Posted on 12/11/2003 10:35:18 AM PST by Destro
You are correct. It sure does seem some are taking it personally. And to some degree I take some of the mistake and slight personally too. Heck, I have to defend Bush from Liberal friends and family members who think BUSH IS WAY TOO CONSERVATIVE, who think BUSH CUT TAXES TOO MUCH and who think BUSH"S MEDICARE BILL IS A CONSERVATIVE TROJAN HORSE.
Only a child thinks that by voting for person X, you'll get everything you want. The Socialist Democrats depend on such thinking for their voting base - vote for the Dems or your lunches/medicaid/subsidy/social-security will be taken away from the mean ol Republicans out to create "Social Darwinism".
I was never under the illusion that George Bush would give everything I wanted. Some things have disappointed but some things he did BETTER THAN I EXPECTED. Tax cuts in 2003 is just one example, I am shocked and pleased he did it; without it, our recovery would be weaker. Same with Partial Birth Abortion ban and his leadership on Iraq. For all the whining and complaining on it, Bush went out on a limb and showed incredible leadership, resolve and consistency. His reward for that? He gets pummelled by the Democrats daily, and the only Republicans that get any media time are the wafflers and critics (like Chuck Hagel).
I'm as mad as a wet hen that Bush and the GOP Congress are spending like the proverbial drunken sailors. It's a disgrace. But I also know that (a) any such impulses are far worse in the Democrats side, and (b) this is one aspect of a bigger picture - spending, taxation and regulation/litigation. Bush has done well enough on most areas to deserve conservative respect.
Going into the voting booth, did I expect this big a tax cut? Nope. Did I expect PBA ban? Nope. Did I fear CFR and Medicare expansion since both were democrat hotbuttons with RINO support? YUP. DID I EXPECT BUSH WOULD TURN BOTH BILLS INTO BILLS THAT POLITICALLY DECIMATE THE DEMOCRATS ON FUNDRAISING AND POSITIONING? NOPE! I surely mis-underestimated Bush's political strategery there.
I'm an adult who's smart enough to know there is no political person who can 'deliver' exactly what I want. I am smart enough to know that there is far more to being politically effective than just voting. But when it does come to vote, I'll happily support the one party that has sent legions of Conservatives into power, in the administration (from Cheney on down) and in the Congress (DeLay, Santorum, Sununu, Nickles, Tancredo, Toomey, Paul, lots more great conservatives in the GOP). NOt to mention our 3 best Supreme Court Justices: Rehnquist, Thomas, and Scalia.
.He's done some non-conservative things, therefore there's NO DIFFERENCE between him and the Dems. Meanwhile, he's cut taxes, appointed or tried to appoint solidly conservative judges, signed the partial birth abortion bill, pursued expanded domestic energy production (which the Senate has blocked, and they weirdly blame him for that), missile defense, war on terrorism. None of that means anything. They sound like a bunch of 10 year olds.
Dittos. Under the hood of the energy bill for example is a lot of bad alternative energy giveaways but ALSO stuff a Clinton White House never would go for, namely critical support for nuclear energy, rules to fix utility ownership regulations that are outdated (going back to depression), and support for electricity transmission networks, plus the oil&gas support that greenpeace hates but is good for USA.
I would dearly love to see Specter get the boot. I'm supporting Toomey in the Primary unless it looks toward the very end as if it will turn into a McClintock/Schwarzenegger situation. As much as I dislike Specter, I'd rather have him as a Senator than a full-blown Democrat :-(
Nope, that's a false dichotomy. The choice is *not* "stick to principles win, " versus "winning is everything, abandon principles". It's a failure to think in anything other than strict black-or-white terms that leads to this. The point (which I was trying to make earlier) is that advancing principles effectively requires being smarter than thinking your only choices are being unbending or abandoning the battle of ideas completely.
That is far too brittle a strategy and an ideology. It's a philosophy for losers.
Every President, including Reagan, has had to compromise. Under Reagan we got a Social Security tax increase. Was that conservative? He never got proper funding for the contras (thanks Jim Wright) and funded them illegally. Conservative? He undid parts of the 1981 tax cut just a year later in 1982. Conservative? Both Reagan and Bush have had to mix standing up for principles and compromising to get things done. It is dishonest to paint either with a broad 'winning is everything' brush.
If you dont find the messiness of necessary political compromising appealling, then focus your effort in special interest group activism instead. but any 1% political party is an utter waste of time, talent and energy.
Don't run from the left. Fight them, and kick their ass.
Consort wrote:I think you are the one who has this backwards.
When the GOP wins, Conservatives have a chance to do their thing. When the GOP loses, Conservatives lose — big time.
