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 ...
They're victims of George W. Bush, they've been betrayed, we've all been betrayed ......... Sound familiar? I think I heard Al Gore singing the same blue's the other day
Actually, FR does NOT represent his base at all; there are way more right wing zealots on here than there are in the real Repubican Party.
And, since he's not running, you'll help to turn him into a loser which his next opponent will exploit. What did Tancredo ever do to you?
Don't call my facts a hysterical reaction.
I can't make you or anybody a loser. You either one already are or will never be one. If one is worried about being swayed by my mere say so, I suggest that such an individual falls into the "already" category, and as such, can only be made a "little less" of a loser.
I'm going out for a cowboy burger and a sam adams now. Back later. We'll tawwwk.
I really don't care about the Republican Party. If you have a candidate in mind who can accomplish what the President has as well as take the stand on immigration and jobs you support, bring 'em on.
By the way, can you please point me to where the President has invited every illegal (who wouldn't be here illegally if they had an invitation) to take over our jobs or when he will be proposing citizenship? If you truly want a solution that has an ounce of political viability it would be helpful to be accurate.
If you and other like you write him in and he loses, then, politically, he will be labeled as a "loser". Yes? No?
You want solutions? I'll give your solutions: Close down the border and deport illegals who aren't working. Stop making every child born of illegals an American citizen. Stop the insane spending spree in Washington. Fight for conservative judges and kick Orin Hatch's arse back to Utah. Fine companies who are outsourcing American jobs, and stop the love affair with one world government socialism. The President is the leader and he can do these things if he chooses. He doesn't chose.
Want more?
The proposals Bush has given to the nation and Congress in his first term is what scares me to death about his second term.
Oh I'm impressed. This is so typical of Republican thinking. My party regardless of the facts.
The Rise, and Fall, of a Fervid Third Party
In the 1850s, a burgeoning coalition of self- proclaimed nativists, or Know-Nothings, swept into office and called out for radical change
Writer Robert Wernick illuminates a little-known corner of American history in his exploration of 19th-century America's enigmatic and contradictory Know-Nothings. That odd assortment of political bedfellows, constituting the most successful third party — outside of the pre-Civil War Republicans — in the nation's history, makes for a strange chapter in our political annals.
The nativist movement, championing the so-called rights of Protestant, American-born male voters, grew out of fear about new waves of immigration, and about the future. From 1820 to 1845, the arrival of newcomers to our shores had been steady — 10,000 to 100,000 a year. Then immigration surged: from 1845 through 1854, some 2.9 million immigrants, including 1.2 million Irish and more than a million Germans, poured into seaboard cities like Boston and New York. These strangers were impoverished and disease-ridden, easy fodder for the burgeoning coalition of nativists. Membership in the new third party soared: by 1854, when the Know-Nothings formed the American Party and won offices nationwide in that year's election, they had scored an impressive coup.
Once they took on the hard work of enacting legislation, though, the Know-Nothings too became mired in political reality. Although they had transcended their own xenophobic rhetoric and tried to achieve desirable reforms, their accomplishments were transitory.
(Abstract of an article by Robert Wernick in Smithsonian, November 1996)
http://www.smithsonianmag.si.edu/smithsonian/issues96/nov96/knownothings.html
We've seen this kind of hysterical, nativist rhetoric before.
It was a loser then and it's a loser now.
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.