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.
What was it Buchanan said about two years ago?
"The differences between the two beltway parties are inconsequential".
These two parties have been backslapping each other and bumping belly's for so many years, they've simply merged. Even Ray Charles can see this.
It's nothing but good cop bad cop. Like phony pro-wrestler's throwing each other around in the ring, and afterwards, drinking at the bar together having a good ol belly laugh.
Thankfully, most are becoming wise to this DC sham, and the beltway elite.
You mean when he was stepping out of his Mercedes ? That Pat Buchanan? Do you recall him doing that when he was addressing some US Auto workers yada yada
Lets see, most of the corporations are off shoring jobs as fast as possible, our government punishes our own business owners by regulating and taxing everything they do, while allowing literally millions of foreign people to enter our country illegally, as a matter of routine causing epic fraud, crime, taking jobs, jamming our social services.... 8 out of 10 cars on the road are foreign made....... But dagnabit, Buchanan is some kind a bad guy because he was seen getting out of a Mercedes!
Yeowza!
Yeah,Pat Buchanan, there's a real leader. Maybe he'll let you ride with him.
No problem. I'd be my pleasure. Maybe catch a few Rino konservatives under our wheels.
Best regards.....
Let me get this straight, you, who are parroting the DNC's talking points
You still haven't got it straight. And what DNC talking points am I parroting?
and in sync with them to rid us of George W.Bush and maybe open the Supreme Court up to worse than Earl Warren, are a "true Conservative" , while ,I,and others like me,who are doing our best to prevent this,among other things, and I'm a RINO?
You and haven't done anything and neither has anyone else. The two party cartel is still in business isn't it?
Look at the state of affairs. It just gets worse. Taxes, spending, illegal aliens pour in by the millions, jobs going off shore, you name it. What, do you think the Republican party is becoming more conservative, more to the right? LOL! No one believes this. It aint going to happen pal.
You need to think outside of the two party box.
The two beltway parties for the most part, become one and they same, and more and more folks are able to see this.
Look around on this forum. Open your eyes. Many people are starting to see this DC two party private club for what it is. It's becoming inordinately clear to most, that are not afraid to admit the truth. It's getting time for a change. Long over due. May take a while longer, but it's going to happen. Bet the rent.
Tell you what,you tell me what parallel universe you live in and I'll accept your otherwise fatuous accusations and nonsensical statements.
Cute quip, but kind of juvenile. As time clicks on, more and more people will get burned by this two party "party". This is happening daily. Their days are numbered. Nothing last forever.
Gun-control senators cheer Bush (World Net Daily)
VPC Welcomes President Bush's Support on Reauthorization of Federal Assault Weapons Ban (Violence Policy Center)
Satisfied?
And you and all the other third-party folks gave us Clinton, because of your personal dislike of Bush. Thanks for nothing.
And the long-term health of this nation cannot afford another Democrat who's going to kowtow to the UN and be soft on terrorism.
Ah, but the topic of discussion is whether Bush supports reauthorization of the bill. You wanted your proof, and I've provided it. No sense in atttempting to divert the discussion at this point.
I'm sure you big old he-men who love your guns for other reasons than "projection" will let me know.
Do you have a problem with guns that look big and nasty? Not everyone realizes it, but these guns are no more or less dangerous than any other - they just LOOK more dangerous.
WorldNetDaily? The don't report, they rehash. The other article is just another special interest group diatribe.
Just wanted to make sure you had enough sources to assure your agreement that Bush does in fact support reauthorization of this gun control bill.
But thanks for finding the original article.
My pleasure.
The Bush administration is bucking the National Rifle Association and supporting a renewal of the assault weapons ban, set to expire just before the presidential election."The president supports the current law, and he supports reauthorization of the current law," White House spokesman Scott McClellan told Knight Ridder.
Move along, nothing to see here...
We all know just how unambitious Bill Clinton is. Don't we!
Certainly Bill Clinton had never wanted power. We know for a fact a position of huge power would never attract Bill Clinton... especially if he could possess that power for life. NO WAY BILL WOULD WANT THAT.
Of course Clinton would never take the job of Chief Justice where he has the power to make his staff any size he wishes and make laws from the bench.
Certainly Clinton would never want a legacy. And making rulings for the left that would make Earl Warren look conservative would not appeal to Bill in any way. Going down in history as the great Leftist Chief Justice would not appeal to him at all. Being worshiped by leftists for centuries would never be something Bill Clinton would want. That would take a man with a huge eqo. WE all know clinton has no eqo.. don't we?
And Kerry is not ambitious. NO WAY!!!! He doesn't really want to be president. He knows the Clintons will try to stop him from wining for Hillary's sake so he wont' try in any way to buy the Clintons off... Will He?
I am sure it would never occur to Kerry to try to think of something he could offer the Clintons so they don't oppose him... It is just unreasonable to think that to offer Bill Clinton the most powerful job in our government would be attractive to Bill and cause him to work for Kerry'e election.
And you do know what the most powerful job is don't you? It is heading that little organization that can undo any action ever taken by the congress and the president. And it can make legal anything it wants to.... can you say Abortion? I didn't think you could.
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.