[WOSG]

af vet,

you are fighting an uphill battle trying to talk sense to people who feel betrayed....

as a Texas Conservative Republican, I was *never* under the 'illusion' that George W Bush was as Conservative in governing as my own views are.

I suspect that Bush is not governing as conservative as he *himself* is - you can tell that on some issues, where he bluntly disses some terrorist like Arafat in off-the-cuff comments, but the StateDept does 'damagecontrol' and puts Arafat back in the picture.


After 2 large tax cuts, conservative public policy bills, better judicial nominations (some of which have gone through), and a successful War on Terror pursuit, partial birth abortion ban, stopping kyoto and the ICC, I'd think conservatives would at least understand President Bush is a bit different from the Liberal Democrats. He's not perfect but IMHO he is on balance A LOT better than both Clinton and his father (who deliberately created a political situation harmful to conservatives; bush OTOH, is trying politically to make a Republican majority, come hell or high water.) I am impressed that often he does a conservative thing that is not loud, announced or public.

But there seems to be no expressions of subtlety or shades of difference. Pity. This could be a good, productive discussion about how to make conservative values win in a tough media/academia/political environment, nad how important it is to KEEP CONSERVATIVE VALUES FRONT AND CENTER and not abandon them with 'compromises', but --- NO --- we have to waste time on a feeble debate about either a) bootlicking whoever is in charge of the Republican party, or b) running off like children to a useless '3rd party'.

3rd party talk is the talk of imbeciles. Please, read history, know the facts. 3rd parties dont win power, they waste political energy.

There are many ways to be a LOT smarter than that, but sadly people let emotion get ahead of reason.
You want examples of effective politics? Look at the NAACP, the ACLU, look at the groups like the Christian Coalition that have created change *in* parties and in politics.
Lets THINK clearly about what's at stake and what the best ways are to advance our agenda.

[tacticalogic]

Lets THINK clearly about what's at stake and what the best ways are to advance our agenda.

I think that's the point where the cognitive dissonance sets in. "Winning is everything" doesn't fit comfortably into conservative philosophy.

[lasereye]

The thing about most of these people who won't vote for Bush is they seem to define their decision in highly personal terms. It's not a question of analyzing in practical terms what would happen under Pres. Dean - a hyper liberal Supreme Court for a generation, ending missile defense development etc., vs. Bush. They feel "betrayed" and "used". They "can't" vote for Bush, etc. He "won't fool me again". He's "not getting MY vote". He's failed some test for true blue conservatism. 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.

[looscnnn]

One thing you fail to realize is that if enough conservatives leave the GOP and go to, say, the Constitution Party, the Constitution Party becomes a serious contender. Especially considering the fact that the Dems are going to be hurting after this election.