Conservatives Contemplate Electoral Hari-kiri

FrontPageMagazine.com ^ | 2/27/04 | Michael Reagan

[kattracks]

President Bush fired back at his Democratic critics Monday night. After being a sitting duck for the slings and arrows fired at him by the “Hate Bush Brigade”, the White House says the President plans to go on the offensive.

It’s about time. We need to see a tough, straight-talking, Texas-style George Bush hammering away at his detractors. He also needs to reach out to his conservative base and remind them of what’s at stake in this election, because he has a problem with a lot of them.

In recent weeks my conservative listeners have been talking about the same things Kerry and Edwards have been talking about. They’re talking about jobs even though the unemployment rate is only 5.6 percent. They’re talking about outsourcing, they’re talking about amnesty for illegal aliens – these are the things that people who listen to talk radio are concerned about.

Their reaction to the President’s handling of these issues should be a warning sign for the President. Conservatives are calling my show and telling me that they are not going to vote for George Bush because of his stand on amnesty or outsourcing, for example. And this simply amazes me. I ask them if they aren’t going to vote to re-elect George Bush are they going to vote for the Democrat? And the answer is inevitably, "NO! I’m not going to vote for anybody. I’m going to stay home on Election Day."

My reply is if you stay home and George Bush doesn’t win re-election and instead Kerry or whoever the Democrat candidate is gets elected, do you think things are going to get really better? And their answer is, "Well, no, but I want to take a stand."

They should remember Custer. He too took a stand. It was his last.

That just stuns me because it’s utterly irrational. They don’t understand they are taking a stand against themselves. By not voting they only help elect a liberal Democrat who wants to raise their taxes, enact all kinds of new spending programs. They would also endanger the nation by their already demonstrated ineptness and weakness in the war on terror, and hand over Iraq to the United Nations so it can create the same kind of mess we are now seeing in Haiti – another UN and Clinton "success."

They are wearing blinders that only allow them to focus on one issue. They say they won’t vote for a candidate who disagrees with them on one single issue even though he agrees with them on every other issue. It’s utterly self-defeating.

Even though they staunchly support George Bush on his stands on tax cuts, how he is fighting the war, and applaud his pro-life policies, they disagree with him on the amnesty issue, for example, and therefore can’t bring themselves to vote for him.

They’ll just stay home and help elect a Democrat who disagrees with them on just about everything. They’d enact socialist programs that would cripple U.S. industry, yet some of my listeners applaud them not realizing that if you drive a company’s profits down, you drive the value of their stock down and the millions of Americans whose 401Ks are invested in that firm suffer losses as a result.

When President Bush goes on the offensive, he’s going to have to remind Americans that if they want to pay low prices for the goods they need, the reason they are going to have to look overseas is because Democrats in Congress have so regulated American companies that the cost of doing business has risen. That’s due to the unions and government regulations that have become so prohibitive.

What’s the Democrat answer? Well, they say they’d make foreign nations enact the same kind of onerous regulatory and environmental burdens we have here that would force the prices of their goods up to the same level as ours. In other words, wreck their own economies to make John Kerry or some other demagogue look good.

Fat chance.

---

Mike Reagan, the eldest son of President Ronald Reagan, is heard on more than 200 talk radio stations nationally as part of the Premiere Radio Network.

[floriduh voter]

Following the treaty of 1868 which ceded land for the Great Sioux Reservation, hostilities between the Sioux and white settlers still continued. Dissatisfied with conditions on the reservation, some Sioux who had signed the treaty left the reservation and joined their non-treaty brethren in the unceded territory. In the fall of 1875, the government, seemingly blind to the difference between treaty and non-treaty Indians, issued an ultimatum to all Sioux:

Voluntarily proceed to the Great Sioux Reservation by January of 1876 or be considered "hostiles" subject to forced removal. The non-treaty Sioux ignored this decree. In the spring of 1876 they had gathered in the unceded territory of what is now southeastern Montana. Their numbers increased as more and more disillusioned reservation Indians joined them.

The January deadline had passed without a response, so General Philip Sheridan, commander of all armed forces on the Great Plains, decided to force the Sioux onto the Great Sioux Reservation. The loosely formulated plan featured a three-pronged operation designed to trap the Indians. Sheridan mobilized troops in Dakota, in Montana, and in Wyoming Territories.

On May 17, 1876, a column of cavalry and infantry men proceeded west from Fort Abraham Lincoln in what is now North Dakota. Under the command of General Alfred Terry, the column included the 7th Cavalry led by Custer.

For Custer Conservatives who want to sit out November 04. They'd wipe us all out.

[panaxanax]

"Custer was politically incorrect to fight with Native-Americans."

It wasn't "politically incorrect" at the time. You're not one of those, are you?

[Mo1]

We're only trying to help, get it?

How?? .. By shooting yourself in the head??

Sorry .. But I'll pass on that kind of help

[longtermmemmory]

If a third party wants to be serious, then need to replace the democrat party. The only way to do that is to kill the party off and become its successor.

The only way to kill the democrat party is to vote the democrats out of office. Vote republican in November. Give Bush a mandate and the Conservative Party can start to replace the Democrat party.

Any protest vote now is just a vote for the Democrat Party.

[floriduh voter]

I'm using political correctness for the sake of argument. I hate pc nonsense. I do like the tag Custer Conservatives, especially if we can find an image of Custer on an old sofa.

And, Sitting Bull (dems) was not defeated and survived the battle. Here's his bio. Sitting Bull and the Sioux realized they could not defeat the army alone, and they must stand with other tribes. They were joined by the Cheyenne and Arapaho, and on June 17, they forced a retreat of U.S. troops at the Battle of the Rosebud, then set up camp at Little Bighorn. After the battle, Sitting Bull performed an important religious ritual called a Sun Dance. The Sun Dance was a type of self-torture which included a loss of consciousness. When Sitting Bull emerged from his trance, he told of his vision of soldiers falling from the sky.

Sitting Bull's prediction came true on June 25 when Lieutenant Colonel George Armstrong Custer led his soldiers into the village along the Little Big Horn River. By the end of the day, Custer and his army of more than 200 soldiers were dead. Sitting Bull thought by winning this battle, the U.S. government would leave him alone, but the fight had just begun. As the battles continued, many of Sitting Bull's followers surrendered. However, Sitting Bull would not give up. Soldiers chasing him found a note that read "You scare all the buffalo away. I want to hunt in this place. I want you to turn back from here. If you don't, I will fight you again."

In 1877, Sitting Bull and his followers escaped into Canada. However within four years, famine forced them to surrender. Sitting Bull was held as a prisoner of war for two years, before he was sent to join other Sioux at Standing Rock Agency in North Dakota. In 1885, Sitting Bull joined Buffalo Bill's Wild West Show and traveled throughout the United States and Canada. Some believe he was allowed to join the show to keep him away from the reservation.

When Sitting Bull returned to the reservation in 1889, many natives had joined a new religion called the Ghost Dance. They believed an Indian messiah would return their lands and remove the whites. Because of this new religion, Indian police arrested Sitting Bull on December 15, 1890 as a precaution. They planned to send him to prison, but when his warriors attempted to rescue him, Sitting Bull was killed. He was buried at Fort Yates. In 1953, his remains were moved to Mobridge, South Dakota.

Kerry is more liberal than Teddy Kennedy, a good reason to vote for George Bush if you can find no other. I like the President myself and will work hard for his re-election but I'm not a Bushbot.

[Mo1]

THE CUSTER CONSERVATIVES: "Not Smart... But Principled, Dammit!"

I like it .. can I borrow if for tagline :0)

[floriduh voter]

"I am sick of the so called elites in the media thinking they speak for me."

That's why grassroots activism is so important. We have to circumvent the elites in the media to get the truth out in addition to questioning the motives of Hannity and Savage unfortunately. The only conservative talk show host whom I listen to who is consistent is Rush Limbaugh. I am becoming a bigger fan of his than ever. He's not just cranking books out and changing his mind every other day.

Not a ditto-head but seriously thinking about becoming one. floriduh voter

[BobS]

There are some conservatives who are simply unreliable. What do you do with them? Nothing. Ignore them and stay center-right.

[Sabertooth]

In recent weeks my conservative listeners have been talking about the same things Kerry and Edwards have been talking about. They’re talking about jobs even though the unemployment rate is only 5.6 percent. They’re talking about outsourcing, they’re talking about amnesty for illegal aliens – these are the things that people who listen to talk radio are concerned about.

Conservative callers to talk radio are talking about Amnesty in opposition to it, unlike the Democrat Presidential candidates and unlike President Bush. To imply, as Reagan does here, that calls on Amnesty are repetitions of Democrat positions is not factual.

Their reaction to the President’s handling of these issues should be a warning sign for the President. Conservatives are calling my show and telling me that they are not going to vote for George Bush because of his stand on amnesty or outsourcing, for example. And this simply amazes me. I ask them if they aren’t going to vote to re-elect George Bush are they going to vote for the Democrat? And the answer is inevitably, "NO! I’m not going to vote for anybody. I’m going to stay home on Election Day."

My reply is if you stay home and George Bush doesn’t win re-election and instead Kerry or whoever the Democrat candidate is gets elected, do you think things are going to get really better? And their answer is, "Well, no, but I want to take a stand."

Yes, they do.

Folks don't always make their ballot box decisions in a cool, detatched manner. Candidates whose policies arouse angry passions in their constituents risk a backlash. This is a part of politics, and it's amazing how many folks who consider themselves politically savvy can operate in denial of this.

Coalitions are fractious things, and their will always be elements in a coalition that are more skittish than others.

So?

Their votes all count the same on election day.

Perhaps it's time to reconsider some of the Bush policies that are most divisive to the GOP coalition.

They should remember Custer. He too took a stand. It was his last.

That just stuns me because it’s utterly irrational.

Or, we could try to rally balking Republicans with sneers, which focus groups have shown have great appeal to swing voters and potential no-shows.

We can call it the "Coalition of the Insulting."

They are wearing blinders that only allow them to focus on one issue. They say they won’t vote for a candidate who disagrees with them on one single issue even though he agrees with them on every other issue. It’s utterly self-defeating.

Now we're talking. If this doesn't make an undecided Republican want to hand out leaflets, what will?

Nevermind the canard about single issues, since any Bush voters from 2000 who are considering not voting for his reelection can probably name ten, with two or three topping the list.

Even though they staunchly support George Bush on his stands on tax cuts, how he is fighting the war, and applaud his pro-life policies, they disagree with him on the amnesty issue, for example, and therefore can’t bring themselves to vote for him.

Amazing, isn't it?

Resistance to Bush's "not an Amnesty" Amnesty for Illegals must certainly come as a total shock. No way to have predicted that response, and no way to correct it.

Nothing President Bush could do to take that issue away, since a whopping 30% to 40% of Americans favor Amnesty for Illegals.

When President Bush goes on the offensive, he’s going to have to remind Americans that if they want to pay low prices for the goods they need, the reason they are going to have to look overseas is because Democrats in Congress have so regulated American companies that the cost of doing business has risen. That’s due to the unions and government regulations that have become so prohibitive.

These are good points. Add the income tax to the list of things that makes American goods and services less competitive.

Question: why are we still waiting for President Bush to "go on the offensive" here?

Rather than appearing unconcerned about outsourcing, wouldn't it have been better to have been leading the charge, in well-defined terms, against anti-competitive factors that contribute to that outsourcing for the past few years?

What's the downside?

Wouldn't President Bush's reelection prospects be better served by giving his constituents less reasons to grumble, rather than by bitching at and insulting the grumblers, whose votes are absolutely necessary for any hopes of a GOP supermajority that might break the Democrat filibuster and confirm some of President Bush's judicial appointments?

Folks like Michael Reagan might want to consider their Custer analogies, lest they feel the bite of the near edge of that blade. Folks who haven't been persuaded by the "where else are you gonna go?" disdain for the past three years aren't going to rally to a more shrill condescension.

[floriduh voter]

I'm in a MAJOR battleground state with JEBBIE as our great governor (he won big in 2002). Additionally, in 2000 we had to work hard AFTER THE ELECTION. I'm not taking anything for granted because we cannot trust democrats and it's going to get very, very, very, very, dirty.

[Kenny Bunk]

Jus remember Kerry and Kennedy start and end with

K & Y

[tpaine]

anniegetyourgun:

Some here would prefer to 'save the republic' by electing a lib/dem.

______________________________________


Yes, I liken their mindset to that of Josef Stalin, who claimed that oppressing the Soviet workers was a way to enhance the inherent contradictions and force the Dialectical Materialist Leap to a glorious stateless future. "We enslave and oppress in order to liberate!"
134 -CJ-


_______________________________________



Some here cry we must 'save the republic' by electing a lib/pubbie, -- their mindset is like that of a Stalin, in that they claim that in order to counter the inherent contradictions in their 'republican' version of socialism they must ignore our constitution in order to save it..

[Sabertooth]

Is that how you spell too narrow minded to think past your own eyelids where you're from? Down here we call that too stupid to live. Go stamp your little frustrated feet over at DU where you belong.

This is the kind of smooth political savvy that landslides are made of.

[floriduh voter]

If you want info re: business, maybe you should visit one of George's web sites and email his campaign or read through the official web site for economic research. We can't throw everything on a Custer Conservative thread.

Try http://www.georgew.bush.com/

You can also check your state or county GOP headquarters, or the RNC nationally and ask to speak to "constituent services". You'd be surprised that they will actually listen to you and answer your questions.

[Diva Betsy Ross]

Here is a really good add to pass on to others:

HERE

[anniegetyourgun]

Then there are those who really don't want to bring about change, tp. Like those who opt out, in order to fund an organization that never intends to prevail, but only to make statements.

[Dog Gone]

He didn't mention the Supreme Court vacancies and how critical it is that John Kerry not appoint the new judges.

If I totally disagreed with Bush on every other issue (which I certainly don't), I would vote for him for this reason alone.

Any conservative who doesn't feel the same way is either ignorant of the implications, or too dumb to vote in the first place.

[panaxanax]

"Go stamp your little frustrated feet over at DU where you belong."

Never been, never will, but I hear there's alot of "compassionate" minded folks over there. Say hi for me, but for me even visiting, no thanks.

If anyone should know the meaning of fighting for what they believe in, I would sure think it'd be a southerner!

You guys went up against the U.S. government and sacrificed thousands upon thousands of your sons, brothers and fathers for your beliefs and convictions. You even elected your own President because you didn't agree with ours.

Yet you can sit there and chastise me for my beliefs and convictions by calling for a more conservative America.

[Sabertooth]

*We are tired of ...

**Not sure if you are describing multiple personalities, but you all ought to get some rest and leave self-governance to those of us who are invigorated.

When going for a middle-school first person plural pronoun joke, you ought to proofread your jab for first person plural pronouns of your own.

[MissAmericanPie]

"They are wearing blinders that only allow them to focus on one issue. They say they won’t vote for a candidate who disagrees with them on one single issue even though he agrees with them on every other issue. It’s utterly self-defeating."

He's either deaf, dumb, or deliberately misleading. It's not about one issue. Even if it were about one issue, if your house is burning that is your one issue.

It's is about many things, fury over decades of voting for the spineless Party that is now desperately attempting to switch it's core support from conservative to liberal rather than actually promote conservative legislation and funding that it can never seem to muster the courage to fight for, "even though they agree with us on all those other issues", spit.

It's about the future likelihood of there being any conservative representation in this nation by either party.
And it's about the conservative vote being replaced by legalized illegals in the future by both parties. It's about the nation being forced by both parties towards an ever increasing socialist, third world, standard that will be forever locked in.

The Republican Party has made it crystal clear that they intend to be liberal and govern from the left. Many thinking conservatives have decided to let the useless party sink or swim with it's vision and it's decisions. The Spineless party found enough spine to boldly give conservatives the straight up middle finger and bet the farm that conservatives will have no where else to go. They must feel pretty sure of their chance for success.

Conservatives were told by Rove and the Republican Party that they were only welcome to stay if they lay down their conservative principles. So the decades lie that we must take incrimental steps to defeat liberals outside the Party has been exposed for what it is, and buying into that lie has led conservatives to the point where they have been cornered by liberals and moderates in their own party, as the dispicable spin is promoted that the Repbulican Party never was just a conservative party. Well they sure fooled us, calling themselves the "Party of Principle".

The Republican Party called the tune, now it's accusations and condemnation of the victim not going along with his execution when it comes time to pay the piper. It had to come to a head and to an end some time. How long did they expect to ride their betrayals to victory before the backlash came?

I'm sure the Republican Party feels it can win without those embarassing hard core conservatives, and they may be right. But any conservative worth their salt will be determined to find out if that is the case. At a critical time, months before the election when the administration should be throwing conservatives a bone, they up funding for PBS and pass a massive medicare prescription bill.

And now we are told that we are just awful for not remaining with these wife beaters, what a laugh.