Conservative groups break with Republican leadership

The Washington Times ^ | 1/16/2004 | Ralph Z. Hallow

[Ricardo4CP]

National leaders of six conservative organizations yesterday broke with the Republican majorities in the House and Senate, accusing them of spending like "drunken sailors," and had some strong words for President Bush as well...

[Consort]

Amen.

[putupon]

Are you working for local conservatives, or do you just spend time worrying because the national scene isn't draconian enough for you?

I've got credentials there, the local FReepers know me. I live two hours from DC and participated in the post election FReep of Algore, among other things up there. I write my RINOs in the Senate and House on major issues. Check my posts on local issues, it's verifiable.

Our Commonwealth's GA just came into session w/ a RINO senator and DimRAT guv wanting tax increases (the RINO wants more than the 'RAT), again, you verify my involvement in the posts.

As I tried to explain earlier to Jim Robinson, I feel that if we don't raise a ruckess about the direction Bush is taking us it will definitely continue. I really don't think we can stop it anyhow, but I'm trying the best way I know how.

I stayed quiet about Federalizing airport screeners, I thought if Bush wanted to make a show during the emotion immediately post 9-11, so be it. The WOT and national defense are first and foremost, which any Democrat pre-Jimmy Carter would have agreed with.

On the domestic side, Bush has given us tax cut, which is pocket change compared to increase in spending his social adventures will cost. He wants to give 15bil of our money to African Dictators, allegedly for AIDs when no amount of money can stop AIDs here, an overt and obvious pander for the African-American vote.

He took away our right of free speech w/ CFR, he has opened the barn door for socialized medicine w/ his pill program only 4%max. of seniors needed, again, just for show, and reports have it he is calling for more in the STU address on Tuesday.

And now Amnesty For Illegals; an insult to legal Americans and legal foriegners alike (I have a few paragraphs available on first hand intake of opinion from the legals, this is not an assumption)

We have a GOP Congress and a GOP president, should we not be seeing some indication of having reached the apogee of the curve?

I'm sorry, I just don't.

Bush has two more years after the election before entering the lame duck phase, how he'll be able to turn around his self induced leftist social agenda is beyond me.

As just a regular Joe Taxpayer, all I can do is bitch and scream as loud as possible about this sellout of principles, and that I intend to do, wherever and whenever I can.

[sauropod]

I respond to what I see.

[sauropod]

The "weak will" I was referring to was to actually enforce the immigration laws and stop the leaking sieve of a border.

[sauropod]

Your post #239. And don't you dare talk to me again the way you did in FReepmail.

[sauropod]

Actually, that last comment of mine wasn't exactly the right one i could have made.

I was amused by the description you made of yourself. I merely agreed with it ;-).

[sauropod]

Let me ask you (seriously): What is the incentive for companies to register their illegal aliens? There has to be a positive one (tax relief or remunerative award) or a negative one (severe penalties). To my knowledge, there is neither with this proposal.

[RJCogburn]

In the last three years "we" (with no help from you) have put Al Qaeda on the run....

What a really silly thing to say. Unless you are in the military, in which case I thank you, your statement regarding my 'lack of help' is just really silly, to say the least.

[patriot_wes]

I thought solicitations were a no-no at Free Republic

I thought solicitations solutions were a no-no at Free Republic

[sauropod]

I think with W's economic policies, he puts the country in "great danger."

He (and the Congress) are spending like a drunken democrat.

We have a huge national debt that nobody talks about, they only talk about the deficit.

When the lenders call in their loans, what's gonna happen?

[sauropod]

"He would be condemned as a hard hearted racist who was unsymathethic towards hard working immigrants that only want to come here to better their lives."

And refuse to assimilate.

Why is it that America has to increase the living standards of everyone?

[WhiteGuy]

Yep. Under Bush's proposal, none of them will work unless they become documented, then the feds will be able to know just where they live and work.


We already have these laws.............

Not very effective are they?


AMERICANS FIRST

[Consort]

You like to dish out it out, but you can't take it. Grow up crybaby.

[Columbine]

The article does not mention the Constitution Party.

Obviously, that was my exact point.

The article was posted as though it had something to do with the Constition Party. It was a dupe thread to get people to read about this 2 bit, 10th rate, so called, political party.

[e_engineer]

The article was posted as though it had something to do with the Constition Party. It was a dupe thread to get people to read about this 2 bit, 10th rate, so called, political party.

Sorry, there must have been something I missed in post #1 that was removed by the Mods.

[WorkingClassFilth]

"I feel that if we don't raise a ruckess about the direction Bush is taking us it will definitely continue. I really don't think we can stop it anyhow, but I'm trying the best way I know how."

Would it make sense to you if I agreed with nearly every point of contention you make? I agree with nearly every poster that concludes that Bush is not a conservative. I'd go further and nearly agree in totality that the same can be said for the party's leadership. Additionally, I salute you in your actions to halt the slide and to hold leadership accountable - not many (even here, I suspect) can make the same claims about discharging their duties as alert and faithful citizens.

Here's what seems to be the distinction between you and I though: Since the Republicans are the only real game in town, they are the vehicle that is most likely to take us in the directions we need to go. Therefore, I concentrate my efforts on reinforcing their platform, electing conservatives leaders from the grassroots up and raising respectful disagreement with leaders (so I can gain or retain their ear) when they act in discord to the principles of the party.

