George Delano Bush

World Net Daily ^ | January 26,2004 | Vox Day

[rushmom]

Even if Howard Philips runs, he won't have a chance. Better to take the Republicans right now because of national security and build a new Conservative party.

[yatros from flatwater]

Indeed. I don't take it personally, as I was once where the flamers are now. I just hope they actually read and consider the argument before jumping to the ad hominem reply.

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

There is gonna be a good time in the old town this campaign.....

Yessiree....and I can hardly wait. ; *)

[citizen]

Sort of difficult to repudiate, isn't it?

[RiflemanSharpe]

Facts usually are.

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

LOL, your post #20. Maybe that ought to be the standard reply as the months ahead bring all 12 or 13 of these folks out of the woodwork.

[citizen]

...and build a new Conservative party.

That won't happen if we keep automatically voting for the Repubs.

The blacks have automatically voted Dim for decades, things haven't worked out too well for them. Though they've made out better than us Conservatives will under the current & future Republican Party.

***Reluctantly, an ex-Republican base voter***

[MJY1288]

Actually I believe there is 23 of them, and yes, they are a waste of time.

[RiflemanSharpe]

If you are tired of politics as usual then why keep voting for the usual politicians? That is why I too amno longer part of the republican base.

[rushmom]

Just can't bring myself to do anything that is helpful to the Democrats. You can work towards a conservative party at the same time.

[RiflemanSharpe]

In my case I am not. I live in TX and this is such strong Bush state that I can move to another party and have no effect on him, I will be voting rep in down ticket races.

[k2blader]

Thank you for your thoughtful posts.

It's encouraging to see reasoned Republicans on FR.

If I vote for President Bush again it will be because of conservatives like you.

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

LOL!!! Silly me, I should have known they were increasing by leaps and bounds. ; *)

[Vision Thing]

There WAS a time when libertarians and conservatives shared the same goal of smaller, limited government.

Yes, there was such a time.

However, the time has come when conservatives are in charge of governing a people, and with that comes the need to compromise with the governed.

On the other hand, libertarians may never have such a chance to govern.

That's where libertarians and conservatives part ways.

[MJY1288]

A small Army, and they all use the same ammo

[JOAT]

Actually I believe there is 23 of them, and yes, they are a waste of time.

I do believe you will see a RAT in office if Dubya does not allow the "Assault Weapons" Ban to sunset this year.

If he signs an extension he is a one term prez like his daddy.

Count on it.

There are a whole lot more than "23" conservative gun owners in this nation who understand that actions speak louder than the "R" in front of the name.

WE don't vote because we fall for platitudes and silly party loyalty. If you are a knee-jerk "R" I pity you. Real conservatives vote "R" when they earn it. They often abstain or vote third party to punish errant politicians. To mindlessly pull the "R" lever never holds the scummy ones responsible. You only empower their slide to the left.

The old argument that "R's" will appoint conservative judges has been proven false. WE have been betrayed numerous times in that category.

Yes, I've heard the old "lesser of two evils" argument. Screw that. The lesser disarms us and we smile. At least we're on our toes and fighting when an evil out of the closet lib is in there. The closeted lib RINO's are the dangerous ones.

Say it with me..."GRIDLOCK IS GOOD."

At least they can't keep stealing our rights and wealth if they fight with each other.

[Texas Federalist]

the time has come when conservatives are in charge of governing a people, and with that comes the need to compromise with the governed.

That sounds like trying to find a justifiable reason where there is none. The majority of the governed and Bush's party share the same views on immigration. Yet Bush went against both. How is this a compromise? Moreover, a recent poll (ABC News???), showed 90% of Democrats and a plurality of independants opposed to his Medicare plan. I thought this plan was designed to appease these voters. The same holds true for many of his proposals - they are bad policy AND bad politically. "Compromise with the governed" sounds good, but it is hackneyed expression that does not justify, nor adequately explain Bush's particular behavior in office.

Let me add that if Bush is a true leader, he would attempt to influence the will of the governed to make him see the merit of his own proposals. If our leaders were expected to blidly heed the will of the governed, our Founders would not have instituted a Republican form of government.

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

Following MJY's lead........ JOAT, you are a waste of time.

But just for the sake of discussion, gun nuts like you are such a turn off.

I am very pro-gun and believe that it is one of the most important rights we have.

That said...... There is a certain attitude from those whose whole life is all about guns that leaves an impression of imbalance.

Please don't come back at me as if I am pro gun control or against guns. I am not at all. But I get a little uneasy with people who worship firearms over practically everything.

[alloysteel]

There are a couple of ways to assume leadership. One is to strike out boldly, marching to the drumbeat of the doctrine you have all your faith and trust in, or another is simply to find a parade already in progress, and get around in in front of it. In either case, it is necessary to glance back from time to time and see if anybody is still there.

A couple of the parades out there have shrunken to a rather small contingent. Is it the fault of the leader, or is it a fault of the drummer? Now in the event that the large parade is the one you have chosen to set yourself up to lead, how much of a chance is there to change the rhythm of the drummer? How about the tempo of the change?

People out there in the mushy middle vote for either the Republican or the Democrat, depending on how comfortable they are with the direction of one or the other. In recent years, the Republican party has veered over and scooped up a number of these "sunshine" voters, and is being as careful as they are able to avoid spooking them. The Democrats have been going berserk over on the other side trying to lure these same voters back, and not being able to prove their case. So if the intention is to make the other side nuts, Bush is following exactly the right track. And I believe he genuinely enjoys the spectacle of the rivals melting down. Part of the reason for sitting down to a hand of poker, winning the pot is only incidental to the greater satisfaction of humbling the biggest braggart at the table.

Crazed people do not have good judgment, and their actions are as likely as much a risk to themselves as they are to those in their near vicinity. But their overall influence is rather limited, and they do not leave a lasting effect on the big picture.

Those who hold what are considered to be minority opinions may eventually succeed in converting the majority to that opinion, but the effort takes considerable time and concentration on the task at hand, as well as a steady and unwavering vision.

The end result, two or three decades down the road, may not look anything like the original concept, but it will be a much better fit for its times.

[RiflemanSharpe]

One thing about MJY1288I asked him if he could repudiate an earlier post of mine. He as of yet has not. He instead has decided to just call me a waste of time.