Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Losing in 2006 to win in 2008
for-q-clinton ^ | 3 Oct 05 | for-q-clinton

Posted on 10/03/2005 7:57:40 AM PDT by for-q-clinton

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-111 last
To: for-q-clinton; madconservative
You might be interested in this article and this article written by FR poster Nick Danger.
101 posted on 10/03/2005 11:51:20 AM PDT by malakhi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: for-q-clinton

ping


102 posted on 10/03/2005 1:40:01 PM PDT by for-q-clinton (If at first you don't succeed keep on sucking until you do succeed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: malakhi
Very articulate articles, and man, I reeeeealllly hope that second one is correct. But my Economics degree and my career as a financial analyst tell me no. This is for a few reasons:

1. It's all wishful thinking. No liberal "Rove is an evil Sith Lord" in their wildest fantasies would credit Bush with such economic control. What happens when China is finished siphoning our manufacturing by holding their exchange rate? Their strategy is to steal our manufacturing base, and then slowly float the rates, so that they can demand more and their central bank is not as heavily subsidizing their industry. When they are content, they will cease to buy our debt with such fervor. Interest rates will rise, and high.

2. Government spending is, in general, not good long term for industry. It crowds out enterprise, and discourages innovation.

3. The strategy WILL lead to tax increases, or at worst derail any tax reform agenda. Okay, so this guy is giving up the ghost on small government, but what about private property? How about eliminating redistributive policies? That sure would be an easier sell without such high deficits.

4. If this is the strategy, why aren't we spending less on the arts and more on defense? Many of the expenditures of the Bush presidency have purchased him very little in the way of political capital. Clinton couldn't have passed the Medicare bill Bush did, and the dems made him look in the end like he hates old people. He gained zero. I f you are going to spend like a sailor on leave, how about increasing military pay and benefits, eliminating military income taxes, increasing incentives to join, increasing weapons R&D? It is no grand strategy, it is an attempt at appeasement

5. It is defeatist at best, corrupt at worst. At one time in the article it sounded like "well let's spend on our stuff so they don't spend on theirs." Well I've got news for you: WE ARE SPENDING IT ON THEIR STUFF! At another time it sounded like: "let's punt on small government, and keep power." That isn't lazy, that's evil. Since he is a freeper, I am sure that's not what he meant, but it sure is a stone's throw away.
103 posted on 10/03/2005 2:34:02 PM PDT by madconservative (Proud member of the Donner Party Republicans... hey, it's better than being a Kool-Aid Konservative.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
I'm sick to death of being blackmailed by you people; sick of it.

I'm sick of that as well but I'm sicker of those that through their steady criticism of the President seek to weaken him and then wonder why he doesn't bring the fight to the Democrats, why he doesn't wage a better public relations battle, why he doesn't do this that or the other thing. Everything is a damn fight for Bush and his so called army (from the whining individuals to the talking head conservatives) abandon him at almost every tough juncture.

I don't know what I make of this nominee but it's my belief still that the President does feel a sense of responsibility for the trust we gave him on issues he explicitly campaigned on and there isn't another nominee he could have made that he would know better. Is that a lot of trust to put in him? I don't know but I do know that his critics can't even get themselves elected to the position to make these decisions and have failed miserably in providing the political support that may have made another pick possible.

104 posted on 10/03/2005 3:34:14 PM PDT by Dolphy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: for-q-clinton
I don't want the Democrats to win....ever!

Get new blood Republicans, OK.

But I ain't throwing out the baby to spite my face. :o)

105 posted on 10/03/2005 3:40:21 PM PDT by eddie willers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eddie willers

I'm not saying throw out the baby, just put the fat porky kid on an exercise routine and diet. Shed some of that RINO weight.

The RATs are the ones that need to throw out the baby because there's no hope for it...it's not even on life support.


106 posted on 10/03/2005 4:23:05 PM PDT by for-q-clinton (If at first you don't succeed keep on sucking until you do succeed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: eddie willers
Get new blood Republicans, OK.

All that does is buy you a little bit more time though. As we elect more and more not-so-Conservative Republicans or "new blood Republicans" as you call them (a good phrase), then the party is going to keep moving away from Conservative beliefs.

I don't want to guess anybody's age, but I would almost guess that many of those Conservatives who are unhappy with the GOP are older.

If you are under 35, all you've known is Clinton and Bush. In that case, Bush is going to look very Conservative, and the GOP is going to look Conservative to you, when measured against Clinton and the liberals.

I have this quote that I saved from Jim Robingson, from years ago - please understand it's way out of context, but it sometimes sums up what I feel these days:

Well, I don't know whether to laugh or cry. You people are sick! Conservatives my ass. You people are nothing but a bunch of non-thinking hypocrits! You're a shame and a disgrace to the Republic.....Elect another one and I'll tell you what. I'll be ready for war! It'll be time to take up arms and run the filthy lying bastards out!

It was from somewhere in this thread (I remember it, because it was one of the last threads I participated in under an old handle, before I went overseas to an area where I didn't have internet access for a few years), and I think I actually mangled two quotes of JR's, but anyways, the thread was about these very same issues - the changing of the GOP. I don't know how far down JR's quotes were, or even what context - it started out about the allegations surrounding President Bush and cocaine, but then partially turned into a much more relevant argument of how the GOP was changing.

The thread was from 1999, and there were much earlier threads here on FR, and on usenet, about how the GOP was changing and had been changing.

My point in bringing it up, is that we've been facing this "changing of the guard" for quite some time. I voted for Bush even after that thread and others where I said I was going to support more Conservative candidates, when I should have been voting for somebody else.

I feel that if we don't get the GOP back to it's Conservative roots, another six years will slide by, and where will we be?
107 posted on 10/03/2005 4:31:36 PM PDT by af_vet_rr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: af_vet_rr

Agreed on everything. Oh...except I'm 28 ;)


108 posted on 10/03/2005 5:50:54 PM PDT by madconservative (Proud member of the Donner Party Republicans... hey, it's better than being a Kool-Aid Konservative.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: madconservative
Wow. I'm surprised/impressed. I was really under the impression that a lot of the die-hard Conservatives were older.

Nobody has touched upon it, but in many ways Conservatism in the GOP was subverted when there was this push towards "compassionate conservatism" - that was the writing on the wall. It's reinforced by programs/etc. that tie into that, such as the "No Child Left Behind", which went against traditional Conservative beliefs against federal interference with local issues. There was a clear break with Conservative beliefs at that point.
109 posted on 10/04/2005 6:25:46 AM PDT by af_vet_rr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: for-q-clinton

Anyone who would want to turn control of anything over to the Insane party of Dean, Sheehan, Kennedy and Rangel is simply "STUCK ON STUPID"! You want consevatives, vote for them in the primaries!


110 posted on 10/05/2005 11:34:57 AM PDT by kaktuskid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kaktuskid
vote for them in the primaries!

Ok, and if they don't win? Vote for a liberal Republican? no thanks.

111 posted on 10/05/2005 11:44:26 AM PDT by for-q-clinton (If at first you don't succeed keep on sucking until you do succeed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-111 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson