Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

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]

Posted on 02/12/2004 7:32:47 AM PST by 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-

(Excerpt) Read more at nola.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2004; alqaedavote; conservatives; kerry
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 281-289 next last
To: KantianBurke
Either post evidence to prove that assertion or shut up. Ironic that those who criticise Bush for acting like a liberal are themselves accused of being a liberal.

"Shut up"? Such civil discourse!

It has nothing to do do with "being a liberal". The point is, the practical result of not supporting the GOP candidate is the support of the Democratic candidate. If we didn't know that before 1992, we do now.

181 posted on 02/12/2004 1:41:03 PM PST by Amelia (Pop-culture impaired)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: Amelia
Some conservatives are on the Democrats' side in the war against Bush.

Undoubtedly !!! But.......

Psssst....they actually believe that only pure sainthood qualifies a candidate so it's okay to help elect the Devil, himself, if Mr. or Mrs. Purity isn't electable.

I know......I know...it makes no sense, but who said they have any? ; *)

182 posted on 02/12/2004 1:48:36 PM PST by Southflanknorthpawsis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: CA Conservative
This is something I would expect from either a Democrat or a Patsy (Buchanan supporter).

The things I believe come from an American who is sick of politicians on both sides. Are you honestly saying that Pat Buchanan was wrong when he wrote about illegals and how continued massive immigration will change the face of America?

Stop welfare to illegals; deport criminals and illegals not working but living off the American tax payer. Boy, I some subversive, aren't I.

183 posted on 02/12/2004 1:50:24 PM PST by swampfox98 (Beyond 2004 - Chaos)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: Swanks
Once again, and every four years at election time: Don't you stupid conservatives know your place on the Plantation? Yours is not to lead; yours is to vote RINO every four years, and we'll drive things from there.

Trouble is, among the voters, maybe 30% are hard right, about the same percentage hard left, and the other 40% are in the middle...and to win an election, a majority of the 40% in the middle must be captured - and they think the hard right and the hard left are both "too extreme".

Anyone who wants to win has to appeal to that group. How would you do it?

184 posted on 02/12/2004 1:51:23 PM PST by Amelia (Pop-culture impaired)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
I guess you forgot to put the IN MY OPINION in there, right?

I don't need to say what is my opinion, if it weren't my opinion I wouldn't even be saying it. Besides, on these issues I am right.

185 posted on 02/12/2004 1:53:19 PM PST by swampfox98 (Beyond 2004 - Chaos)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: Jim Cane
Reposting to Mr. Jim Cane, a purist and principled FReeper who says "I'll write in Tancredo, just the same."

President Tancredo will surely be able to handle your demand for "deportation of every illegal who is here," because he would have a filibuster-free Senate, right? ALL the Dims would support a No Amnesty policy, right?

And with President Tancredo in office we will no longer have to worry about the War on Terror and the bothersome Middle East because they will just go away, right?

The millions of senior citizens who have been brainwashed since the days of FDR will just shut up so President Tancredo won't have to worry about their demands for prescription drugs or Social Security, right?

President Tancredo won't have to fight to make the tax cuts permanent because he'll surely have the support of allies like Tom Daschle, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, right? I'm sure they'll back all his judicial nominees too, because he's not President Bush, after all.

As long as voters continue to re-elect the righteous Senate powerhouses Teddy Kennedy and Hillary Clinton, with their strong advocacy for keeping government spending down, President Tancredo will not be bothered with any outcries about budget cuts for big ticket social programs and pork barrel projects.

There won't be any Independents in the Senate switching parties because Jim Jeffords showed us that the political makeup of the Senate doesn't affect anything important. Nor will there be election integrity headaches for President Tancredo, because Senator Frank Lautenberg proved that people pay no mind to little things like ethics.

Nope. President Tancredo won't have to deal with a Congress that represents constituents who make up at least fifty percent of the electorate and who claim the election of 2000 was stolen from Al Gore. Oh, and he'll certainly have the backing of the media and celebrities. They wont be pushing a leftist agenda and smearing his good name.

It'll be a breeze for President Tancredo, and we can all just get back to enjoying ourselves. No more worries about partial-birth abortion, Kyoto treaties, World Court rulings, the United Nations, education, AIDS, gay marriage, outsourcing, racism or unemployment. Yep. Those, along with scores of other annoyances, will be swept off the problem plate in one fell swoop because he closed the borders and deported the illegals.
186 posted on 02/12/2004 1:53:32 PM PST by arasina (So there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: reformedliberal
What is not adult about what I am saying?
187 posted on 02/12/2004 1:54:50 PM PST by swampfox98 (Beyond 2004 - Chaos)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: KantianBurke
Some people don't even bother to read the article and just shout their knee-jerk mantra of how President Bush isn't conservative to their ideals.
188 posted on 02/12/2004 1:54:55 PM PST by Tempest (Don't be so short-sighted)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc
Those of us CONSERVATIVES who support the President will just have to work that much harder. Sheeeeeeeesh!
189 posted on 02/12/2004 1:55:13 PM PST by Saundra Duffy (For victory & freedom!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Amelia
The point is, the practical result of not supporting the GOP candidate is the support of the Democratic candidate.

The point is that the practical result of a Republican candidate betraying his base is the support of the Democratic candidate. Don't blame the voter, blame the guy who betrays his base but thinks they will vote for him anyway.

