Sheila Jackson Lee makes more sense.
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.
Liberal nanny state progressivism is a rouged tart wearing a high tight skirt standing on the street corner, who whispers "$20 for a good time." Compassionate conservative progressivism is the wholesome girl next door in a county fair booth that reads, "$20 for a kiss"–only the bargain is even worse, because the government forces you to pay, and someone else gets the good time or the kiss.
Neither form of progressivism is acceptable to a conservative who has better and more profitable things to do with his time and money.
The key to understanding why the thinking answer attaches such small value to a Bush win this November is to understand the paradox of unified control. Common sense suggests that conservatives are best served when Republicans have unified control over the two branches that write the checks, pay the bills, and write and enforce the laws: the executive and the legislative. 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.
Where has the Republican co-captain –Congress–been as Bush has pursed this reckless course? Mostly sleeping or meekly assisting. Would a Republican Congress have tolerated these antics from a Democratic president? Absolutely not! Why has a Republican Congress tolerated and even assisted Bush to do this? Because he is a Republican and for no other reason.
Thus, the paradox of unified control: a president can most easily and effectively destroy or compromise the dominant agenda of his own party when his own party controls Congress. Bush has demonstrated the potency of this paradox more powerfully than any president in recent memory–although Clinton had his moments too, as when he supported welfare reform.
Does this mean conservatives should desire a Democrat president when Congress is controlled by Republicans? No. Conservatives should desire a consistently conservative Republican president who with grace and inspiration will lead a Republican-controlled Congress to enact reforms that will prove the clear superiority of the conservative, small government agenda by its fruits. Bush's tax cuts are a wonderful achievement, and have had a powerful stimulating effect on the economy. But imagine how much better the result if he had not set forces in motion to neutralize this achievement by getting his trillion dollar Medicare boondoggle enacted.
Ten steps forward and ten steps back is may be how Republicans dance the "compassionate conservative" foxtrot, but in the end it merely leads us back to the same sorry place we started. It is not an improvement.
When a Republican president compromises the conservative agenda and is enabled to do so by a Republican Congress too dispirited or disorganized to resist, the next best answer might well be for a Democrat to hold the White House. Nothing would steel the courage of a Republican Congress and enliven its spirit more than to face off against a Democrat bent on implementing a liberal agenda.
Any Democrat unfortunate enough to win the White House this year will face the most depressing and daunting task of any Democrat president ever to hold the office. The Iraq War will become his war, and he will be scorned and repudiated if he does not with grace, power, and dignity bring it to a satisfactory conclusion. That means he will have to conduct the war in much the same way that Bush is conducting it now–he will not have the latitude to do much else. If he conducts the war in the manner that Bush is conducting it, his own base will abandon him.
Any Democrat president will also have to choose between spending cuts or raising taxes. If he chooses the latter, he will see his support plummet as the economic recovery sputters and stalls. If he chooses the former, he will dispirit his base supporters. In either case he will strengthen the hand of the Republican controlled-Congress and see Republican strength enhanced in the Senate and House.
If SCOTUS vacancies open up, he will see his nominees scrutinized and resisted with a zeal that can only be expected and carried out by a Republican-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee that has suffered through years of kidney-punches and eye-gouging in judicial appointment hearings by a Democrat minority (it would help immensely if the spineless, Kennedy-appeasing Orrin Hatch were replaced as Committee Chair).
As his frustrations grow, his support plummets, and the Republican Party adds to its numbers in Congress, a Democrat president would be viewed as opportunistic roadkill by zealots in his own party, including and especially the ice-blooded and cruelly-scheming Hillary Clinton. In the run-up to the 2008 election Democrats would be faced with the choice of continuing to support a sure loser in the incumbent or a scheming hard-left alternative in Hillary. The blood-letting in the Democratic Party through the primary season and into the convention would be grievous and appalling, committed in plain view of the American public–who could be expected to vomit both of them out.
That would leave the field open for the Republican presidential candidate to achieve a victory of historic proportions in 2008. With greater Republican strength in Congress, the opportunity would again present itself for this nation to finally achieve the dream of implementing a real and substantial conservative agenda, of actually shrinking government in a large and meaningful way.
The key to achieving that dream, of course, is to carefully select an electable conservative for 2008 who will remain true to the conservative vision and not cause conservatism to fall victim again to the paradox of unified control.
