The Paradox of Unified Control–How Conservatives Can Win Without Bush

Vanity | 1/31/2004 | Self

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

Frankly, I'm sorry that she feels compelled to not only leave here, but trash the place.

Well, her political position seemed to align more closely with those in her new home. I would be disappointed to see her trash FR, but...that's what people seem to have to do to be accepted there, so...not a surprise, you know?

[Peach]

See Jim Robinson's post at #712 (I think that's the number). Also do a review of in-forum posts he has made tonight on this thread.

[RJCogburn]

Well, I thought this is a place for discussion and debate, the free exchange of ideas and all that.

Sorry to see the apparent change.

I've already said I won't vote for GWB again and given my reasons. I have planned to sit out the Presidential election but vote for our great Republican governor and Senator in NH.

Jeez, I hate being told what I can say and where I can say it. If that is what becomes a part of GWB's camp...well, I guess maybe I should vote for the dem.

Bye to all my cyber friends, I suppose.

[My2Cents]

This tremendous. "Free speech" is one thing, having the entire forum overrun by nitwits is something else entirely. As we've been saying, regardless of whatever one or two issues someone is upset with Bush about, there are other issues which overshadow all else. Very gratified that Jim has weighed-in.

[Joe Hadenuf]

Came to this thread late, anything happening here?

Uh, a few things.....I'm just not sure what I can say here anymore. LOL! It seems that negative talk about the administration or the party, wont be tolerated any longer.

Sooooooo, in any event, yeah, that was good Superbowl. I missed half of it visiting with guests and playing pool, but I watch the most exciting part, the last quarter.

[F16Fighter]

"That was the delirious hope of conservatives, including myself, who cheered in November 2000 as Bush won the White House by the narrowest of margins and the Republican Party won combined control of the Senate and the House in 2002.

But this delirious optimism has turned steadily to dark dismay as Bush recklessly and heedlessly cranked the conservative agenda hard left and smashed it into reefs of trillion-dollar Medicare entitlements, record deficit spending, incumbent criticism-stifling campaign finance reform, illegal alien amnesty-on-the-installment-plan, NEA budget increases and the like."

An excellent and thought-provoking essay. Sometimes we must explore outside the political paridigm. And you have clearly articulated for many of us our expectations and unfortunately our disappointments with the Bush Administration.

This Administration in conjunction with a majority in the Senate and Congress should have aggressively stormed ahead and strongly pursued a conservative agenda. Surprisingly that had NOT happened. In fact it's retrogressed in some respects. Which direction will it follow during a second term? No one seems sure. Has irrepairible damage been done both fiscally and socially?

The crucial element of which many consider a second term for Dubya is: WILL he finally impose his (conservative) will upon the courts, and especially that of the USSC should there be a void or two in the coming four years? The verdict is not yet in, but the remaining eggs appear to be in this one basket. We HOPE so....

Whereas, we can all appreciate the job that has been done in regards to the foreign WoT and the morale of the military, domestically George W. Bush's Administration thus far has been nothing short of enigmatic -- even to the most ardent of his supporters.

[JackelopeBreeder]

Your Exhaltedness, will you please expound on what subjects are now forbidden here? I know that I constantly skate on extremely thin ice and openly admit that my number one purpose in life is to embarrass our goobermint into enforcing its existing immigration laws. Tenno hekku banzai!

Does this also mean that one cannot mention Dubya's screw-up on CFR and gutting of the 1st Ammendment? His admission that he will sign an extension of the AWB and messing with the 2nd Ammendment? His "conservative" fiscal policies? His choice of neckties when appearing on TV?

I spent twenty years of my life dealing with a personality cult in North Korea. Imagine my amusement at seeing the same methodologies being used in my own country.

[FairOpinion]

"I wouldn't vote for Bush this round for a million bucks, but I hope he beats his Democrat opponent - what does that make me?"

==
Well, since you asked...

Anyone who claims to be a conservative and is NOT voting for Bush, is a hypocrite, the Dems' useful idiot, or a Democrat pretending to be a conservative. It's one of the three.

There I gave you some choices to help you figure out where do you think you fit in.

A "non-vote" or a vote for a third party candidate is a vote for the Dems. Anyone with two braincells to rub together can figure that out.

[F16Fighter]

Why don't you give me YOUR opinion on the matter?

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

well, I guess maybe I should vote for the dem.

Nothing could make me vote for a Democrat. Nothing. But I'll bet you consider yourself more conservative than I am.

Funny, isn't it?

[Joe Hadenuf]

Good evening F16Fighter. Don't know if your aware, but I don't think Kevin is here any longer.....

[PhiKapMom]

well, I guess maybe I should vote for the dem.

Thanks for telling the rest of us what we knew all along. At least you are finally truthful! No "Conservative" would ever consider voting for John "Botox" Kerry who will most likely be the RAT candidate. He is to the left of Kennedy and here you are guessing you should vote for the Dem. Only staunch DemocRATs will support Kerry's liberal agenda -- not conservatives. All those years of disrupting and trashing President Bush and wanting us to believe you are a "principled" conservative. That was pure undulterated Crap.

[onyx]

I'll say he weighed-in. We now have at least five fewer Bush haters here on FR.

[PhiKapMom]

There is a difference between disagreeing with the President's policy and bashing him or threatening to vote DemocRAT. Pres Bush has been called all sorts of names on this forum recently. Recently someone said that Clinton was better than Pres Bush.

It is not disagreement with policy -- it is the attacks on Pres Bush that border on ludicrous and personally insult him that has bothered me from day one.

People can disagree without getting so nasty! This thread is typical of what we have come to expect from the bashers. This thread was dedicated to electing a RAT to make it better for conservatives.

There is a difference! But I personally think you are already know that!

[F16Fighter]

"Don't know if your aware, but I don't think Kevin is here any longer....."

Are you kidding me??

[Joe Hadenuf]

Clicking on his name indicates he has been, uh, removed, if I'm not mistaken.....I would add that I always enjoyed reading his post's and threads.

[onyx]

Bashing Bush and trying to defeat him is hardly an exchange of "conservative" ideas.

All of your high-minded principles espoused here have one goal: defeat President Bush. This election is not a primary. You know that.

[Joe Hadenuf]

We now have at least five fewer Bush haters here on FR.

I don't think they are/were Bush haters. That sounds so Clintonesque anyway.

I think they were people that felt strongly, and were very concerned about the direction this administration is headed. As far as I know, they were not liberals/socialist/ or anti-American.

[WRhine]

Uh, a few things.....I'm just not sure what I can say here anymore. LOL! It seems that negative talk about the administration or the party, wont be tolerated any longer.

I hear ya Joe. There is a deep schism developing in the party. It's an election year. Polls are dipping—emotions are indeed running high. It has the look and feel of 1992 all over again. Well, That's Life.

To blame a large contingent of conservatives for being angry about what is transpiring in this country at the behest of the leadership is analogous to a company blaming their long-standing customers for refusing to buy a their product after they cheapened it. And so it goes.

[EternalVigilance]

Since I had a part in this thread, and pretty much voiced the same opinions early on that Jim has voiced, minus the power behind the words, of course, I feel an obligation to state the entirety of my views about what has come out on this thread:

I disagree strongly (as I have stated many times) with the views stated by Kevin Curry and others that it is advisable or wise to support anyone but George W. Bush at this point in our history, no matter how vociferously you oppose him on any number of domestic policies.

However, as damaging to the future of our republic as I think that counsel is, I think that those who would snidely smash these dissenters down, while arrogantly insulting conservatives generally, are doing as great a disservice themselves. The whole tone is divisive in the extreme, and just make the current problems much worse, not better.

If you feel your anger rising at me this moment, you are very likely one of the people I'm talking about. Commence firing now...

EV


To Jim:

You might want to cool the jets of some of the moderates around here at the same time you are curbing the rebels; whenever they get particularly offensive and insulting towards conservatives and conservatism...especially towards those conservatives who are firmly within the Republican coalition.

My advice may be worth exactly what you are paying for it, but I think you know what I'm talking about.

The Democrats are the enemy for the purposes of most every battle we are likely to fight this year. The battles over personnel and policy are going to have to wait til next year...hopefully with the White House safely in our hands, with larger majorities and larger conservative caucuses in both the House and Senate and in the statehouses.

Tom