GOP Infighting Fills Our Enemies with Joy ((The Stupid Party getting even stupider)

The Times-Picayune [New Orleans] ^ | February 12, 2004 | James Lileks [Newhouse News Service]

[quidnunc]

Let's just be blunt: The North Koreans would love to see John Kerry win the election. The mullahs of Iran would love it. The Syrian Baathists would sigh with relief. Every enemy of America would take great satisfaction if the electorate rejects the Bush doctrine and scuttles back to hide under the U.N. Security Council's table. It's a hard question, but the right one: Which candidate does our enemy want to lose? George W. Bush.

And some conservatives will be happy to help, it seems.

Woe and gloom have befallen some on the right. Bush has failed to act according to The Reagan Ideal.

The actual Reagan may have issued an amnesty for illegals, but the Ideal Reagan would have done no such thing. So unless Bush packs freight cars full of gardeners and dishwashers and dumps them off at the Mexican border, some voters will just sit this one out.

The Ideal Reagan would have eliminated the National Endowment for the Arts; the actual Reagan proposed a $1 million increase in his final budget. But Bush increased NEA funding. So angry conservatives might just sit this one out.

And if a Democrat takes office, and the Michael Moores and Rob Reiners and Martin Sheens crowd the airwaves on Nov. 3 to shout their howls of vindication? If the inevitable renaissance of Iraq happens on Kerry's watch, and the economy truly picks up steam in the first few years before the business cycle and Kerry's tax hikes kick in? If emboldened Islamist terrorists smell blood and strike again? Fine. Maybe the next Republican president will do everything they want.

-snip-

[Spiff]

BUT GET OUT OF THE WAY -- we are NOT going to sit here and let you people hand this country back over to the Democrats so they can destroy our security.

I have not decided if I'm voting for Bush or not. I will likely hold my nose and do it. But this Republican has gone from a broken glass Republican Bush voter in 2000 to a very reluctant, betrayed, and battered potential Bush voter in 2004. It will not be ME that hands the country back over to the Democrats. It will be President Bush, Karl Rove, Ed Gillespie, and the RINOs in Congress who have betrayed a large segment of Republicans who will lose the election.

Despite what you or they think, they are NOT entitled to anyone's vote. They have to earn it. And if they betray some Republicans they have not earned their vote. The fault does not lie with the voter but with those who betrayed the voter. It is a bad idea to say that if someone or something does not meet your standards you should just lower your standards.

Some of us are not going to sit here and let you people hand this country over to Republicans who do not uphold the traditional principles and goals of the Republican Party, who are not conservative, and who have and will continue to propose, pass, and/or sign laws which further the erosion of our sovereignty and freedom and continue the course of creeping socialism. Maybe, just maybe, President Bush and the Republicans in Congress will listen to the discontent of the grassroots and change course in time for the election.

But bullying us, telling us to shut up, shouting us down, brow-beating, calling us "traitors" if we don't pledge our vote to Bush right this second will NOT win a single vote. Instead you might want to put some pressure on Bush and the Republicans in Congress to reverse the policies that are angering so much of the grassroots. Either that or admit to yourself that those who are angry are such a tiny, powerless minority that their votes don't matter to the election of George Bush - and if that is the case you should not waste your time trying to change the votes of that minority. But then you have to ask yourself how many conservatives you really think should be disenfranchised to elect one man. And then you need to realize that one day, as more and more conservatives are considered too "fringe", too "extreme", or "unappeasable" are cut off, you may find yourself on the fringe and you'll get the same treatment from the more "moderate" or "practical" conservative Republicans who will turn their backs on you just like you turned your back on us. Meanwhile, America will continue on its path toward socialism and complete loss of sovereignty.

[swampfox98]

Read the article in this thread -- they're talking about YOU

Yeah, go ahead and encourage Bush in his folly. I'm smart enough to know Bush's policies are going to destroy America. If you think you can force me to shut up about immigration and spending and outsourcing -- you'll have ban me. I don't give a rat's about you. Others may shake in their boots when you write to them and kiss up to you, but I don't and won't.

[Howlin]

Since when is being president of the United States a "folly?"

Lord, you people are pathetic!

[swampfox98]

quidnunc and followers are Modern-Day Know-Nothing among other things.

[quidnunc]

Howlin wrote: Lord, you people are pathetic!

They well and truly are Know-Nothings!

[swampfox98]

Lord, you people are pathetic!

When is it pathetic to care about what kind of country my children are going to live in, when Bush and the Democrats allow our borders to be wide open? When is it pathetic when our over spending is going to bankrupt this country? When it is pathetic to worry over millions of Americans who have lost their jobs due to outsourcing? If that's pathetic lady, they I accept with pride.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks, I couldn't agree more.

Reelecting George W. Bush appears to the Bush camp to be a close thing. I don't think the final tally will be very close at all (he'll win by 10 per cent), but it's clear from his recent public appearances that he does, and that his campaign does.

He's carefully staked out positions that "out" the so-called Democrats -- from the space program (Florida, Texas, California are listening), illegal aliens (see previous parenthetical), gay marriage (also a salvo in the effort to reclaim the Democretin-packed courts), all the way to the bread and butter issues (ALL the Democretins want to raise taxes on the working folk) and the War on Terror / Liberation of Iraq.

