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

Vanity | 1/31/2004 | Self

[tpaine]

Texasforever wrote:

If there were a chance to "change minds" then yes. However, this thread was posted by a person, who I like and respect, that had decided a defeat for Bush was a desirable outcome foe conservatives, --


___________________________________________


Posted on 01/31/2004 3:07:29 PM PST by Kevin Curry

Can conservatives win in November if Bush loses the White House? The easy answer is "No."

The thinking answer is quite different. The easy answer overestimates the power of a Democrat president who must work with a Republican-controlled Congress.

The thinking answer is that gridlock is often preferable to a government shifting into high gear regardless of whether a Republican or Democrat is at the wheel.
And gridlock is always preferable to progressivism, whatever its form.

[F16Fighter]

"Hopefully, the hatred of Bush expressed here has finally reached its crescendo. Jim had to step in."

"Hatred"?? Puh-leeze??

You see ANY criticism of Dubya as "hate." That's some kind of paranoia.

Some of us DO "hate" some of Dubya's policies. Is that alright with you? Is dissent allowable? OR is that grounds for the brig?

You know where criticism of leaders are verboten?? That's right -- Muslim countries, fascist states, kingdoms, AND within the Democratic Party. NOT FREE REPUBLIC.

[Krodg]

I'd be mad too. At this rate a lot of Bush voters will be turned off by some here......

I don't understand why you think Bush voters would be turned off because a few people were asked to take their dissention elsewhere. Many posters have voiced their concerns about the current situation and have been treated fairly. Heck, even the owner of this site has voiced his displeasure at times. Most of these people have used their voices writing letters, sending emails,signing petitions etc, instead of dumping their rants on every thread they see.

Jim simply stated that his site would not be a part of electing a Dem. If your agenda was to drum up support for a third party, take your voice there. What offends Bush voters ??

[nopardons]

Ask Jim; I am NOT the owner of this site, nor do I make/help to make the rules.

Having grown up knowing politicians and those who work behind the scenes,on all levels of the government, I don't worship any political figure, I am part of NO cult,and couldn't care less,if I tried, what any of them wear or look like.I am NOT in " awe " of them at all.I know that none of them are " perfect ", that I'm lucky if they manage to do 50% of the things I'd like to see them do, and have worked/still work for the ones I think will do the job with some modicum of skill.

I don't expect the impossible.I don't expect that they'll do things immediately. I have been disappointed and sorry that I worked so hard for some, but President Bush doesn't fall into that category.

[JackelopeBreeder]

From a strictly personal standpoint, and ignoring the larger implications, having a brain-dead rat in charge would have a positive affect on my bank balance. Illegal aliens would be able to fly directly to their desired locations (Des Moines, Dayton, Pittsburgh) without bothering me.

I and my neighbors would not be constantly repairing damages to our properties, would not be spending thousands on alarm systems and ammo, and not seeing our property and auto (theft) insurance rates climb.

Did you know that properties near the border are just about unsellable? Only a sniper-qualified psychopath like me would consider buying them, but mortgage brokers and property insurance companies don't even want to deal with them.

A year ago, one border property owner offered me a straight trade: his 4,000 square foot custom built home on 40 acres for my 1,750 square foot tract house on a 100'x100' town lot. Couldn't find a mortgage or property insurance despite my semi-affluent status. I would have had better luck if I had openly tried to open a whorehouse next to an elementary school and hired half the teachers as part-timers.

[F16Fighter]

"There's a great difference from honest dissent and outright baiting, flaming,and dissonance for the hell of it....Censorship? I wouldn't call what Jim has said must be, to be censorship. He doesn't want constant flaming here."

Come on. You've been here a long time, so have I. We're ALL grown-ups, and YOU and well as I have flamed and been flamed. Nothing new under the sun. There's moderators. Relax. It's live and it's real. You add intellectually honest debate, humor, and patriotism to the mix, and you've got FR. THAT'S what makes FR what it is. Do you REALLY want to turn the place into Kindergarten??

No Conservative, not a one, would claim that a Dem president is ' good ' for Conservative goals; especially when faced with this choice of Dem primary candidates!"

Kevin explained in great detail his rationale and strategy for his thinking. Which was ultimately for the cause making true conservatism stronger! I think some of it made great sense, but for heaven's sake -- he was hardly campaigning for Kerry!

"If I am ever 'outside' of the prevailing credo on FR, I'll leave. There are other places, other sites on the web, for those who don't fit FR."

Fair enough answer -- but the "prevailing credo" of FR it appears might be metamorphasizing before our very eyes...

[Texasforever]

So I can put you in the defeat Bush column?

[Jim Robinson]

The policy is to end the bashing. You can debate all you wish. But I won't be tolerating aggressive attacks on Bush or any of our Republican candidates, especially with smear propaganda from the left or vicious rabid name calling, nor will I tolerate continued attacks on our posters by third party advocates. If you guys want to do that, the Internet is wide open and you don't need to misuse FR for your purposes.

[PhiKapMom]

Used to live in S. Texas. Know all about the ranchers down there.

Excuse me if I don't see electing a RAT as a horrible situation from every standpoint. Anyone that understands putting our military under UN control and allowing the US to be bowing to the UN would be horrible, would never vote for John "Botox" Kerry no matter how much they were made at Pres Bush for recommending something.

Some people here need to understand if Pres Bush were to lose, most likely we will lose the House and/or Senate. This election is way too important for the safety of this Nation to let any issue stand in the way of reelection Pres Bush when the RAT candidate John "Botox" Kerry is their likely nominee. Someone left of Ted Kennedy is not someone I want anywhere near the White House or our military.

[Jim Robinson]

When the third party Bush bashers start running off the very people I'm trying to attract to FR it's time to draw the line. I'm using FR to support the war effort and I'm behind our commander-in-chief 100% in that regard. And despite some of his policies that I don't like, I still believe that he is a thousand times better for America and for conservatism in the long run that any Democrat. I am not going to stand by and allow a bunch of malcontents attempt to sabotage our efforts here on FR for some third party utopian pipe dream that doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being successful. Sorry that's just the way it is.

[nopardons]

Yes, I've been here a long time; even longer than you.

Yes, I admit to having been flamed and flamed backed. I've also been suspended.

No, I don't want FR to be a kindergarten, but that's EXACTLY what it becomes every now and again.Many of FR's best and brightest have left, or thought of leaving,and/or taken month long times out, or longer, because they just got fed up with certain factions.

Jim waited well into the primary/election cycle of '00, before he delivered the kind of ultimatum he did today and the mass bannings, which are yet to come.It is one thing to disagree with the president and quite another to actively promote his ousting. Kevin promoted his ousting and his replacement with a Dem.This was neither well thought out,nor well reasoned.IT IS POLITICAL SUICIDE !

And, when he claimed that there had not been even ONE good refutation, he was in error; there were many, including quite a number of my own posts.He stated his position and it was either agree with him, or you have nothing of worth, nothing valid to say. Then, he went off the edge completely, with that Stalin thing.

Thank you for the compliments;much appreciated. :-)

[tpaine]

No more than you can put Curry there.

So, can I put you in the love Bush column? -- Will you vote for him if he renews the AWB?

[Texasforever]

Will you vote for him if he renews the AWB?

Yep. Anything to keep a gun out of your hands is a good thing.

[PhiKapMom]

Suppose you would prefer to have John "Boxtox" Kerry as President to make more than assault weapons illegal? You want to register all your guns, then vote for Kerry. In MA, they required back in the 80's that you register all guns coming in the State.

Spent nine miserable months in that state with Dukakis as the Gov and Kerry as a Senator. There is zero, zip, nada chance I would support anyone but a Republican after that! No way would I EVER cast my vote for a RAT from MA and I don't care how mad I would get at any Republican running for President.

[Joe Hadenuf]

Will you vote for him if he renews the AWB?

Yep. Anything to keep a gun out of your hands is a good thing.

I don't think the AWB refers to just his hands.

[F16Fighter]

The definition of "bashing" and "attacks" gets a little murky:

" I won't be tolerating aggressive attacks on Bush or any of our Republican candidates, especially with smear propaganda from the left or vicious rabid name calling, nor will I tolerate continued attacks on our posters by third party advocates."

I want to understand this...

Are you saying criticism (aggressive attacks?) of Dubya Bush's policies is verboten?

"Name calling" is already one of your restrictions, although if I were to count number of times I saw the phrase "bush-hater" or "bush-basher," I'd be an old, OLD man.

And finally, as per your restriction of "attacks on our posters by third Party advocates" -- shall we assume FR is still a "conservative" site, and not a "Republican" site? That fact is now become very ambiguous. Maybe I'm wrong?

[tpaine]

I don't belong to a third party, - I agree with the principles of the RLC.

I'm not a Bush basher nor am I trying to run off the very people you're trying to attract to FR, as supposedly, we are still dedicated to restoration of constitutiuional liberty.
I support the initial aims of the war effort and I'm behind our commander-in-chief 100% in that regard.
And despite some of his policies that I don't like, I still believe that he's an honorable man. [renewing the AWB could change that]
Nor am I a malcontent attempting to sabotage your efforts here on FR for some third party utopian pipe dream that doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being successful.

[tpaine]

I believe you would, -- even if I dropped dead tomorrow..

[Jim Robinson]

How much clearer can I make it? There have been people calling Bush a Nazi or a fascist. Or comparing him to Hitler or Stalin, etc. Or using the Democrat talking points to smear him. Accusing him of lying about the reasons for going to war or that he was "in on" 9/11, etc. Or that he was AWOL from his service, or that his family supports Nazis, or that he worships owls or is not a Christian, or that he is a traitor and should be impeached, etc, etc, etc. C'mon give us a break. I think you know the difference between debate and outrageous smear attacks.

[Jim Robinson]

Well, I have no idea what you think you are accomplishing here on FR, but you sure manage to insult a lot of people in the process. Almost every post you make is an insult to someone.