Count me as part of the War Party. It really boils down to this for Republicans.

Just a thought: Maybe Steny should attend to his own intra-party fight. One would think having to worry about the knife in Nancy's hand would be more pressing.

I think Steny would rather have our eyes off his back. LOL He knows it coming!

Rep. Steny Hoyer acknowledged Sunday he was seeking assurances from incoming Speaker Nancy Pelosi that she would not retaliate against his supporters after he won the No. 2 House leadership post.

Hoyer, D-Md., insisted there was "no bad blood" with Pelosi after she publicly supported Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania for the job of majority leader. Hoyer said he was confident Pelosi would not punish House colleagues who voted 149-86 last week to make Hoyer the majority leader when Democrats take control in January.

"We're going to talk about that," said Hoyer, when asked whether Pelosi had made promises not to retaliate by denying choice committee assignments. "One of the reasons it's going to not happen is that there are a lot of them."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/19/AR2006111900473.html

Pelosi's term as speaker will allow Americans to see a female in a big leadership role. Seeing how she started, it is obvious she will not handle well at all. Some on both sides are already calling her "the wicked witch of the west". Will Americans want a wicked witch of the east?

Remember, the wicked witch of the east was killed when the "house" landed on her. Is Nancy's house going to fall on Hillary?

I don't think it's the War Party v. the Small Gov't Party. The reason I know that's not true is because I would be a member of both parties. You can be for small gov't as well as for killing the guy who plans to kill you, and killing him first.

I think it's basically the Small Gov't GOP v. the Big Gov't GOP. The latter wants more federal control over lots of policies that used to be run by the states, like education and marriage. The big gov't GOPers also have fewer problems with pork and waste. In my view, they're similar to liberals, only they finance all of this through borrowing as opposed to higher taxes and they try to use the state to make the culture more conservative instead of more liberal.

The small gov't types, which is what I am, think that things like education and marriage and most social and domestic policy should be kept as close to the individual as possible. That means most of those decisions shouldn't even involve gov't, and when you do need gov't, local gov't should act first, then states, and every now and then, the federal gov't might need to do something. That was the old Goldwater/Reagan conservatism, and a lot of us feel that Team Bush has dumped that and are tired of being called disloyal every time we bring it up. We've held our tongues because Republicans were winning elections, and I for one generally like it when Republicans win. But now that the Big Gov't GOPers are losing elections, the gloves are off.

I favor a GOP that keeps taxes low, fills the judiciary with states' rights conservatives, sends the terrorists to Hades, AND balances the budget, keeps most domestic policy at the state level, and passes a comprehensive immigration solution. I think that's a good, first-principles, pragmatic solution going forward.

I'm not sure it is so simple to draw that distinction. Don't even the "big govt" Republicans favor lower taxes and balanced budgets?

Reagan certainly qualifies as a "big govt" Republican. He never promised to do anything more than slow the rate of growth of government spending, and willingly threw that promise under the wheels. He allowed all the domestic budget caps to be busted in exchange for higher defense spending, creating the deficits of the '80s. The lower tax rates eventually helped bring the budget into balance, while the defense spending broke the back of the Soviet Empire, so it was a good deal all around, but one which met with stern disapproval from the "small govt" types at the time.

Similarly, even with the huge amounts spent on NCLB, the Medicare prescription program, agricultural subsidies, and earmarks/pork projects, the budget would be in balance today if not for Iraq War costs.

Given the level of support among Republicans for the Bush spending initiatives, the "small govt" Republicans in the House and Senate can be counted on fingers and toes.

Obviously, there is a much higher proportion of "small govt" Republicans on the internet than holding elective office. It's not even a contest on Capitol Hill.

"Don't even the "big govt" Republicans favor lower taxes and balanced budgets?"

Low taxes, yes. But I've had some Republicans tell me to my face that they couldn't care less about balanced budgets. I worked for an old Bob Dole Republican once and he's convinced that this is due to Democrat converts who brought their affinity for big gov't with them to the GOP.

"Reagan certainly qualifies as a "big govt" Republican."

Now, now. No need to tarnish the name of a great man. Everything is relative, and Reagan wasn't exactly an orthodox libertarian when it came down to actually governing, but the growth in spending and federal power under Reagan is dwarfed by the obligations that we now face due to Bush 43's compassion. Reagan never created a brand new entitlement that no one has any idea how we're going to pay for down the road. Reagan actually gave more power to the states to manage education, while Bush 43 has given the feds more power. Put simply, Reagan never wanted to give everyone a pony. I suspect Bush 43 would if he could.

"Obviously, there is a much higher proportion of "small govt" Republicans on the internet than holding elective office. It's not even a contest on Capitol Hill."

Heh. Indeed. Perhaps that's why they lost 1/8th of their caucus this year in the House. And why Democrats control the House, the Senate, and the majority of governorships for the first time since 1994.