During the 2000 campaign, the partisan shill media never emphasized Gore's "carbon tax" advocacy -- one with which John Kerry agrees. Had that been hammered home by actual journalism, Gore would have lost by a landslide.

Proposed Carbon Tax Would Impose Enormous Costs
Mackinac Center for Public Policy
12/7/1992

Studies have shown that a carbon tax necessary to achieve that objective would exact massive costs on the economy in the form of lost jobs and reduced economic growth. By the year 2000, a total of 600,000 jobs would be lost, according to the CONSAD Research Corporation, with job losses reaching 1.5 million by the year 2005. Nearly 5 million other jobs would be at risk of reduced wages and hours worked, with shorter employment terms and longer layoffs. A carbon tax would produce annual losses in gross national product of 1.7 percent. Thousands of businesses in the coal, mining, petroleum, utility, and transportation service industries would be forced to curtail operations or close down. Michigan would be among the states hit hardest, with 23,000 jobs lost primarily in the mining, paper products, and transportation equipment industries... Surely, ecological central planning can be no more successful here than economic central planning was in Eastern Europe and the old Soviet Union, especially if it is backed up by poor information.

The Clinton-Gore Administration's Anti-Consumer Energy Policy
Patrick Burns
July 20, 2000

Gasoline prices have risen 50 cents to 60 cents per gallon over the past six months, and in some areas costs more than $2.00 per gallon. The surging price of gasoline has highlighted America’s increasing dependence on foreign oil. In 1974, net imports of crude oil supplied about 35% of our gas needs. Imports now supply more than 55% of U.S. petroleum consumption, the highest ever.

I'm surprised no one seems to worry about the inside job going on at Fox -- O'Reilly suddenly becoming a different kind of demagogue; Chris Wallace being the new host of the Sunday news/talk show; more. If anyone thinks Fox is just trying to position itself for the election year, they're sadly mistaken.

[quidnunc]

swampfox98 wrote: quidnunc and followers are Modern-Day Know-Nothing among other things.

No bubba, to see a Know-Nothing you'll have to look in a mirror.

Know-Nothing (n.) – A member of a political party in the United States during the 1850s that was antagonistic toward recent immigrants and Roman Catholics.

[WayneM]

Telling people to shut up and quit talking about a critical issue never resolves anything.

I voted for Bush and have solidly voted Republican starting with Richard Nixon. I have an absolute right to complain about the illegal alien/amnesty issue, and will continue to do so.

[Howlin]

So is telling people that they are UNPRINCIPLED if they vote for Bush.

I don't CARE if you all don't vote for him; just stop telling us you're not voting for him.

[swampfox98]

Know-Nothing (n.) – A member of a political party in the United States during the 1850s that was antagonistic toward recent immigrants and Roman Catholics>,

I know a great deal, and I'm good with words. That's why you and your co-horts can't think of any arguments to my posts, so you call me names.

[Howlin]

I am going to stop and take two minutes here to tell you how completely and totally you are proving the point that you all are irrelevant.

The rest of us are on the thread about Kerry having a girl friend and yet here you are, still clomping along about your ONE ISSUE AGENDA.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to DO SOMETHING about this election, rather than BITCH about George Bush.

I am going to make sure these HEATHENS don't get the White House back.

[MeekOneGOP]

I am stating a simple fact: George Bush is our candidate this year.

He sure is ! I'm voting for Bush AND STRAIGHT TICKET GOP (as usual) !!

The ONLY GOOD 'RAT is one that has been voted OUT OF POWER !!

[Spiff]

Yep, I believe the author of the article had you read perfectly. Obviously if you had blind loyalty to Principles you would know that you have to make progress toward the ideal in our governmental process steps at a time..... nothing comes all at once.

I'd accept that, but I fail to see that we're making progress. For example, we've not cut government spending, even non-defense discretionary spending, we've only (as Ed Gillespie proudly trumpets) reduced the rate of its growth. CFR, Amnesty, New $500 billion Federal Entitlement program, etc are also not moving the conservative ball down the field. If we keep up at the pace the current administration has set we're going to score a Safety for the opposing liberal team.

[swampfox98]

I am going to make sure these HEATHENS don't get the White House back.

I'm going to vote for Bush. However, I am not going into it blindly, as so many of you are. I don't agree with what he is doing in some cases, and I have a right to express that opinion. I will say what I please (or to use your word "bitch") whenever I please to say it.

[Howlin]

I am not going into it blindly, as so many of you are

And you wonder why so many of us trash you all? It's remarks like that.

We're not mindless robots, as you must tell yourself.

[quidnunc]

swampfox98 wrote: I know a great deal, and I'm good with words. That's why you and your co-horts can't think of any arguments to my posts, so you call me names.

Well, somebody who says 'co-horts' when the proper word is 'cohorts' isn't all that good.

[k2blader]

See tagline.

[templar]

There would be no infighting if Bush had simply acted like a Republican.

That defines the situation rather well. I don't hear anyone (Republican) bashing Bush because he is too conservative, or even because he is primarily conservative. Quite the opposite.