Now on the other side, I'm fairly certain that you and I would not disagree that the RAT's are toast. The serious flaw in their ideological make-up is the notion of democracy as a virtue. Without the absolute values that can only bolster the idea of morality, they are open to (and have succombed to) mob rule and the tactics of despotism. At this time, their leadership is bent on transforming the nation into some tortured form of European socialism but the day could easily come when the powers ceded to despots like the RAT's could become far worse than that of corrupt party rule. In any event, any gains by these animals would simply reduce your freedoms by that much again and accelerate the entire process by virtue of inertia.

Disengaging from the central fight by retreating to an alternative party, at this time, simply cedes the fight to the enemies without. Imagine abandoning a post on a castle wall under siege and going to a redoubt to shore up the walls there. When the under-defended castle walls fail in due time, the enemy will actually be concentrated for the final assault on the small garrison within the castle's hold. It is a forgone conclusion at this stage that the hold will fail, even at a high cost to the enemy. The point is, when the best chance for defense is abandoned for whatever reason, the chances of the disgruntled drop to zero. As Franklin said at the signing of the Declaration of Independence: "We must all hang together, or assuredly, we shall all hang seperately."

So, we return to the question of what to do. I will confess in my impetuous years I concluded that nothing was being accomplished by anyone, so, I reasoned, why not protest vote for oddballs and longshots? Some of the differences between then and now (and I'll clue you here: I'm more conservative today than I was then - WAY more) are:

1) I have gained some notion of the passage of time and it's effect in generational changes. In turn, I believe this leads to a somewhat greater appreciation for the scope and duration of our task as patriots in growing and protecting the tree of liberty. A clue: FOREVER - AS LONG AS EACH OF US LIVES.

2) I have seen some of the consequences of my own petulance in personal actions and the wasted years that cannot be retrieved. Rarely have I concluded that hasty action or radical abandonment of that which is essentially good but faltering is a good idea. As an analogy, think of the Republicans as a lifeboat without food, water or protection from the sun. In addition, think of the RINO's as perpetual leaks that spring open and compromise the basic integrity of the boat. In the middle of the ocean, little question is left as to whether or not such a craft would be suitable for rescue against the alternative of swimming alone.

3) The ideological differences between what were essentially Americans of good will and fast convictions to the central truths of the Republic but in disagreement over policy are long gone. Today, we fight communism, amorality and despotism. The RAT party has NO honor left and those that do have personal honor and are informed are leaving or have left. The enemy is being sharpened and defined. In some distant day, it may come that we actually fight these betrayers in opem combat when that finally shed the last of their pretense and destroy our defining constitution. This, I grant you, is a real possibility but it is not here yet.

4) Most leaders (most all people really) respond to calculations about the responses to what they do. If the balance of voter favor or the consequences of voter disfavor hinge on a certain act, then the calculus will yield the safest decision for the office holder. A principled leader, however, ought to make decisions based on, well, principles. To bad a thorough examination of anyone's life will never yield a perfect record of this ideal. Truth is, we all compromise and fail in relation to our highest ideals. The best that we can hope for is that the bulk of our actions, the thrust of our lives, is in favor of the things we hold dearest.

In that regard, there is some degree of hope to be had in the conduct of the Republican party at this time. At the very least, the clear, emphatic return to the responsibilities of national defense should be obvious. You know, as all of us do, what the RAT response would have been (and will be should they regain power). The RAT party is the party of treason and ALL of them need to regarded under that light (in my perfect world, they would already be gone, locked up, deported or thoroughly disgraced and ruined for life).

5) While venues like FR and personalities at the national level are important, they really occupy a much larger, and un-realistic portion of our considerations. Like television, when the images provided by others become the focus of individual lives, the immediate needs and conditions around them suffer for the falsehood of achieving goals that are beyond the reach of any individual no matter how earnest or arduous their efforts or idealism. Where the rubber really meets the road is in the local scale. In turn, the complexion of the state party is effected by the concensus of those local representatives. At the macro scale, the weight of national consensus will bear out in our system as long as genuine popular support exists for change. That is built into our system and was deliberately done to prevent the tyranny of concentrated power or ephemeral populist desires. The trick is to effect change at the most basic levels over a lifetime - that is the truest task open to any of us.

6) I have realized that there is no true party and no true value system that fits all Americans except the liberty to do so - on their own and at a cost to no others. As a result of this, I can accept a huge range of conflicting views that are predicated on the armature of the constitution. As a result, I accept the 'Amen' contingent of the religious right, the big 'L' libertarians that think nothing is wrong with eating heroin for breakfast and all other stripes that rally to the banner of freedom. We ask nothing from others for our liberty, but we are all well aware that the enemy not only needs enslave us to labor for their utopia, they wish to rob us of our wealth and destroy our children and lives into the bargain. Is this not a large enough cause to find some common ground with those that do not believe as you do on all points (or may be total lunatics as well) as long as we can find a fulcrum to leverage our combined strength to crush our common foes?

Oh well, there's a few thoughts strung together. Too late to bring them into any sharper focus since I am being called to the table and sausage & eggs are on the menu. I take it that it is certain that your life and mine will always call for us to fight what is wrong at some level until we die - and that is good. What is just as important is that our efforts do not cancell each other out.

[King Black Robe]

Great points in post #330.

[sauropod]

Do you really want me to post on the open forum what you wrote in FReepmail?

I went back and answered your silly-assed question. Have a day.

[rdb3]

Same question goes for you. If you don't like it here, why stay?

[auboy]

Thank you!

You make some great points in post #101. Being uncivil to fellow Freepers seldom gains support for one's point of view.