GOP slams Bush policies at retreat

The Washington Times ^ | 2/6/04 | By Ralph Z. Hallow and James G. Lakely

[gatorbait]

Those who harm the Republican party today HARM THE CONSERVATIVE CAUSE.

Exactly so.

[WOSG]

"Yes, the House of Representatives did a gutsy thing there, and we probably did play a hand in it. Some of the House Managers have said we did. And we put an indelible asterisk next to Clinton's name in the history books. I regret none of what I did there."

Yes indeed. My Liberal Clinton-supporting Mom last month was saying "Clinton was never impeached" and I corrected her, with an explanation of the exact process. It was a pleasure to correct her. Without House impeachment, the whole matter would have been whitewashed, to the detriment of the Office of President.

"But the whole time I felt like I was being punched in the stomach by my fellow Americans, who seemed to be saying that lying under oath was just fine. We got trounced there, Pod. Let's not sugarcoat that, either."

NO, I disagree. The American people just dont have the guts to carry through rigorous moral judgments, this is the result of our post-60s moral laxity. But WE DIDNT LOSE. (Maybe I felt different, since I knew all along that Clinton had enough Liberal Democrat enablers to survive removal.) Those unwilling to face reality lost. In the end, the stain as you point out is indelible. Our 2nd impeached President. Now, look at 2000. Consider that Gore had peace and prosperity on his side but couldnt put together a majority.

The Clinton overhang was there and was real.

"Winning elections is not about small numbers of highly-motivated people."

Actually it partly is -- DO NOT make the mistake of confusing Dean's failures with a failure of the principle of insurgent politics or activism. HERE IS THE TRUTH: If we hadnt captured Saddam *and* if Dean had a better temperment, his lead would have held and we would be discussing how "the internet changes everything". Voter decisions turned on a few critical pieces of information - they decided Dean the candidate was flawed wrt character ('too angry') and rejected him.

The fanatics are not the voters. But fanatics *WITH* an appealing message and/or candidate is the right formula for success.

[Jorge]

If we hadnt captured Saddam *and* if Dean had a better temperment, his lead would have held and we would be discussing how "the internet changes everything".

That's a BIG "IF".

[Jorge]

I am a committed and loyal Republican. Those who threaten voting third party, or for John Kerry, will not meet with my approval. I am quite up front with my position. If you don't like it, too bad.

Amen!

[WOSG]

There is an echo chamber on FR, and it's filled with the sound of self-satisfaction and bleating that we have a Panglossian Presidency. This statement is self-refuting. This thread refutes it. We've traded megabytes over the dissent, arguments, fretting, 3rd party types, the conservatives who disagree-with-Bush-but-dammit-he's-1000% -better-than-Kerry, the bush cheerleaders, the ANTI-Bush cheerleaders who take paleocon delight in every trip and stumble at the WH, the defeatist doom-n-gloomers "this is the end of America" "All is list". Not to mention the inimitable WillieGreen, still rooting for Pat, Hardball commentator.

Quite a diverse viewpoint and frankly more *negative* energy than positive energy.

People have hypnotized themselves that this election will be a walk, and that nothing that Bush has done will endanger either his reelection or the seats we take in the House and Senate. ... the illusion of complacency has been shattered by most of us: I see the press is in full bias mode for the election year - "Set Bias For Full, Number one"; polls are down to earth. We are going to have to FIGHT to win political power.

But it begs a good question: HOW IS GRIPING ABOUT BUSH IN A WEB-POND OF CONSERVATIVES HELPFUL TO OUR CAUSE?

[WOSG]

Having watched Kerry's career in this state, I am also sick at the thought of him becoming President. He is more liberal and more slick than Clinton.

May I respectfully suggest that one BIG ISSUE IN 2004 is exactly what you just opined: The danger of a Kerry Presidency.

[WOSG]

"Pre-2002 I'd submit this administration was acting far more conservative than it has since."

Wrong.

both the drug bill and amnesty were issues pre-2002.

In 2003, Bush engineered a very large tax cut. This is a KEY to liberating our economy. In 2003 he also signed the partial birth abortion ban. He also made the decision to liberate Iraq, which has profound pro-freedom consequences here at home as well as abroad.

There is a much much longer list from Southack.

[WOSG]

Perot though DID cost Bush the election in 1992. Instead of making a head-to-head, Perot was a stalking horse for complaints about Bush on the economy that kept him on a defensive that was not helpful, and prevented Bush from really doing a compare with Bush on critical issues.

If people had a REALISTIC view of the economy in 1992, they would not have dumped Bush. OTOH, Bush's pathetic inability to articulate a conservative vision domestically totally demoralized the base.

JMHO.

[WOSG]

"However, it's evident that the current direction of the country is increasingly socialist no matter what party is in power. In short: America is screwed. We're going socialist, people. Might as well get used to it.

A marvelous embodiment of the 'doom-n-gloom' attitude.

Consider some facts though: Government spending huge as it is, is now under 20% of GDP. Less as a percentage of GDP than in the Reagan era. Social indices, like single-parenthood and crime, are better than 20 years ago. American attitudes today are measurably MORE PRO-LIFE than in 1990. We are talking about school choice. The tax rates are lower than in the 1970s, by far.

And last but not least. WE WON THE COLD WAR. NOW WE ARE WINNING THE WAR ON TERROR.

Have no fear, as Jack Kemp said:

"I read the final chapter. We win."

[WOSG]

Quite frankly it doesnt serve any purpose to threaten a vote or non-vote. Better to simply REGISTER YOUR VIEW. By definition, if they KNOW YOU CARE ABOUT THE ISSUE, THEY WILL TRY TO RESPOND.

Here's what I did: Last month I sent back a letter to the RNC, no check, but a letter. I mentioned Spending and immigration enforcement as my two reasons for not being able to support them. I made no threats, I just told them I could nt send money at the time.

Thanks to Bush's new religious fervor for "spending limitation" as evidenced by their proposal to REINSTITUTE PAY-GO FOR ALL SPENDING PROPOSALS (yahoo), and thanks to the word from Hastert that amnesty/amnesty-lite etal are all DOA in the House, I softened up a bit, and made the same points to the "republican survey" but sent a donation too.

Get the signally done RIGHT, and the RNC will notice "oh, we took a hit from doing X Y Z, but going back in conservative direction helped us a bit ... lets do more"

You do the same with letters to Senators and Congressional Reps. Just tell 'em what you want to see done.
There is no need for the "voter tantrum" ("do this or else"). remember, they could care less about a single vote. What really gets their back hairs on end is knowing that for every letter they get, there's 20 other steamed constituents who wont bother writing. Get 100 letters, and things get interested. Get 1000 letters and they are reaching for the pepto bismol.

So keep screaming to the elected leaders. (Hint: screaming on FR does *not* count!) But frankly, letting them (republican leaders) know you are a loyal republican is IMHO far more effective and powerful than making any kind of electoral threats to anyone.

[sauropod]

Quite frankly it doesnt serve any purpose to threaten a vote or non-vote. Better to simply REGISTER YOUR VIEW. By definition, if they KNOW YOU CARE ABOUT THE ISSUE, THEY WILL TRY TO RESPOND.

Here's what I did: Last month I sent back a letter to the RNC, no check, but a letter. I mentioned Spending and immigration enforcement as my two reasons for not being able to support them. I made no threats, I just told them I could nt send money at the time.

A good approach. Thank you for that.

[WOSG]

"I must be going color-blind. I can't seem to tell Red from Blue these days."

If you cant tell the difference between say a senator Lott or Chambliss and a Senator Kennedy or a Senator Edwards, I dont know what to say. The Socialism is speak of is in the plans of the Socialist Democrats, which Senator Kennedy keeps pushing for. Amnesty vs. not. Undo the tax cuts and increase taxes again.

Let me restate - we can win or lose 5 senate races in the South in 2004. If we win, CONSERVATIVES COULD HAVE CLOSE TO A WORKING MAJORITY. If we lose, a RINO+DEMOCRAT MAJORITY will remain like they've had for the past few years.

John Edwards clones, or folks like Sen Chambliss, Sessions ... you decide...

We have the opportunity to do several things by Nov:
1. Replace RINO Specter with Conservative Pat Toomey.
2. Gain 5 Republican seats in the Senate, making Democrat judicial filibusters more difficult to practically impossible.
3. Increase conservatives in the House, tipping the balance in favor of conservative policies.
This will be enough IMHO to make the Congress a measurably improved institution in 2005.

[Nick Danger]

The fanatics are not the voters. But fanatics *WITH* an appealing message and/or candidate is the right formula for success.

Yeah, but once everybody has fanatics, they are no longer a competitive advantage. These days, everybody has 'em. There were McGovern fanatics... Mondale fanatics... Dukakis fanatics. They are like wheels on a car. It's true that the car isn't going anywhere without them, but no one picks one car over another because one has wheels. All cars have wheels.

[Jorge]

We have the opportunity to do several things by Nov: 1. Replace RINO Specter with Conservative Pat Toomey.

No we don't either. As much as I dislike Specter, Toomey will never win a state-wide election.

A vote for Toomey is a vote for the Dems.

[WOSG]

"No we don't either. As much as I dislike Specter, Toomey will never win a state-wide election.

A vote for Toomey is a vote for the Dems."

False. Santorum has proven a conservative can win PA statewide. Besides, who's the Dem? Are they strong? Worse than specter???

A vote for specter, who's ACU rating is under 50% is like voting for a 1/2 Dem.

[WOSG]

"Yeah, but once everybody has fanatics, they are no longer a competitive advantage. These days, everybody has 'em. There were McGovern fanatics... Mondale fanatics... Dukakis fanatics. They are like wheels on a car. It's true that the car isn't going anywhere without them, but no one picks one car over another because one has wheels. All cars have wheels."

The Bush campaign in 1992 didnt have much wheels.

Did it make a difference?

[WOSG]

PS. It is *not* true that "Dukakis" or Mondale had 'fanatics' in great number on their side... both were low energy campaigns.

JMHO.

[Jorge]

"A vote for Toomey is a vote for the Dems."

False. Santorum has proven a conservative can win PA statewide.

Santorum has a LOT MORE personal appeal than Toomey.

I don't like Specter, and even emailed his office a few years ago threatening to never vote for him again.

But I have predicted conservatives who could win the primaries but NEVER win the statewide election several times. And I have been right.

Toomey will not win.

[DTogo]

GREAT tagline!! :)