As just one example, when the Republicans ran on the "Contract with America" in 1994, they won control of both houses of Congress. They didn't implement all of the contract (actually, they hardly implemented any of the contract).
Consort wrote:I don't think so. I think we need to insist on movement in a conservative direction. If we don't, we will be as neglected as blacks have been by the Democrats, and that's not an option for me. And compromise that doesn't advance our agenda as much is acceptable. Compromise that advances the liberal agenda should be avoided if at all possible, and should only happen very rarely in exchange for advancing a bigger part of the conservative agenda.
We can look for things to do, but a "Do it my way or I'll screw all the Republicans" dog-in-the-manger mentality is not the answer, IMO. It would only show that the Necro-Conservative death wish is still alive and well.
That is far too brittle a strategy and an ideology. It's a philosophy for losers.
So you don't have to compromise your principles to win, but if you don't you're going to lose. Like I said, cognitive dissonance.
I urge you NOT TO FALL FOR THAT TRAP of choosing Specter on 'electability'. It is a TRAP! For one, the primary is in April. There is plenty of time for Toomey to get better recognized no matter what the polls say. Unlike Cali, we have a primary THEN a general - the whole point is to get the *right* candidate chosen in the primary. Second, Spectre is already going negative, which means he will create bad blood; if *he* wins, he is *more* likely to lose due to disaffected Republicans simply refusing to support him. Third, Santorum proves a conservative can win in PA.
IMHO, Toomey is the *stronger* candidate long-term. And think of it as a 1/2 seat pickup if Toomey wins, as Arlen's ratings are 40% of so for ACU - pathetic.
If he'd grown a pair of balls and vetoed CFR he could count on at least one more conservative vote at the top of the ticket.
I'm getting pretty sick of people telling me how I 'have' to vote for Bush or the alternative will be even worse.
Let's see. I can vote for Bush and maybe get a second term of even higher Federal spending and more restrictions on my liberties, or I can withold my vote from Bush and get even more Federal spending and more restrictions on my liberties.
Face it Dane. Bush is a disaster for the Conservative movement. He's increased the size and scope of the Federal government more than any President since LBJ.
If I want a Democrat, I'll vote for a Democrat. What I won't vote for is someone who calls himself conservative and then governs like a liberal.
L
Bizarrely, this strategy gives the existing Republican Party good reason to want to keep the Democratic Party alive and well enough to at least appear to be a credible threat.
You didn't say how I got it backwards. Try again.
As just one example, when the Republicans ran on the "Contract with America" in 1994, they won control of both houses of Congress. They didn't implement all of the contract (actually, they hardly implemented any of the contract).
Like I said, when the GOP wins, conservatives get a chance to implement their agenda. They had a chance to implement some, or all of the Contract with America (and they did pass a chunk of it). If the GOP had lost, then none, zero, nada, zip of the Contract would have been passed. The Dems would have passed their agenda, instead. The conservatives would have lost big time.........just like I said.
I think we need to insist on movement in a conservative direction.
Good. But my comment had to do with what weird things conservatives might do if they don't get everything they want or as much as they think they should get.
The right answer - well done.
In the example of Texas, we have managed to do great things here with a Republican majority that were not possible for *years*. Amazing progress... the Federal level is not as great, but I attribute that to the fact that RINOs hold the margin/balance of power, not conservatives. Get a conservative majority in Congress, not merely a republican majority, and then there is a chance.
Perhaps we Conservatives need to draft our own "Contract with Republican Leaders" and make it perfectly clear what our expectations are and also make it clear that compromising on core values will lead to electoral defeat for these psuedo-conservative, "party over principle" Republicans.
Uh, yeah, that contract is the Republican Party Platform! Maybe we need our elected officials to live up to it!
I know and that's why I'm automatically supporting Toomey, all the way up to and including the Primary... the only way I wouldn't vote for him in the Primary is if he pulls a McClintock and starts working with the Dems against the GOP. I also know that Santorum proves a conservative can win in PA, but Rendell and Gore taking the state in 2000 prove we can't get complacent... we have a lot of work ahead of us!
GACK! Anti-Republican propoganda... The House passed 9 out of 10 items in the contract with America. Newt kept the promise to change the House rules on the first day - they did. Some of the items died in the senate (as do some conservative stuff today, but that's the senate rules for ya, they helped us slow down stuff in 1993-1994 too).
They passed tax items, welfare items etc. Most of the contract with America *did* eventually make it into law.
I think we need to insist on movement in a conservative direction. okay, but ... What were those large tax cuts and the PBA ban and the aggressive move to fight terrorism and expand freedom by deposing saddam hussein? chopped liver?
no difference between the 2 parties.
Reading comprehension 101
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.