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-

[onyx]

The CP and all others are lost on me.

Voting for them is merely masturbatory.

Makes YOU feel good.

[onyx]

HELLO!

Bush is our GOP nominee.

We have two "REAL" choices:

President Bush or the democrat.

ALL of the others are "bleeders" --- bleed from the Left or from the Right.

[swampfox98]

True conservatives don't need to obey these rules. Because we are just a hop and a skip away from being kicked off FR anyhow.

[Amelia]

I will vote for republicans in the house and senate but will look for a conservative for president

You have it exactly backwards, in my opinion. Congress votes for legislation and the budget - you need conservatives in Congress if anything is to be accomplished. If Congress were conservative, it wouldn't matter so much who the president was; he wouldn't get the intrusive social programs and other big government legislation.

Also, if people were electing true conservatives to lower positions, it would send a message to those at higher levels.

Remember your congresscritters represent you personally, so you should truly want a true conservative in that position.

The president represents the entire country - and the entire country isn't conservative, so it's harder to get a conservative president. Worth hoping for, but not likely to happen until there's a change country-wide and at lower levels.

[N3WBI3]

Its as bad as when the democrats say they will vote for satan rather than Bush...

I am not going to say I wont vote for Bush but he will have to show me something in the next few months, so far he has not met a spending bill he did not like..

[BigSkyFreeper]

Do you blame the grocery store for bad produce or do you blame yourself for buying it?

Shop somewhere else if you're only able to pick from rotted fruit!

[KantianBurke]

Yeah and no one could ever accuse your side of posting uncivil things - snicker -

You conviently forget that 1992 came about due to the elder Bush's lose of his base. Putting Souter on the bench, signing the ADA and raising taxes have a tendency to do that.

[N3WBI3]

Good point, Usually repubs in the house tend to be more conservative (thus I have voted for them) but if teddy K changed parties I would not vote for him.. Some on this board would vote for Kerry if he was the GOP nominee

[BigSkyFreeper]

First, Reagan wasn't as conservative as Bush is. Second, STOP LIVING IN THE PAST! You cannot compare Reagan's more liberal policies with Bush's more Conservative ones, call yourself a principled Conservative, and stay home in protest come election night. But, if that satisfies you, so be it.

[quidnunc]

swampfox98 wrote: True conservatives don't need to obey these rules. Because we are just a hop and a skip away from being kicked off FR anyhow.

Evidently some 'true conservatives' don't even know these rules exist until it is pointed out to them.

[Howlin]

You conviently forget that 1992 came about due to the elder Bush's lose of his base

I wish you guys would make up your minds which ones of you actually voted Bush 41 out of office.

Was it the 'real conservatives?'

Was it Perot?

Was it the religious right?

Was it the antiabortion group?

Or was it you, the "cut off my nose to spit my face" voter?

[onyx]

Oh please. Name one person on this board who would vote for Kerry if he had an R behind his name? Name one.

Deal in reality, to avoid looking foolish.

[BigSkyFreeper]

Personally I think they're embarrassed, and want to point fingers in the other direction.

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

Well, no matter which 1/2 percenter wants credit, the question is what did their protest vote or sit-out get them?

I wouldn't be bragging about helping Bill Clinton into the WH.......that is unless I was a Democrat.

[Amelia]

Yeah and no one could ever accuse your side of posting uncivil things - snicker -

If someone on "my side" posts uncivil things, talk to them. If I post uncivil things, talk to me.

Have I been uncivil to you or anyone else? If not, why were you rude to me?

You conviently forget that 1992 came about due to the elder Bush's lose of his base. Putting Souter on the bench, signing the ADA and raising taxes have a tendency to do that.

The elder Bush also gave us Clarence Thomas.

Was getting even with the elder Bush worth 8 years of Clinton? Are we better off now?

[KantianBurke]

It was the elder Bush who, thanks to some pretty boneheaded moves along with an exaggeratingly weak economy, was almost defeated in the NH primary by disgruntled conservatives backing Buchanan. Whatever your thoughts are of the man, his showing was enough to convince Perot that there WAS a chance that a 3rd party candidate could win it all. The moral of the story IMHO repeat IMHO is that causing your main supporters to waver isn't healthy for a candidate. Trying to win over moderates at crucial times will NOT aid a re-election bid. Take the free drugs bill. Even though its supposed to get senior support, it hasn't. In fact most hold the Rats as better stweards of those kinds of things.

Now, how's about we take a break from fussin and have us some chitlins ;>

[kjvail]

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

Historically about every 50 years or so the major parties get a shakeup in this country.

Pre-Constitution
Anti-Federalist Party
Federalist Party

Pre-Jackson
Democratic-Republican Party (also known as "Anti-Federalist", "Jeffersonian", "Jacksonian" or simply "Republican")
Federalist Party

Jacksonian Era
Anti-Masonic
National Republican
Whig

Civil War
Free Soil
Know-Nothing Party (officially called the American Party)
Liberty Party

Gilded Age
Greenback
Populist

Progressive Era
Fusion Party (primarily in the northern states)
Progressive (including the "Bull Moose" party)
Social Democratic Party
Socialist Party of America

Later 20th century
America First Party, whose peak came in 1944 and is not affiliated with the current America First Party
Union Party
Dixiecrat (also known as States' Rights Democratic)
American Independent Party: the party under Alabama Governor George Wallace in the 1968 and 1972 elections
Citizens Party (1980-1984)

Perhaps this will help:
http://ap.grolier.com/article?assetid=a2023620-h&templatename=/article/article.html

It is past time for a shakeup - the Democratic party is imploding and the GOP is moving farther left every year to take their place. The future belongs to the LP and the CP.

[BigSkyFreeper]

You conviently forget that 1992 came about due to the elder Bush's lose of his base. Putting Souter on the bench, signing the ADA and raising taxes have a tendency to do that.

Just confess you voted for Perot, which put Clinton in the White House and be done with it. Stop tap dancing around that fact. LOL

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

This is going to be a long thread, I think.

[BigSkyFreeper]

I have trouble coming to grips with the CP and the LP, one wants more open borders and the other wants to give up the WOT.