Posted on 11/29/2005 4:16:55 AM PST by WhiteGuy
Sorry, but it is true. Stay tuned for the next episode. There is some history that you have forgotten or never learned.
Heard on Bill Bennett's radio program that the congressional pubbies have gotten just as bad as the RATS in their spending. It was even suggested that the pubbies need to be reminded why they were elected the majority.
No. I lived it. You forgot it or never learned it.
Sorry.
No. I lived it. You forgot it or never learned it.
Please expound on this...........
The Contract with America was a political knockout because it was a complete repudiation of democrat policies. It won't last forever though if the GOP doesn't stand by its principles. One sure way to defeat is to vote for amnesty, I can't think of one issue that would upset their core supporters and end up depressing turnout than that, then we're right back where we started prior to 1994.
Ping to freedom seekers.
What 10 policies would the rats come up with that are near and dear to the hearts of Americans?
100% tax rate, abortion on demand, demise of marriage, weakness abroad, disbanded military, government run businesses, government owned property, government control of the air you breath, government ownership of your kids, prescribed length of life/euthanasia.
Now....there's a plan America will wholeheartedly support.
Would you like for me to go on? We haven't even touched on pro-union or new funding for school teachers legislation.
Good list.
But, then they have to energize the American people with it. I don't think they could.
I read the article posted the other day about the unlikelihood of a congressional sea change like happened with Gingrich's revolution in 94(?). The thesis was that those congressional changes were natural....the dems losing blue seats in essentially red states. The author claims that the nation is near balance at this point. There are very few red seats in blue districts, so one shouldn't expect huge congressional changes. The article had a bunch of stats that lent credibility to the author's point.
I don't disagree. America is in a period of transition and uncertainty. Most Americans understand that true socialism with complete control by the state is an unworkable way of life. A lot of people have, or are close to figuring out that limited socialism is almost as bad with the only difference being that it takes longer to go broke. But as for actually figuring out that a nation as rich as ours could go broke, you can still count the living Americans who actually know or believe that it is possible that the United States could go broke or come to an end on one or two hands at the most. The idea that our government is not better than Enron, and would deliberately conceal just how bad its true liability picture actually is, is completely alien to the natural inclination of most Americans whose natural inclination is to trust anybody and everybody until they prove they are untrustworthy.
After all, it is still true at the moment, that the government can borrow or print as much money as it currently needs. For practical purposes, it has always been that way for every living American and almost no living Americans can imagine that it could be any other way. There in lies the rub. As unthinkable as it may be, the government and everybody else are going to find out that there is a limit on both borrowing and printing. When these limits are reached, everybody is going to discover just how much government has over promised, but by then it will be too late to escape the suffering that will have to be endured because of our past mistakes.
"I read the article posted the other day about the unlikelihood of a congressional sea change like happened with Gingrich's revolution in 94(?). The thesis was that those congressional changes were natural.."
I am a bit confused about what you are trying to convey in the rest of your post. I am assuming that the implication is that the sea change that occurred in 1994 was natural and could have been predicted. That is pure unadulterated BS. With only rare exception, Democrats had controlled both houses of Congress since 1932 and almost no one really believed that it would be otherwise. Nixon's two victories showed the country might have been more conservative than some would have believed. Reagan's two landslide elections were stunning, but no one was actually sure that his victories were based on conservatism as opposed to Reagan's undisputed charisma and his good natured likeability. Newt and some of the inner circle of true conservative believers were cautiously optimistic and very hopeful about the 94 elections, especially after Hillary's healthcare fiasco, but nobody predicted or expected the Cat 5 conservative change that actually occurred.
With the right leadership and agenda, the American people would give up socialism completely. The Constitution can be restored and the Democratic Party relegated to the Ash-heap of History where it belongs. Virtually everything that Democrats believe is demonstrably wrong and almost everybody knows it; they are just not ready to admit it, even to themselves.
As I see it, the problem is now with Republicans. Congressional Republicans are becoming accustomed to power. They have forgotten they achieved power by rocking the boat. And they now believe they are better poised to retain power by keeping the status quo, in other words not rocking the boat. Republicans were afraid to run on a solidly conservative agenda. Worse, Bush and the Congressional Republican leadership now believe they won re-election in 2004 based on a mild to moderately socialistic agenda, Campaign Finance Reform and Medicare Prescription Drugs. It is human nature to resist change until it is forced on people or it becomes absolutely clear to enough people that change is necessary to avoid catastrophe.
