I think this must be their own map.
Posted on 03/19/2005 7:42:20 PM PST by Mobile Vulgus
It should be the best of times for American conservatism. Republican majorities in the House and Senate, a re-elected Republican president, an increasing number of Republican governors and a rightwards tilt in the judiciary. While the British Tories and German Christian Democrats flounder, America’s right seems to flourish.
Well, that’s the cover story. Beneath the surface, however, American conservatism is in increasing trouble. The Republican coalition, always fragile, now depends as much on the haplessness of the Democrats as on its own internal logic. On foreign and domestic policy alike the American right is splintering. With no obvious successor to George W Bush that splintering will deepen....
[(Carter didn't just suck, he sucked ROYALLY)]
This is very true, but contrary to popular opinion, he didn't suck because he was an incompetent boob, he sucked because he (along with his Democratic friends who controlled Congress) skillfully implemented sweeping policies of Euro-socialism on our country. The result was a wrecked economy and societal problems that caused a national "malaise".
Perhaps that fudgy smell, a smell of fear that a truly grass roots conservatism is emerging that will not accept the elitist drive to cram the homosexual agenda down our throats and will finally draw the line that so far, so many of our "leaders" have refused to draw.
Frankly, I think the Republican congress is doing well. They have passed Anwr and transportation and bankrupcy laws that have been waiting for years. Social Security reform will happen. The Middle East is changing. I know you want more immigration action, and it will come.
Just another disastrous attempt by the gang that can't even get it up to shoot.
Yet another glorious backfire.
The Ghost of Peter Sellers is having a field day!
No republicans anymore
Dems are socialists and pubs are dems nowadays
CUT SPENDING DAMNIT
Didnt Bush get same gay vote in 04 he got in 00?
But in the history of the world, how many conflicts have involved two democracies fighting each other, and how many haven't?
There's no guarantee that every democracy will be a reasonably benign global player, but both logic and history tend to show that they are far more likely to be.
***If the Democrats ever figure out that they should be Pro America they could take some seats.***
They've figured out that they should be pro-God, as some of them have conveniently started quoting scripture and been talking about "what God wants." I'm not one to cast stones or past judgement, but I'm definitely not going to give ANY credibility to baby killers.
Hippiecrits.
The energy legislation will do very little. In no other area is there such a vacuum of leadership in Washington as there is in energy. Frankly, for over 30 years the combination of big energy, big bio (a la ADM) and big auto has placed us ever further into the grips of the oil that funds the Terror by subsidizing problems and avoiding their solutions, just as Ronald Reagan said Washington does, and just as George Gilder pointed out was a serious danger at the time of the Reagan Revolution. Here too, the collusion between bigness on the corporate side and big environmentalism has resulted in a dance that has successfully avoided even looking in the right directions.
Old school conservatives, Neoconservatives, what a bunch of hosrsesh*t.
I've been a freedom loving conservative for a long time. I think advocating freedom around the world will make our country safer. Many conservatives who have been conservatives for a long time agree with me.
Only liberals use such queer terms as "nonconservative" and "old school conservative" and think it actually correlates with isolationism.
Differences of opinion - to an extent - make a successful and agile party. Besides, anything that depends on Democrat haplessness is on pretty solid ground.
I think this must be their own map.
["any democracy is preferable to any totalitarian government, no matter what standard you use."]
I should have added "in the long run"
The reason is, benign dictatorships never stay benign, but any nation that has a government genuinely acountable to its citzens will (most often) act in ways that promote peaceful co-existence with its neighbors (in the long run).
>>"All bickering aside, I would like to point out you said we folks will keep following our internet info sources, our talk radio and Fox news sources, and stay in line."
Ha, ha. That DID sound a tad "controlling" of me, didn't it?
I meant vote the Party and keep the Party in office, I didn't necessarily mean a certain "line" of policy.
I think this must be their map. Assuming American conservatives don't exist
AIGHT.....
aight for now. I'm watching you boy-o
;)
LOL like that will ever happen!
Tim Russert on CNBC right now
...with Andrew Sullivan, Time Magazine
...and E. J. Dione, Georgetown University
It certainly is ironic that it turns out the demorcrats spend less then the republicans. Who'd da hunk it. Boy did fool us big time or what. Bush turns out to be nicer, kinder LBJ.
Every one of these people on the left who are nattering about the precariousness of the Republican Party and how it's going to implode (apparently because of the instability of winning elections so often) would sell their mothers into slavery for a chance to trade places with those on the right.
This author believes less of his own story than I do, and I don't believe a word of it.
Yeah, both of them!
These poor people are beginning to scare me .. or should I be ROTFLOL!! Pitiful!
"I smell something"
Yes, it's the beautiful smell of liberal panic... a mixture of failure, hypocrisy, canabalism, and closet racism.
Better check your feet :-)
America is in trouble, and the RNC wraps a flimsy flag around its sold-out, unpatriotic core. Who'll dare to point out that the Emperor has no real clothes? Who will dare to demand that the RNC live up to the real duties of leadership?
The opportunities for real change slip further away each time the RNC does nothing when something absolutely needs to be done on these issues. Why are we supplying arms to Egypt and Saudi Arabia at a time like this? Something stinks in Washington, and it's a bipartisan odor. As VDH says, America was founded by rural people. Wall Street and the Beltway insiders don't really care about that. Can the RNC do more than manipulate them for its short term gains? There's a lot more to rural America than NASCAR and hunting rights.
And there's a lot more at stake than the RNC has been willing to concede. Being "right" is ineffectual if it doesn't solve problems. And not all of the problems we have were created by the left, as much as the RNC and some of the FR faithful would have us believe. We've done it to ourselves for cheap trinkets here and a quick profit there.
Conservatism is in trouble, but for reasons that go deeper than Sullivan's biased, shallow, confused analysis provides. Statist liberalism is also in trouble. So is classical liberalism. So is Islamic radicalism. So what else is new?
The only time to really shake things up and really examine problems in the party is now, between elections, but he's definitely not offering any real help. If his 2-3 pet agendas aren't represented, he could care less.
6%? I suspect that number may include the yet-to-be recruited Chicken-hawks and those still rotting in their lonely graves. Yes, they are leaving the party in record numbers, but that's only as their excessive depravity causes their life-expectancy to continually drop.
OTOH, there are a greater number of younger "children" who are being decieved into the practice believing it makes them more socially "attractive" during high school. I've been hearing more about this (while cringing.) Sad as it may be there could be potential to support the number, at least temporarily, as most children have a tendancy to grow up.
I'd give Andrew a little more credit than that, but I would agree that 1) his vehemence about gay "marriage" badly distorts his perspective; and 2) that on social issues generally, he's on the side of the left. This seriously undermines whatever "conservative" credentials he has, and therefore lessens the value (and impact) of his advice.
I agree that a serious examination, even a "shakeup," is needed among the GOP and conservatives, and I agree that the time is now.
Yep, yep, and yep. He does care about winning the war on terror because like any intelligent and observant westerner realizes, they'll come for him if we lose. I don't give him much credit for that alone. He also likes to keep his taxes low so he can spend more money on his personal pursuits. I don't give him much credit for that, either. Low taxes are good for so much more than that, such as encouraging families to thrive. I'm not sure the notion of "family" is of much importance to him at all.
It seems to me that selfishness affects Andrew's writings to this extent -- it makes him blow gay "marriage" and the GOP's opposition to it way out of proportion. But I also believe that he sincerely thinks gay "marriage" is not only OK for society as a whole, but good for it, as well as for gays.
I think Andrew cares a lot about society, but doesn't understand all that's necessary to keep it together. It seems to me that he is a sincere economic conservative who doesn't fully understand how incapable the Democrats are of fiscal responsibility (since their spending instincts are even worse than the Republicans'). On national security, I'd give him credit for a lot of seriousness and a fair amount of willingness to go to war. But like most moderates and liberals, he shrinks too easily from the ugly side of war. He has been freaking out for months about Abu Ghraib and the like, which are unfortunate and need to be corrected, but in the end are minor sideshows. Sullivan's lack of perspective here is enough to cast serious doubt on his judgement. But I think his solidarity with the West, and his rejection of pacifism and UN-ism are quite real.
I hadn't been reading enough of Sullivan's writing to know that he was anti-UN. His advocacy for destroying marriage as we know it occluded my ability to see his decent side. That's good to know that he doesn't like the UN, although I don't know exactly what he doesn't like about it. But again, I'm skeptical of the "conservative" who just doesn't like to pay taxes. I know a few aging boomers who are as liberal as the day is long, but resent paying taxes associated with young people's public costs such as education. In other words, let corporations pay taxes, but don't ask me for money for the kids. Yeah, that's real conservative... NOT.
Dead wrong. The Times is a true-blue conservative paper owned by Rupert Murdoch.
Welcome to FR. Your analysis is off as bad as Sullivans'.
I saw this guy, AS, for the first time in months when I was surfing and came upon him on the Tim Russert gab fest last night. What's happened to him? AS looks like he's gained both a beard and about fifty pounds since the last time I saw him. . . It seems to have affected his ability to reason.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.