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

Vanity | 1/31/2004 | Self

[beckysueb]

Because the rest of them are not as smart or calculating as she is. The determination of HRC goes beyond anyone else. But bottom line, They are mean, SHE IS EVIL!!

[Texasforever]

Nope I just know a boneheaded vanity when I see one.

[lentulusgracchus]

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.

Your fondness for determinism has prematurely eliminated another possibility.

In states where Bush could be expected to do very well (>55% of the vote), voters wishing to put a shot across his bows could vote third-party with a clear conscience, a) to keep the state more competitive and b) to build third-party politics for the future. Those wanting to make it more competitive in this way would be voting strategically......something Karl Rove certainly couldn't complain about, as a strategist himself.

[Sabertooth]

1998 was the year of the Impeachment.

I think aggravated Rats signed on at that time with the intention of reappearing if Impeachment was successful, or failing that, if later there were a Republican president. They didn't know for sure, but planned on the contingency.

Tinfoil.

Dissent happens.

In my everyday life, I run across many people, most of whom are either centrist Republicans or centrist conservatives.

There is no way that these people are representative of conservatives.

The reason pollsters do business is because none of us have an everyday life that is an accurate representative sample.

For example, in my everyday life, I never meet anyone, regardless of how die-hard a Republican they may be, regardless of how certain their vote for President Bush this November is, who refuses to discuss his shortcomings and changes the subject from them at every opportunity.

Yet, I know such people exist, because I've seen them posting on Free Republic, so I haven't indulged the conceit that they must all be plants, simply because such people are outside my everyday experience.

[Miss Marple]

I don't think all of the dissenters are plants.

But it is hard to believe that a whole bunch of conservatives signed up in 1998 and then for some reason only post during elections.

What...don't these people care about government at any other time?

Plus, moderators will tell you that there have indeed been sleeper accounts here. Just ask them.

[George W. Bush]

In states where Bush could be expected to do very well (>55% of the vote), voters wishing to put a shot across his bows could vote third-party with a clear conscience, a) to keep the state more competitive and b) to build third-party politics for the future. Those wanting to make it more competitive in this way would be voting strategically......something Karl Rove certainly couldn't complain about, as a strategist himself.

Well, the experience with Buchanan getting the Reform Party's nomination and funding and ballot access in 2000 weren't exactly encouraging. Sarcasm simply fails to describe it, virtually from beginning to end.

Ever seen how weird and scary the Libertarian Party conventions are on CSPAN? Yeow. And I'm not easily scared off by a little oddness but that's like the ward of a mental institution.

Well, that doesn't mean it will be forever a bad idea. But America historically tolerates only two parties. So one of the others has to die off first. I don't see we're at such a political juncture.

Naturally, as I've said on thousands of other occasions, your vote is your own. But in every election Rove and other strategists calculate a certain number of I'll-punish-'em voters and the return of chagrined ex-I'll-punish-'em voters and the possibility that within a particular state that a third party may, due to close competition between the Big Two, be decisive. Or that a state/local ballot issue might draw out voters that would skew historical results in that state.

Well, it's a numbers game. For every person who decides to punish Bush by voting third-party, some others will 'punish' him by voting Dim, others yet will 'punish' him by staying home.

The better question is: how many GOP voters will 'punish' their party in a given election as compared to the number of Dim voters who will punish their party in that election, as Green voters did in 2000 and as Deaniacs might in '04?

If the numbers of malcontents in both parties look essentially similar, they have simply marched into obscurity as far as the presidency is concerned. Their far greater impact will be not taking part in electing state/local candidates that they might agree with.

[Neets]

Good morning,

Just a quick fly by before I leave for work.

I will concur ST that there are enough people in the real work concerned or unhappy with some of the things Bush has done or is not doing recently.

But has Miss Marples says, there are some here who signed up in '98 and only seem to show back up during the election cycles.

It doesn't take rocket science to check out their posting history to see what their agenda is.

As I said in earlier posts...the intellectually honest debate, cogent and based on real time facts is not what is getting people in trouble here.

Using aggressive and obvious tactics to get a Democrat elected is. Along with the other kookie things Jim mentioned in a post above.

Gotta run...

See you all later.

[beckysueb]

Yes and then the "president" will have a fatal accident.

[Lazamataz]

But can we count on you in the trenches when things look bleak? Will you fight on even if your personal wishes aren't catered to?

Heck, if he doesn't do what I want, I'll just fight harder! After all, wisdom is doing the consistant thing no matter what the results.

Say he banned all assault weapons. Well, that would just make me strive more mightily to get him elected, cuz then he'd have a chance to reverse himself later. Makes sense?

Anyways, back on the team.

[dread78645]

Then, these justices will legalize dope, and then KC will have to kill himself...

And the downside is ???

[Neets]

Really, can we keep those types of comments out of here?

[lentulusgracchus]

And the downside is ???

Were you aware that Kevin Curry has been banned and can't defend himself?

[Conspiracy Guy]

I don't know what happened. But I am frustrated with people, Not questioning the Pres but suggesting that I vote for someone else.

Conservatives certainly lose bigger if a Democrat is elected no matter what their beef with Bush maybe.

I hope you change your mind about leaving. But go with your heart.

