Posted on 11/19/2006 2:39:53 AM PST by Tom D.
Agreed, but this will require a true leader, committed to both 'wings', and that man has yet to arrive on the scene.
Like you I'm a two-time Bush voter, and still support him, as in wanting him to exercise the leadership I know he can. But something has gone haywire. That weird Harriet Meiers nomination for SCOTUS was a sign of it. And he has simply sold his soul on the border security issue.
That's me.
The whole point of the article is, you shouldn't have to choose. You can have responsible and frugal public spending at home AND prosecute a war on terrorists.
"I believe the GOP leadership does not expect to win and probably does not want to win. They don't want to change so they have contented themselves to a minority party status. That is why they have a defensive stance and have signalled they will follow the Democrats' lead."
You pretty much hit the nail on the head.
The Republican Party proved in the 80's with Reagan and in the '90's with the Congress that it can "get its members elected" by proposing conservative policy positions, appealing to the best in people, and exhibiting honest leadership. That just happens to add up to a conservative philosophy but not many people will vote for the philosophy alone.
I don't think Conservatives do a very good job of identifying what the real problems facing us are, either. Too many just go into knee-jerk reactions against Lib proposals.
The first step should be identifying the real problems facing us. We don't do that - we take sides first, and then fight, even when our positions are shaky.
But it's *us* who have to solve the problems, not gov't.
Reagan actually had well thought-out opinions based on his own experience. He was our best president of the 20th century.
His amnesty was supposed to be backed with border enforcement. Both parties have been criminal in allowing the invasion to continue and grow.
I agree that Reagan was the best President of the 20th century. But he wasn't perfect.
Bush also has opinions based on his experience as Gov. of Texas, and as son of another President (and VP in the Reagan WH) Why aren't those opinions valid?
I think it should be clear by now that we need a reform of immigration policy. But too many people are unrealistic about it. We wouldn't have illegal, unskilled workers from SA if we didn't need them. We need *legal* unskilled workers from there. I'd prefer having temporary guest workers instead of permanent immigrants, but I'm open to discussion about it.
Pretending we don't need these people is beyond silly.
"The Republican Party proved in the 80's with Reagan and in the '90's with the Congress that it can "get its members elected" by proposing conservative policy positions, appealing to the best in people, and exhibiting honest leadership."
In general, I agree with you. However, whatever the GOP might have thought or did 12+ years ago is not reflected in what it's thinking or doing right now. The GOP minority in Congress has basically turned it's back on conservatives and made a dash for the center-left on the hope that it can preserve what seats it has. They've tacitly accepted that that they will be a minority party for the forseeable future.
I really do feel badly for my conservative FRiends in the GOP. While I left the GOP many years ago and have little use for the party at this point, I do realize that there are a lot of conservatives who were and are invested in the GOP.
He's right though. A large constituency of the Democrat Party is the recipient class, the would-be recipients and the bureaucracy that supports them (and themselves).
This is a war against radical Muslims -- President Bush needs to explain that. Radical ideas and radical ideology are driving terrorism. It's not coincidental that all terrorists are Muslim. President Bush needs to say it.
The United States can't wage war against an unknown force. Bush needs to say the war is against radical Islam. And expalin what radical Islam is - then, and only then, should he assure Americans that almost all American Muslims are treasured fellow citizens, not terrorists. Then he can call on understanding and tolerance. But not before. Not before he tells the hard truth - the un-PC truth.
Calling Islam a religion of peace before warning people about it's dangers is silly.
Indeed, if they want conservatives to vote a Republican ticket, then of course the Republicans must preform as conservatives, not liberals in drag.
Bush is a pragmatist who cares most about winning. Reagan was an idealist who was willing to be pragmatic.
Reagan took his own life and his family's life in his hands when he battled the Hollywood Communists who tried to run the Screen Actors' Guild. We now have a huge archive of what Reagan thought and wrote in his early days, long before he entered politics.
W. is not much of a thinker. He is much smarter than the Democrats allow, but he is a poor communicator, worse than his father. My biggest complaint is that he ran as conservative, like his father, and governed as a Democrat, like his father, trying to please the enemy while spiting his supporters.
Bush 1 used to say, "If you're so smart, why aren't you president?" That is typical Bush arrogance and explains why both failed as leaders.
Not to nitpick about the virtues of the nanny state, but I think the point of what politicos call "freedom" is the freedom to choose. And so when ppl choose nanny state regs, they are indeed giving over personal freedom to gubmint, but politically, they are doing so freely, as part of an interactive system. In a dictatorship, the ppl have no say.
If they would be slaves, then their is no way I can stop them from that. The best thing to so in this case is do something to stop our dependence on Middle Eastern black gold.
Do we really have to list all the things that shouldn't be, but are, and we must learn to live with them and overcome them, and that's part of being an adult?
I agree that cutting loose from oil is crucial to all this, but nobody seems to be dealing with that and I don't know what it will take. I honestly think people believe this is just a temporary glitch, and things will all settle down and go back to humming along again...nobody is treating anything at all very seriously.
That is really a misguided assessment. He's shown on many occasions that he is willing to risk his popularity and "winning" for what he thinks is right. He tried for SS reform - long considered the "third rail" of politics, because he knows we have to do it. He's stuck by his Constructionist nominees for the Courts (unlike Reagan who compromised on Sandra Day O'Connor). And he's still fighting to make his tax cuts permanent.
Those are all good Conservative positions. And if he manages all 3, he'd have to be considered as extremely successful.
You're right, he's not a good communicator - at least in front of a camera. People who have been in personal meetings give him rave reviews for those sessions though.
2008 Bump. "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it”.
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.