To an extent, we are all in the same boat. Our boat is off course and it is picking up speed at what is a reckless pace. There are plenty of deck chairs on our boat, enough to accomodate the 78 million boomers relishing their relaxation and resting on their laurels. The Captain and crew are aware of the potential dangers on their course, but noboy actually believes it is every going to happen to them and besides our boat is unsinkable with lots of water tight doors and compartments that can flood without endangering the ship itself. No one has realized yet that those water tight compartment walls have shared passageways that can sequentially flood everthing below deck where the problems can't be seen until it is too late. The passengers aren't aware that too many of our jobs have been exported leaving our ship without enough lifeboats to accomodate all of the passengers. Everything will seem ok as long as the music keeps playing.
If we don't change course before 2012, there is a colision with reality in our future. And by 2016 there are going to be a lot of Americans who will begin to think about and realize just how cold the water is going to be.
Can the sharp decline in our political fortunes, reflected by all sorts of indicators in the past few months, be reversed? Yes, to be sure. But it is going to take a new bold leadership, which may not be possible so long as Karl Rove has his present status.
Incidentally, I have just posted the December Feature at the Return Of The Gods Web Site: Primary 2006!--Tactical Tips For Conservative Candidates. The advice is sound, but I fear there will be few takers.
William Flax
Just posted a comment.
"On the other hand, the art of politics is in large measure the art of controlling which issues people discuss. The candidate should not try to hide his beliefs, but he certainly should not emphasize those beliefs which will not resonate well with his constituency."
My general observation is that you appear to be more focused on specific issues. In general our approach is focused on bringing the US back within the Constitution. We believe that recruiting and electing leaders commited to the Constitution is the winning electoral approach. If the elected leaders are true to their committments to the Constituion, then the separate issues will get sorted out by our elected officials.
Socialism, for example is unconstitutional, and we believe that with the single exception of Social Security, that all forms of socialism should be ended as quickly as the laws should be changed. We believe that Social Security is only slightly different because a case can be made that people who have paid into SS for years have an implied contract to receive benefits. We believe that some form of the Cato plan to completely privatize SS is both the conservative and the right way to end SS.
The first Chapter in the Conservative Debate Handbook, at my web site, is a "Constitutional Overview," which points out some of the obvious errors in today's popular misconceptions. The issue that I am most concerned with has always been bringing the Federal Government back within the confines of the Constitution.
The essay, however, is what it purports to be "Tactical Tips For Conservative Candidates." It is not written to convince the ignorant, who like the present dependence on Government, but to help Conservatives defeat candidates who hold that view in the coming Primaries. (Tactical Tips.)
William Flax
It is our contention, that some current Republican office holders have become part of the problem. We are certain that virtually all Democrats are part of the problem, but by recruiting conservatives committed to the Constitution, we can target selected Republicans and Democrats and by so doing shift the entire political landscape progressively to the right toward the Constitution.
It is also our opinion that most elected officials interested in making politics a career should not be indiscriminately trusted. But as they begin to realize and recognize how our targeting works, they will begin shifting toward the right. This will have the net effect of making more Republican office holders "more trustworthy".
While all of us are interested in the issues, what we believe sets our effort apart, is that we believe it is going to take some changes in our elected leaders before most politicians recognize that the political landscape has changed right under their feet and most haven't recognized it or else they haven't believed it. When we make enough changes that it registers 7.0 on their political Richter scales, there will be a lot more elected leaders willing to adhere to the Constitution. By changing leaders we expect results instead of lip service.
One other thing, we believe that we have a better way to recruit elect and trustworthy conservatives made from the same mold as Ronald Reagan and cut from the same cloth as the Founders. It is our novel and unique funding mechanism that makes the Reagan Wing of the Republican Party possible and will certainly make it effective.
Cheers!
I do too. It is a shame he was dumped for personal foibles. He has such a great knowledge of conservative principles and how this country became great.
Just now pinging this, because I finally got the ping list rebuilt!
Let me know if you want on or off the ping list! Feel free to freepmail me. I don't scream too loudly. :)
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.