VANITY: WHY THE GOP DOESN'T WANT TO WIN (Rush's 'Big Theory' revisited)

10-26-2005 | ovrtaxt

[Eagle Eye]

The gun grabbers need scary gun violence stories to promote their agenda.

The NRA needs gun grabbers to pose at least the appearance of a threat in order to raise money.

Would the Republicans feel any sense of urgency if hillary! couldn't run? Doesn't the national party need the spectre of hillary! or worse running for office in order to raise money?

It's hard to convince anyone that there is an opponent if that opponent is dead or invisible.

You make some sense.

[Luke21]

1992 didn't smell right at all. The media threw the usual gauntlet around Bush and refused to allow a single positive word to be said about him or Quayle all year. That wasn't surprising, though their success was. They cooked a small recession that was already showing rebound into a horrible depression of immense suffering. The press outright cooked the figures and lied. Then a week after the election, AP reports "Bush was right. Economy was turning around. But too late."

"Newsweek" put Clinton on the cover in a soft blue sweater that spring, with portrait drawings of him being sworn in as president for a lead article.

Perot magically appears on Larry King. He later bails because he is too strong and doesn't really want to win. The press suddenly produces polls during the Dem convention showing Clinton with thirty point leads. They are bogus.

Bush never fights. There is never a rallying cry. Then Lawrence Walsh indicts Weinberger on the Friday before the election to blunt the last puny Bush surge. The indictments are quickly dismissed, but not before they cover the last weekend election cycle.

I never thought we would lose. I was amazed to see that Arkansas hillbilly mobster and his feminazi kook wife heading for the White House. Perot knew what he was doing. He was from Texarkana. Problem was, so did Bush Senior. The white male base of the Republican party divides between Bush and Perot. Socially liberal and libertarians, plus many veterans, gravitate to the "Little General." Only the Christians and mainstreet Republicans remain, not enough at all.

I still think GHWB threw that election to his pal Billyjeff. He still plays golf and raises money with the Gomer Pyle figure that beat him. And they are rumored to have done a lot more than that.

[JesseJane]

I agree with it. Look at 'pubs that are pi**ed off at conservatives all the time. What is it they say again?? Say it with me.. DAMN YOU, YOU JUST WANT KERRY / HILLARY (insert democrat name here). A scare tactic they've been using on conservatives now when anyone questions where the GOP is going, questioning the policies of the administraion, or tired of being ignored.

Well, it's not going to work in '06. The betrayals of the GOP to the conservative base have gone unanswered long enough. Fine, if they don't need us, want us.. fine. If the "Rockerfeller Republicans" could work up the bravery to fight the left as much as they fight the conservatives, then perhaps we could get this party back on track.

As for me.. they better deliver something good soon. The amnesty plan will absolutely kill the GOP. So they better think long and hard about their next move.

[ovrtaxt]

I have seen sparks of life from conservatives lately. I think Miers was critical moment for us.

Thankfully, it wasn't prematurely wasted on a relatively unimportant issue. SC nominees are the entire reason I didn't leave the GOP to go farther right in 96 or 2000.

[JesseJane]

For many, Miers was the tipping point. I'd reached it a while back. But I'm glad to see it, and hope this opportunity isn't squandered. Otherwise, the GOP will be toast.

[hosepipe]

I think it will get Hillary elected..

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

It's certain that the Democratic Party consistently nominates people who should never be president. John Kerry, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter . . .

As long as the Democrats are the opposition and a real threat to win election, conservatives have to oppose them. Leaving us to support people who are not truly conservative but are actually the lesser evil.

[nmh]

Bump!

Are the Republicans THIS STUPID?

[dr_who_2]

I would say it was a good one if it wasn't for the concept of "destroying the Democrat party". Democrats are the "Death to Republicans" party right now, it seems. Maybe Democrats are facing a net decline nationwide (anyone got any numbers supporting this besides the usual party defections?), but they still hold offices everywhere, not just NE and the left coast. The way a party dies is through a permanent schism or a loss of elected party members. How can Republicans induce that sort of thing in the Democrat party, and would Conservatives like any plan of action like that? Bush's plan was to kill Democrat national domestic policy by taking away health care and education, making conservatives justifiably nervous by never vetoing a bill. He's tried to take away the Democrat's great white hope and the GOP's old nightmare: Hispanic voters, making conservatives nervous again as he moves from party building tactics to pro-immigration legislation. On trade, he's done what every successful president has done over the last ten-fifteen years: follow the political winds and don't worry about the unions, much less count on their support. He's eclipsed any serious, distinct foreign policy stands on the part of the Dems aside from the question of withdrawing from Iraq sooner rather than later. He's come up with token gestures to make social conservatives happy and weaken national Democrats without really changing much of anything, as "cultural decline" is something that government can only contribute to in the first place. He's tried to strengthen GOP connections to the Washington bureaucracy with his various defense & WoT projects.

These are all very pragmatic goals designed to erode traditional Democrat support. It's worked rather well in some cases, but if he goes too far, he'll alienate conservatives who are patient enough to wait for their president to throw them some crumbs every now and then. Time is not on the Democrats side if the GOP can hope to keep their momentum going past '06, but that's not a certainty, especially since Bush really has been alienating conservatives lately in response to events. Bush can't control the weather, and the middle ground he's been taking (with the exception of the WoT) has only helped to make the future more uncertain. In the long run, Democrats can make a comeback as they have several times before. Opportunism has kept the Democrats alive for decades.

Until the GOP figures out how to deliver fundamental changes in the federal government (spending reductions, real tax reform, ending entitlements, bringing about real spending cuts, paring down the government, and empowering the conservatives in congress), it's going to be Democrats versus Republicans versus independents on the national level. Republicans (or conservatives) shouldn't continue to assume that it takes an ever larger majority in Congress to bring about these sorts of changes. On the state and local level, conservative activists need to continue to pull the GOP to the right, make them deliver on their promises, and undermine the Democrats everywhere.

[Gondring]

Ping

[jan in Colorado]

For months I have been asking myself WHY is the President doing what he is doing? None of it makes sense to me!

You make some great points and observations. Thanks for posting your thoughts.

[ovrtaxt]

You're welcome. It's awfully cynical to suspect this, but it sure makes sense.

Of course, things are now shaping up, with the election approaching, to confirm what I've thought all along.

[Just A Nobody]

Thanks for the ping to this outstanding post.

Marking for later when I have time.

[Just A Nobody]

JJ! Good to "see" you! Hope all is well and you are settled. ;*)