CG

[beckysueb]

"The difference between the two parties is inconsiquential". That is just simply not true. You would never see a John Kerry supporting the things that Bush supports! Just look at the differences in character. Thats where its at. Look at Teresa Ketchup or whatever her name is and look at Laura Bush. Its the character of the whole family. And all the people who are bashing G.H.W. Bush should read his book. "My Life in Letters and Other Writings". He is a decent man and a good husband and father. He instilled decency in his children. Sure they have shortcomings but they have character!

[NittanyLion]

From what I've seen in the brief time on this thread, it seems you and others are attempting to censor and intimidate some Freepers who have openly displayed distain and dissent at some of the more absurd policies proposed by the Dubya.

That's the extent of it, including the thinly-veiled references to Post #712. Many of the folks rejoicing in this thread are the same who would rather post insults and bait people than respond point-for-point to an argument. Those folks are as guilty as many of the banned for inciting flamefests, but for whatever reason it's tolerated.

I have seen poster after poster make case and point as to why certain Bush Administration policies lately have gone awry and are dead wrong -- yet the points are rarely debated on merit with Bush-supporters. ONLY further accusations lack of integrity and treason to the "Party" -- GOP that is.

Some debate the arguments on their merit - many do not. Hopefully this will change...

[NittanyLion]

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

onyx: Surely you recognize that tossing perjoratives of that sort around this forum incites other people into flaming you, and in some cases gets them tossed off the forum. After all, "Bush hater" is little different from "Bushbot", except in who it's directed toward. Right? Or is getting people tossed the point of your exercise?

Jim: posters like this person are inciting others into making comments that get them banned. If your goal is to have a more civil forum in which we can openly work toward a Bush reelection, can you at least convince these folks to tone their rhetoric down? It's difficult to expect others to sit meekly by while they're personally insulted, yet a response in kind will get them banned.

[lentulusgracchus]

The better question is: how many GOP voters will 'punish' their party in a given election as compared to the number of Dim voters who will punish their party in that election, as Green voters did in 2000 and as Deaniacs might in '04?

I understand your preoccupation with the numbers aspect of it, and yes, that's where the strategists will look, because that is what their problem is, to get to majority.

But the voters have a completely different problem, and that's what I was addressing. The voters' problem is accountability to the public within the Party, for following the Party line. Representative George Nethercutt, for example, broke his promise that he made under the Contract with America to term-limit himself, back when he so laudably upset Tom Foley. The voters should have had a chance to retire him (via the primary) without voting in a 'Rat. England does this regularly with votes of confidence.

The key here is that by refusing to stage primaries regularly, the Parties get away with murder when they flout their own platforms or support bad or incorrigible candidates like Wilbur Mills, Phil Crane, Barney Frank and Slick Willie.

[Redleg Duke]

Musta hit a nerve here! Heh...heh

[beckysueb]

Reagan was a patriot who believed in us. Sounds just like George W. Bush, don't it?

[RJCogburn]

Well, if your intent is to bash and trash our candidates and or our posters, I guess so.

That is not my intent at all, neither is it to march in lock step. I don't think criticism, politely and respectfully rendered, is bashing and trashing. Perhaps others do.

Here is an interesting example, from just today's Manchester, NH, Union Leader. Now I think there are few people who have followed to any extent the Union Leader over the years who would say it is anything other than reliably and consistently conservative. It often spars editorially with the Boston Globe and the liberal Concord Monitor, among others. Here is today's lead editorial.

"Money-burning Bush: How to make a one-term President

PRESIDENT BUSH is trying to buy the 2004 election. It isn't going to work. He needs to get smart about spending, and now.

Conservatives predicted that the $400 billion price tag on the President's Medicare prescription drug bill was underestimated. Last week they were proved right as it was revealed that the plan will cost at least $540 billion — a third larger than projected.

Conservatives predicted that the federal deficit would increase dramatically without spending cuts. Last week they were proved right as the Congressional Budget Office projected a $100 billion increase in the deficit, and the White House revealed that the President's new budget will peg the deficit at $520 billion — a $145 billion increase over last year.

It is incredible that come this fall, Americans may have to vote for a Democrat to get a President who will curb federal spending and shrink the federal deficit. Yes, the Democrats promise the moon, but this President promises Mars.

President Bush is supposed to release a federal budget today that curbs federal spending. We'll believe it when we see it. He's promised to control spending before. But in the past month he has proposed a Mars exploration program estimated to cost $170 billion (and sure to cost more) as well as numerous small spending hikes such as increasing funding for the National Endowment for the Arts by $18 million.

We'd much rather the NEA fund Shakespeare (which it does) than freaky performance artists (which it used to). But the bottom line is that it shouldn't exist in the first place. If Americans want to fund art, they will go to plays, watch movies, attend concerts, and buy paintings. They don't need the federal government to do that for them.

There is precious little that Americans truly need the federal government to do. This President claimed to understand that. But his actions show that either he doesn't understand, or he was lying."

Now, were I to post this editorial from a reliably conservative source, were I to say I am quite in agreement with it, does that make me a "BushBasher"?

With all due respect to you...and I mean that, not just as a throwaway term...I respect enormously what you have done - while I understand the passions that grow hot in politics and in life, if we cannot honestly speak our minds, discuss, and learn, then what is the point?