Maybe Bush is Right On

Intellectual Conservative ^ | 30 January 2004 | Raymond Green

[chicagolady]

I am not calling Bush evil. That is what you read into a simple statement!

[gatorbait]

If people do not agree with the way you think...you take your ball and go home.

First off, your tranference is showing, please seek help.Secondly, I do think,therefore I won't entertain the fairy tale of the Constipation Party or any other third party whackos gaining much more than some Federal matching funds.

[texasflower]

Yes as a matter of fact I did read the entire thread.

Okay, maybe you weren't argumentative with every one. Just the ones who didn't agree with you.

For your information, just because most of us are willing to give the President the benefit of the doubt does not mean that we are incapable of original thought.

Quite the contrary actually.

We can see past a single issue and look at the big picture.

[inquest]

But your idea of doing away with medicare might be right but it is not done overnite. It takes a little bit at a time--chipping away at the infrastructure. With medicare kept within private enterprise and with monies spent (which you have been spending since you first got your first paycheck for hospital and doctor payments, and medical supplies, etc spent ina more efficient manner)perhaps there will be a change.

I don't see why it needs to be that complicated. I'm all in favor of a gradual elimination of Medicare, too. Seems to me the most obvious way to do it gradually is simply to gradually decrease the size ($) of the program till it gets to zero.

[JoeSchem]

In 1964, conservatives supported Barry Goldwater over Nelson Rockefeller and went down to defeat. In 1966, however, the Republican Party recovered and one of the people elected in that year was Governor Ronald Reagan.

In other words, by sticking to our convictions, conservatives suffered a short term loss and won a long term gain.

In 1968, conservatives supported moderate Republican Richard Nixon. Nixon ended up with the Watergate scandal and dragged the Republican Party down to near extinction in 1974.

In other words, by supporting a moderate, conservatives enjoyed a short-term gain and suffered a long-term loss.

In 1976, moderate Republican President Gerald Ford enjoyed record spending deficits and declared, "There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe." Conservatives sat the election out. Ford lost, and Jimmy Carter became President. The result was that by 1980, the American people had enough, and Ronald Reagan -- a man that moderate Republicans had insisted, loud and long, was unelectable, was elected in 1980.

Reagan made one mistake, however. He chose a moderate Republican as his Vice Presidential running mate -- George Bush. In 1988, Bush won the presidency on Reagan's coattails and promptly disassembled the conservative revolution with massive spending and tax increases. By 1992, we ended up with Bill Clinton.

However, by 1994, the American people had enough of Democrat domination of the federal government, and Republicans won control of the US Congress for the first time in decades.

In 1996, the Republicans nominated Bob Dole, a moderate Republican, whose lack-luster campaign somehow got Bill Clinton re-elected -- in fact, made Clinton seem presidential, a task which Clinton alone had not been able to accomplish.

All in all, the record is quite clear: if conservatives sacrifice principle to support a moderate Republican, the moderate Republican will move even farther to the Left, and when his liberal policies come acropper, Republicans will be blamed and hurt badly.

We're in that mode right now. I suggest that it is time for a correction. Conservatives should sit this election out, and let a Democratic President take the fall for the same leftist policies that Bush wishes to implement. Then we can win back the White House in 2008.

[Tamzee]

I am not calling Bush evil. That is what you read into a simple statement!

You're simple statement was pretty clear... you said the lesser of two evils was evil still.

What did you mean then?

[nopardons]

You go away, sweetums; I'm entrenched . :-)

[chicagolady]

I do not believe on supporting Bush on issues I do not agree with him on!

It is more of an "Issue Statement" Not a Bush statement.

[nopardons]

How Clintonian. Do you have a special decoder ring to sell, so that the rest of us can parse your posts ? :-)

[Tamzee]

So we push conservative values foward by losing on purpose this year? Right.

If that is the case, perhaps you could reverse engineer the last several Democrat Presidents and prove how that was the strategy that has successfully forced America to move so far to the left in the last few decades?

[chicagolady]

Yes, it is $5.95 plus shipping and handling.

[nopardons]

May I just pick it up, the next time I'm in Chicago? I hate that shipping and handling fee stuff. lol

[inquest]

Conservatives should sit this election out, and let a Democratic President take the fall for the same leftist policies that Bush wishes to implement.

Voting Constitution Party would be far more effective than sitting the election out. There's no excuse for a no-vote.

[sauropod]

Whatever, cupcakes.

[sauropod]

I hope you are right.

[nopardons]

Same to you, sweetums.

[sauropod]

What I mean is, that say Grandma has 40k to her name. She goes in a nursing home.

The current rules require that she completely impoverish herself before they pay a dime.

IOW, not a thing to kids, charities, etc.

[sauropod]

*smooch*

[Tamzee]

Ahhh, so referring to Bush as evil is fine as long as it is an "issue statement". ANSWER likes to make such issue statements, as well, so it sure would be nice to skip such rhetoric at Free Republic.

[gatorbait]

Hey pod! , Got anything left in that bottle? We both need it :- )