A Concerned Bloc of Republicans Wonders Whether Bush Is Conservative Enough

NY Times ^ | January 25, 2004 | DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK

[iconoclast]

I have no problems with Jeb Bush, but it will strike too many as being a dynasty.

And others as masochism.

[agitator]

I'm beginning to get nauseated with people who allege to be "conservatives" when in fact they are at best Republicans and at worst just party hacks.

First, they're the useful idiots of liberals because they have allowed the libs to re-define "conservative" from the right to the center and then promote that redefinition as if they were a pig like Michael Moore

Second, they think they're "conservatives" when they're just Republicans - the two are not synonymous nor mutually exclusive

Third, they bought into the liberal lie that W is a conservative which he never was, isn't today, and probably never will be - in spite of the fact that he's done many things that conservatives admire

Fourth, if they really believed their own line and were interested in W winning instead of wallowing in their hackism, rather than inviting potential W votors to stay home by pissing them off, they would be politely offering to forward the disenchanted folks' objections to the RNC and then STFU

Fifth, I hate hypocrites. If the smart thing to do is to vote for W in spite of his shortcomings as seen by the conservative crowd, at least call a spade a spade and deal with it instead of rationalizing like some delusional idiot in de Nile and promoting the propagandandistic, lefty redefinition of "conservative"

Sixth, if anybody wants to know what a conservative is, see Phyllis Schlafly. Ah, but I guess because she's a Real Conservative® the hacks think its ok for her to be visciously trashed as a fifth columnist

[harbingr]

...'the GOP simply stopped preaching the Gospel...'
'Isn't that the problem with Gospel - people have different interpretations and those that don't agree are by definition, heretics?'

They are also called Protestants (and they cannot agree with one another either)...

What is required is a Catechism, and Here it Is:...

Constitution Party 2000 National Platform

...True Conservatism based on Our Original Constitution...read it and lament that it is NOT the Republican Platform (and probably Never Will be...but Should be)

[harbingr]

EagleForum.org - Phyllis Schafly, 'Founding Mother'...'They that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with Wings as Eagles, they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk and not faint.'...Isaiah 40:31

excerpt: Phyllis Schlafly Column...
'Amnesty By Any Other Name'
When President Bush unveiled his "temporary foreign workers" plan, he got cheers from his carefully selected invitees in the East Room of the White House, but he's getting jeers from everyone else from Rep. Tom Tancredo to Senator Ted Kennedy. We are told the plan was originally sketched by Mexican Foreign Minister Jorge Castaneda on a napkin at a pre-9/11 dinner with Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice. 1-21-04

[Poohbah]

And in whacking Bush, they gave the country a bullet to the back of the head with 8 years of the Clintons.

Seems like they want to do it again - so who's side are tehy on? Can't be the USA.

To quote Deep Throat: "Follow the money."

Methinks a good chunk of the "grassroots activists" are suddenly cashing checks from Mr. Soros.

[FirstPrinciple]

I dont want to hear a Democrat saying what Bush promised. I want to hear Bush saying he would institute tariffs on steel. I am not sure he ever used the t-word during the election. If he promised to "help" the steel industry and that is your interpretation of tariffs, then it is much more scary than I originally thought. That means we will see more tariffs on industries if it becomes politically expedient, or even worse, that he is not a free trader. In any case, Bush reneged his committment to free trade when he instituted the steel tariffs.

[agitator]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1065381/posts

[FirstPrinciple]

And daily life? How?

You must be joking. There is not one facet of life that is not controlled by the federal govt. Education, health care, wages and benefits, roads, railroads - you name it. To top it all of, he hired 80000 workers at the TSA, unionized them, and now they make everyone's life hell in airports. I travel a lot, and every time I have to deal with these incompetent idiots, my blood pressure goes up.

Regarding strong dollar policy, it is the official policy of the Treasury dept. Makes our monetary policy inflexible. We need to further let the dollar fall so it brings some parity with the Yen and the Yuan. I thought Bush got rid of O'Neill so we can get away from the strong dollar policy. The Snowe guy hasn't really changed anything, because now I know the order comes from the very top.

But, Sarbanes-Oaxley is one of the worst laws that Bush has signed. It doesn't affect average Americans so you don't hear a lot of bleep about it, but it is really bad. No one in the right mind would ever sit on the board of any company. The burdens placed on board of directors is very high by this law. It would literally create a bureaucrat class within our economy whose sole purpose would be checking up on board of directors of companies. The enforcement of all the fraud loss regulations would require so much resources from the Justice dept that it would bust another budget. Read Richard Epstein's take on it.

[FirstPrinciple]

The Republican party largely came out of the abolition movement. Also included other social reformers like women and free soilers. But, largely, the party was a political voice for abolitionists. Lincoln ended slavery by opposing its expansion into new territories. The South knew it and had to secede.

I have no problems if people interpret the Gospel of conservatism differently. As long as they accept the basic tenets, they are fine. The problem with Republicans is that they deviate from basic tenets of conservatism. There is a lot of room for improvement if you believe in the fundamentals. We should teach the mantra of limited government, not actively promote it. We should teach people how to be self-sufficient, not give them handouts like govt healthcare. Republicans (a huge number of them) not just have a different interpretation of the Gospel. They outright reject it.

[harbingr]

Thank you - Excellent Post, I will listen to the archives and save the Links.

[RiflemanSharpe]

I have one point I wish for you to consider, if you would be so kind. If a dem spent money they it has been spent in the past few years, if a dem sign the pill bill, if a dem affected our constitutional rights the way finance reform and the patriot act have (I am very skeptical of any attack on my rights for any reason.), if a dem proposed the amnesty, if a dem says that he sign an extention to the assault weapons ban, if a dem grew the size of government the way this President has we would all be howling mad and marching on Washington with torches.

I am not saying that GWB does not have many positives, he does but to me his negative now out weight them. If he, for example, would drop the amnesty and cut spending I would be happy to reevaluate him. I am not naive enough to think I can ever get all I want from a politicain in terms of his views, but now the issues he is for that I oppose are more to me then those I agree with him.

[Dane]

I have one point I wish for you to consider, if you would be so kind. If a dem spent money they it has been spent in the past few years, if a dem sign the pill bill, if a dem affected our constitutional rights the way finance reform and the patriot act have (I am very skeptical of any attack on my rights for any reason.), if a dem proposed the amnesty, if a dem says that he sign an extention to the assault weapons ban, if a dem grew the size of government the way this President has we would all be howling mad and marching on Washington with torches.

So? The dems would be spending money at twice the rate. The AWB ban will probably not make it out of the house. Bush isn't proposing amnesty, and Bush is fighting the war on terror, I guess you have a short memory, remember 9/11. We would still be negotiating with the Taliban if Gore was President. And demos would never propose a tax cut and they would let the UN run US foreign policy.

So you see your narrow minded mantra that there is no difference between the Pubbies and demos is factually wrong, but that will not stop you from prostylatizing your distortions and lies.

[RiflemanSharpe]

It is an amnsety, if it walks like a duck and quakes like a duck chances are is is a duck.

[RiflemanSharpe]

As for narrow minded, I made a list of the3 pros and cons of GWB there were abotu 11-12 items I cansidered, the cons outweighed the pros. That is why I have made my decision to support the Constitution Party.

[Dane]

That is why I have made my decision to support the Constitution Party

I know, you have only said that a thousand times on FR. BTW, did you know that John Kerry is a Vietnam vet.

[RiflemanSharpe]

But one more thing. If you are as tired of politics as usual as I am? Then why keep voting for the usual politians? I know that the Constitution party does not stand a chance of wining but I hope to send a message to the reps. Take the conservative base for granted at you political peril.

[af_vet_rr]

Republicans (a huge number of them) not just have a different interpretation of the Gospel. They outright reject it.

I don't think it's outright rejected, I think the leaders of the GOP (besides being out of touch with the rank and file) are looking at the elections. I think there are some in the upper ranks that still are Conservative, but I think elections are more important to them - remember, they are paid to win elections.

That said, if President Bush manages to win a second term I don't think he's magically going to go and work on things that Conservatives hold dear. Even though he can't run again, he or Rove will be thinking about another Republican winning in 2008.

Do I think that putting aside Conservative beliefs or doing things that are leftist in order to win elections is right? No, because the result is the same as a so-called conservative democrat winning.

I still identify with the Republican party at the local level, but at the national level - I'm not going to kid myself, the GOP of 2004 is not the GOP of 1980.

[RiflemanSharpe]

I still identify with the Republican party at the local level, but at the national level - I'm not going to kid myself, the GOP of 2004 is not the GOP of 1980.


I sadly agree with you. I am a conservative, and will vote that way in every race.

[Hand em their arse]

Brilliant strategy!!! That'll really show 'em, and when the dems shows up in the Oval Office or the Senate or House and spends probably twice as much on REAL pertinent issues like removing Ten Comandments from courthouses and getting "In God we Trust" off currency or heaven forbid our kids say the Pledge in their classroom. Let's make sure we get rid of that!!! While at the same time packing the courts with as many liberal judges as possible, who BTW play two rolls, judge and legislator.

You'll really show them, won't ya?

[Hand em their arse]

Hey, did you know that Gephardt's dad was a milk tru..... oops, forgot we got rid of him already, NEXT!