190 posted on 02/12/2004 1:55:15 PM PST by Spiff (Have you committed a random act of thoughtcrime today?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: TomasUSMC
Let's at least be accurate:

The Medicare prescription drug benefit was going to be passed - it had too much popular support. At least with Bush in office, we got a version that includes privatization and medical savings accounts.

Bush campaigned with education as one of his key issues, so this can hardly be called a betrayal. The same goes for his stance on immigration. As far as giving illegals Social Security, what Bush proposed was allowing legal guest workers to contribute to the retirement system in their home countries, as an incentive to get them to return home.

Outsourcing of jobs, Nafta and H1-B visas were around a long time before Bush was elected, and I don't recall him campaigning on a promise to repeal them. So why get mad because he isn't doing something he never promised to do?

191 posted on 02/12/2004 1:56:05 PM PST by CA Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc
The fact that what is said is the truth is an absolute defense against the charge of slander.

You and your three blind mouseology choir. You like that better?

192 posted on 02/12/2004 1:57:37 PM PST by swampfox98 (Beyond 2004 - Chaos)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: Amelia; hchutch
Anyone who wants to win has to appeal to that group. How would you do it?

Ultimately, he'd have to figure out a way to keep 70% of the electorate from voting.

We've had a few FReepers advocate various extralegal methods of seizing power--military coups, get elected once and suspend subsequent elections, etc.

193 posted on 02/12/2004 1:59:38 PM PST by Poohbah ("Would you mind not shooting at the thermonuclear weapons?" -- Maj. Vic Deakins, USAF)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: Spiff
The point is that the practical result of a Republican candidate betraying his base is the support of the Democratic candidate. Don't blame the voter, blame the guy who betrays his base but thinks they will vote for him anyway.

President Bush has done just what he said he'd do when he was running in 2000, with the exception of handling the war on terror (obviously, since we didn't know about 9/11 in advance).

He ran as a moderate conservative, and he's governed as one. I'd suggest, if you want to see the country move more to the right, you begin with Congress.

You can't possibly think a Democrat will be better, or even just the same?

194 posted on 02/12/2004 2:02:52 PM PST by Amelia (Pop-culture impaired)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: CA Conservative; RockyMtnMan
Let me dumb it down a little for you:

If Bush loses it's his fault not mine.

Those PETA people will be mighty tasty if we are forced to cannibalism. After all, they only eat plants, kinda like grain fed Angus.
195 posted on 02/12/2004 2:07:47 PM PST by RockyMtnMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: onyx
Any person who would support a third party candidate who has absolutely zero chance of winning even one state or even a single electoral vote is so politically naive and devoid of the brainpower that The Creator so graciously endowed upon them, that it's not even worth wasting pixels on.


And if we conservatives continue to believe this screed the GOP will happily lead us to their socialist utopia.
It is way past time to vote principle not party - I am a Christian, a conservative and former Republican in that order. Vote for the party of principle:

http://www.constitutionparty.com
197 posted on 02/12/2004 2:15:30 PM PST by kjvail
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: swampfox98
swampfox98 wrote: (The fact that what is said is the truth is an absolute defense against the charge of slander.) You and your three blind mouseology choir. You like that better?

That should be "three-blind-mousology choir."

Use a hyphen between parts of a compound modifier preceding a noun except when the compound includes an adverb ending in "ly" ("mousology" isn't an adverb).

198 posted on 02/12/2004 2:18:28 PM PST by quidnunc (Omnis Gaul delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: onyx
If Jim Rob wants to ban me for saying I will vote for republicans in the house and senate but will look for a conservative for president that is his right I have no issue with it and I will lose no sleep over it.

If people think the Republican cause (one I have voted for 99% of the time during my whole voting life) is assisted by massive government spending and name calling (both those calling Bush supporters names, and those calling detractors names) they are in for a shock. Go ahead and call me an ignorent wacko right voter, Ill still vote for republicans who want to shrink the size of government.

A conservative does not want bigger Government and If I can create a situation where I have to play both sides against each other (much as we had in the late 90's) to stop double digit increases in spending than so be it. I respect Bush, I think he is a Good man but I think the GOP can do better, I think Conservatives can do better...

199 posted on 02/12/2004 2:24:36 PM PST by N3WBI3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: kjvail
And if we conservatives continue to believe this screed the GOP will happily lead us to their socialist utopia. It is way past time to vote principle not party - I am a Christian, a conservative and former Republican in that order. Vote for the party of principle:

I hate to break it to you, but most Americans have never heard, and will never hear, of the Constitution Party.

Look at how well Kerry did in Virginia & Tennessee - do you think people in Virginia & Tennessee like Kerry?

Let me buy you a clue: most Americans are going to vote for whoever the media says is winning. They don't pay attention to the issues as we do, but they will go vote anyway. They'll vote for whoever the media says is winning, or whoever they think looks friendlier, or whoever is promising them what they think they want that day.

Or maybe the person they think will protect the U.S. from terrorists best, or protect their job best.

In most elections, however, you have only 2 real choices: you can vote for one, or you can vote against the other - which has the effect of voting for the first.

200 posted on 02/12/2004 2:28:29 PM PST by Amelia (Pop-culture impaired)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 281-289 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson