Nice Post (#303).And it flies in the face of the Gipper's eleventh commandment (which I concede, I do not always follow): ""Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow republican."
GW will never be as conservative as I am. But he's the best we got now. With luck, we may have him for eight years--but not if we go pouting off and take are marbles home because W is not sufficiently pure.
Here is a post I replied to earlier today (in italics) that typifies the Bush is Satan crowd and my response (following the italics). I am posting it because I am sick of people whining about how liberal the republicans are. Generally, I suspect those same people have no exposure to real politics and the real constraints that come from running a country that is 50-50 divided between liberals and conservatives. Instead of whining, I suggest they do something; and my post quoted below suggests what that ought to be.
The earlier poster's argument was that I should use your resources to mobilize the people who think that Bush is a sell out traitor to the conservative cause to bring lots of "angry voter" pressure on the Bush administration.
Traitor? My response, which follows, applies to this thread also.
Well, I for one don't want to mobilize algore right back into control of our beautiful country. Conservative anger needs to be focused and it has to be directed at the correct culprits. Remember who the bad guys are: the left and their butt puppets--the democrats, the universities and the major media. They got us here; not GW.
A more effective course than calling this president a traitor would be for conservatives to be going to their state caucuses, running for local office, contributing money to the Republican party etc. Those things buy you influence and power.
We need conservatives to have influence and power in the party. We need that EVEN IF THE PARTY IN YOUR STATE NOMINATES A RINO NOW AND THEN, OR EVEN IF IT DOES SO FREQUENTLY. That RINO senator may be the reason the next Anton Scalia gets to the floor of the senate for a vote for Supreme Court. That's important. Not the political impurity that sticks to me for having supported some schmuck RINO who noone will remember in 20 years.
Political power comes from having large organizations that can raise a lot of money and be focused on achieving goals. The only organization that remotely fits that description today is the Republican party.
The only way to move the republican party in a more conservative direction is to join up, roll up your sleeves, gain a position of influence, and then use the power and influence you have accumulated. This is the way Barry Goldwater did it in the 60's and Ronald Reagan in the 80's--hard work and hard politics. You would be surprised how much power and access a little enthusiastic volunteer work and money contributions can produce.
For example, my wife does a lot of volunteer work for a politician here that is widely accused of being a RINO. Largely unfair but on some issues, he is squishy. Well, she is a continual thorn in his side on CCW. He hears about it everytime they talk. His wife hears about it everytime they talk. That stuff makes a difference.
And even if it doesn't in the short term. THIS IS A MARATHON, NOT A SPRINT. The left has goobered up our country over a 75 year period. Great strides have been made at turning the Republicans into a viable conservative alternative over the past 40 years. It's way far from complete. But compared to the Nixon days, we have made huge progress. Politically, Nixon would be way to the left in today's Republican party. Geez, Rockefeller was his main opposition in the primaries.
We stand on the shoulders of the guys who took over the party for Barry Goldwater and Reagan. Even if, in our lifetimes, we only accomplish 10% of what we want, if we don't do it, if we pack up our cards and go home or mobilize an OK republican out of office by calling him a traitor, those who follow us won't have anything to stand on.
Only a long term perspective will make any difference. That perspective would not refer to a good man who is somewhat conservative (just not nearly as conservative as me) as a "traitor." GW is not a traitor for disagreeing with me or for not being as conservative as I am. But RIGHT NOW, GW IS THE "RIGHTMOST VIABLE CANDIDATE."
We can grumble all we want here--and if you check my posts, I do a lot of that--but right now, he is the guy who can do the most to stop or slow the leftward lurch of this country. We should to support him financially, organizationally, and with our votes.
Can you honestly pretend that this "traitor" [GW] is making things worse than algore would have? I get frustrated too that a moderate conservative like GW is the best we can do. But right now, that's the case. So roll up your sleeves. Get involved in the party. In ten years, maybe the two of us will be in a position to actually move the party a little further to the right.
You have stated my problem very well! It keeps getting missed that I am "not" against debating honestly or ignored is probably a better word that missed! Thanks!
Hard core liberals = 25% (approx)
Hard core conservatives = 25% (approx)
Needed to win election = 50% plus one (exactly)
Politicians run to the middle because that is how they get elected.
Change the opinions/sentiments of the majority of the middle to your way of thinking = Victory.
How do we get the middle thinking and voting like a conservative? Hmmmm...
Sitting around and arguing which snake (politician) is more deserving of your support while ALL OF THEM run to the middle to get elected is ludicrous. The only reason we have any conservative reps in DC at all is because they are from such solidly conservative districts they don't have to pander to the middle. (There are some exceptions (Bob Barr) but they only prove the rule.).
Watching futile excercises like this makes me wonder if we ever will have the smarts and savvy to take on liberalism on and defeat it.
I don't think anybody is calling him satan. Saying that some are trying to paint him as such is stirring up trouble in and of it's ownself ;-)
Nobody here believes we would have been better off with algore. You listen to what liberals wanted to do after 9/11, and had he been in office, you know it would have gotten passed. You know Feinstein would have her National Guard on the highways and bridges, you know they'd have their National IDs/papers. etc.
On the other hand. I can make a very very valid argument, that this country, as of June 6th, 2002, is more liberal than when George W. Bush took office, almost a year and a half ago. That's not saying we would have been better off with gore, which we wouldn't be.
I have a question for you. Many of us (myself included) are bolting from the GOP (the first time for me) and looking at voting third party Conservative candidates come the next Presidential election.
We know, out of the last 3 elections, that two have been decided by third party candidates (Perot 92, Nader 2000).
Let's say Bush loses by a slim margin, and he would have won had he not had those votes siphoned off to third party Conservative candidates. Would this make the GOP sit up, look around and say "Okay, we've strayed from traditional Conservative beliefs and values. We need to go back to that to bring those voters back." It's an interesting question to ponder. As of right now, we seem to have no true Conservative platform, or at least one that is being followed. A little tough love maybe needed?
Maybe questions should be asked about if this is a Bush problem or a GOP problem. Here in Texas, the GOP is thinking about/doing something to deal with RINOs (i.e. making candidates with GOP labels basically say "here is our platform, we agree with these points"). The past decade, we haven't had a problem with RINOs, because we really haven't had the GOP in any serious state-wide office/position. I know it's hard to believe, but a decade ago, Texas was run by liberals. It took us a lot of hardwork to bring people around and convince them that the GOP was different than the democrats. Now we are swinging back to that, we have democrats supporting Conservative beliefs, and we have RINOs running around. We don't have that "umph" that seperates the parties, and as a result, elections are going to be tight for us, with a lot of voter indifference on both sides of the fence.
Sorry for ramling.
Nice Post (#303).