It is not too soon to start looking for that candidate.
Utter BS./ What if it is the "will of the people" to abandon the constitution? What if, as the case is now, the "will of the people" is to make the prescription drug bill even larger?. What if it is the "will of the people" that we should cede our national security to the UN? The president does NOT take an oath "to the people" he takes an oath to the Constitution to, to the best of his ability, defend and protect it. It is your congressmen and women that are bound to the "will of their people". That is why The Congress never saw pork it didn't like.
And FWIW.........there's a new thread on FR, that I was just reading, that quotes Kerry as saying that he will continue Clinton's policy on terrorism, to treat it as a police and judicial matter. Feel SAFE now, do ya ? ;^)
From what I've read in your posts, you haven't a clue; not even one, regarding politics.
Will Bush solve the government spending problem? Probably not. But neither will Kerry, Edwards, Dean, Clark or Hillary. Chances are, they'd make it worse. Probably far worse...
Will Bush defend America from those bent on destroying her? You'd better bet your sweet bippy he will.
Will any of the Democrats defend America? Hell no they won't. They'd rather turn us over to the U.N. They'd surrender to the French Foreign Legion if given the chance.
Will Bush appoint conservative judges? Yup!
Will Kerry, Edwards, Clark, Hillary, et al, appoint conservative judges? Yeah, right. And hell will freeze over tomorrow.
Will Bush continue reducing taxes? Yup.
Will Kerry, Edwards, Clark, Hillary, et al, raise your taxes as soon as they possibly can if given the opportunity and continue raising them until hell freezes over? Yup.
Will Bush defend the right to life? Check
Will Bush defend marriage between a man a woman? Check
Will Bush defend the right to keep and bear arms? Check
Will Bush say no to Kyoto? Check.
Will Bush say no to a world court? Check.
Will Bush say no to the U.N.? Check.
Will Kerry, Edwards, Clark, Hillary, et al, remove our national sovereignty and subjugate America to world government? Just as quickly as they possibly can if given the opportunity.
Will any other person be elected to the Presidency in 2004 other than Bush (God willing) or a Democrat? Obviously not.
Doesn't make a lick of sense to me to allow the America hating, freedom hating Democrats back into power now that we've kicked them out.
Say yes to sovereignty for America and continued freedom for all Americans.
Say no to the RATS!!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1067935/posts
It is apparent that the sentiments of the "vanity" contradict the stated goals and position of this website.
Only a fool would advocate that
Well I think you described exactly that kind of "principled Conservative" non-thinking very nicely.
I also remember the premier placement in the program of the "log cabin" conservatives, and the placement of the "religious right" anti-abortion crowd way in the back, out of sight and mind during Bob (let's make a deal) Doles run at knocking off Bubba.
The purposeful ignoring of the wants of those considered "radical right-wingers" or the "enemies of the good" is not new. It is part of the strategy of both parties. They want the votes, but don't want to heed the needs of any group that seems too strident, that may embarrass them in their peer group. After all, they are smarter than us, and they don't see any problems from their seat in the back of the limo, or from behind the iron gates. To those that gain high office, it is all casual. It is just so much hoopla, they don't worry about the country being destroyed because the opposition party wins high office. They go to the same clubs, drink at the same pubs, and slap each other on the back and talk about how they fooled them today.
The system exists for a govt that is not ruled by man, a way of doing things that required only honest people to take care to "preserve and protect". It is gone now, forever a footnote in history. It WAS a constitutional Republic, but now it is a democracy, run by the rich and corrupt, to benefit those that keep them empowered. The rich corporations and their boards, and the poor that can be bought to vote them in every time they are needed.
Exactly, and with the traitorous press spewing the rats outrage, four yr's of gain down the drain. It is outrageous to even think about pulling the lever for a rat. There will be four SCOTUS appt's in the next 5 yrs. If a dim is elected and has control of these Judges, this country will have 30 years of liberal rule(after all if they cannot legislate their agenda, they just shop judges)
Sheila Jackson Lee makes more sense.
There's a stark example of what happens when conservatives run third-party, but the stakes are so much higher now since September 11. Do you really want a President Kerry making decisions on the War on Terror (remember, he thinks the threat of terror has been exaggerated, and that Clinton's law enforcement way of fighting terror is the way to go!) Is throwing your vote away because you're angry at Bush worth that?
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.