN party? UNFETTERED power?

Silence... step AWAY from the Kool-Aid!

The man is not the second coming of Adolf because he believes some of the people's business is best conducted in confidence.

And your outrage over AG Ashcroft's mere refusal to answer a question is laughable in the face of the genuinely outrageous acts by that same Senator Biden on the Senate Judiciary Committee. He apparently believes he does have the right, not only to refuse to vote on confirmation of a nominee, but to prohibit everyone else on the committee from voting either.

No, Cheney is no Hitler, but "some of the people's business is best conducted in confidence" is the grandaddy of all slippery slopes.

My outrage is laughable only to those who ingnore the Constitution. Sen. Biden's actions on holding up judiciary nominees, like the actions of all his fellow senators from both parties on this issue is entirely legal and consistent with Constitutional principles. Ashcroft's refusal to answer congress without availing himself of a legal priviledge is not.

So are you suggesting that we abolish the US government's system of security clearance and classification of information? Good grief.

Silence, you said Cheney believes his power "should simply not be questioned," but the only people questioning his actions are those who wanted Joe Lieberman to have his job instead. You express outrage at Cheney's partisan actions, but give a pass to his detractors' partisan outrage.

You also enumerated "power, loyalty, and secrecy" as the necessary and absolute conditions for tyranny. Winston Churchill had all these qualities and was not a tyrant, as have been all presidents of the United States, unless you contend that some democrat former presidents were not loyal. Hitler, Stalin and Mao had another quality - ambition for dominance of one's fellow man. As much as I despise the socialist ideals of modern Democrats I don't think we need to worry about tyranny at the hands of any chief executive or candidate therefor, with the possible exception of Ralph Nader and Lyndon LaRouche.

Finally, let me paraphrase your position on Cheney and Ashcroft: These men should be removed from office at all costs because they exercise the power of their offices, are loyal to the chief executive, and don't reveal every discussion ever held in confidence in the White House during fishing expeditions by hostile partisan operatives, thereby proving that they aspire to tyranny. That's basically what your examples add up to, isn't it?