Conservatives Contemplate Electoral Hari-kiri

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

[onyx]

ETOM, it is my blood that's boiling mad.

[nopardons]

I hate to say it, but.........I told ya so and it was early last summer. We knew this was coming and it should be NO surprise at all. :-(

This just means that we have to work harder, in the real world, to get the vote out, for President Bush, to counter the Custer Conservatives. :-)

[Mudboy Slim]

"...what have you done to encourage the return to the constitutionally limited government set forth by our nation's founders?"

After years of contributing to various GOP fund-raising entities, I'm on plenty of mailing lists. These days, when they send me an issues poll to fill out, I dutifully note my responses, but when it gets to the point that they ask for money, I write "Rein in Domestic Discretionary Spending...then you'll start getting my contributions again!!" or something to that end. I'm sure plenty of these things are simply discarded--especially if there's not a check enclosed--but it makes me feel better...LOL!!

FReegards...MUD

[rdb3]

REAL CONSERVATIVES are stubborn and we proudly stand on principal and conviction.

You're standing in your high school principal?

[Mudboy Slim]

"...both the left and the hard-right seem intent on killing the Republican Party off."

As one who proudly considers himself to be part of the so-called "hard-right", I can only speak fer myself, but I've got no interest in "killing the Republican Party off." In fact, what bothers me is when the GOP pursues Leftist policy objectives that reek of DemonRAT-lite. I am an ardent supporter of Dubyuh's foreign policy initiatives and much that he does to win the culture war...it's just this willingness to adopt the Left's big-spending ways with regards to domestic policy that grates on me and many others I've spoken with. It's correctable, too, and anything we can do to strengthen Dubyuh's backbone on this issue will be to the ultimate benefit of the Country, Dubyuh, and the GOP.

FReegards...MUD

[WhiteGuy]

Thanks for your reply.

Your words prove that you are passionate about what you believe and are most thoughtful in your expression of your opinion.

You said:

There is a HUGE list, often posted to threads like this one, of President Bush's CONSERVATIVE accomplishments, during this term.

Of these "conservative accomplishments" which ones reduced the size, scope, and influence of the federal government?

Now, perhaps I AM wrong about MY opinion.

I've always had faith that the gop believed in, and would fight for smaller limited government, less federal regulation, and expanded personal freedoms.

I might be wrong, it appears that the majority of the supporters of the this republican party not only accept the opposite, but encourage it.

[Cold Heat]

I appreciate yer opinion, my FRiend...fact is, Dubyuh's spoken often of pursuing a more fiscally-conservative path, and in the upcoming budget debates, he'd be wise to follow through with actions that back up his words. Like I said, if he does so, a lotta "PrincipledConservatives" will gladly rejoin the march to get him reelected!!

Agreed!

If one were to review the State Of The Union Speech, a time of great promises and spending initiatives, the only thing that stands out in my mind was the promise to cut the beans out of the discretionary budget and continue to provide the military with the things they need.

No ovation from the left.

The Congressional Repubs took a few days, but began saying similar cutting words.

All this with a election coming and cutting being a know divisive issue for the Dems.

Now, that took some guts!

He is leading, but not getting the credit for it.

As to what happened in the last two sessions of congress, I prefer to postpone that argument until after the nomination, because on some of it, there is a tactical aspect. On some of it, a veto would have sufficed to stop criticism from the right. But on those things, a veto may not have done anything and put other things at risk.

"All politics is local" comes to mind.

I fully expect that much will change, and not because of the griping.

It has been in the cards all along.

I really trust the guy, and I try to convey that trust. If he were to buy my trust and not get it willingly by trying to appease ME!, I would not trust him nearly as much in the future.

[rdb3]

The "true conservative" mentality is self-defeating. The philosophy of bolting for a minor (if not insignificant)party or just staying home to "send a message" sends the message that Republicans cannot count on them, so it needs to move to capture more of the "middle", which then causes more outraged conservatives to splinter off, etc.

To the "true conservatives" out there: if you choose to be undependable, the GOP will not care what you think. Period.

Poohbah, isn't this your argument?

[WhiteGuy]

Good for you!

I pray they'll start listening someday.............

(I've also heard that you write songs..............)

[Mudboy Slim]

"I've always had faith that the gop believed in, and would fight for smaller limited government, less federal regulation, and expanded personal freedoms."

Me, too...and when Reagan was in Power, I yearned fer the day when the GOP took over Congress to make said dream a reality. Then, when we took over Congress in '94, I came to yearn fer the day when we had a GOP POTUS to go with our GOP Congress. Then, when we got Dubyuh in power to go with our GOP Congress, I said, "Alright, he we go!! It's time!!" When instead the federal government grew at an alarming rate with OUR guys in control, it's been like a kick to the groin...OUCH!!

"I might be wrong, it appears that the majority of the supporters of the this republican party not only accept the opposite, but encourage it."

I've spoken to plenty of the most sincere BushBackers and they will tell you they are disappointed with the growth in the Federal Leviathan, too...so I don't think we are that far apart in our ultimate aims, only in how we will get there.

FReegards...MUD

[Cold Heat]

Poohbah, isn't this your argument?

I know you did not address the question to me, but I believe he was trying to say that shooting yourself in the foot every election is bad for the numbers and a waste of time.

GWB did not have a mandate this term and it caused much of the things to which Conservatives are moaning about.IMO.

[nopardons]

The new Homeland Security Department took over and did away with a few other government departments. That's a start.

The federal government GREW under Reagan. Since he didn't crop nor stem the growth of the government,why are you counting on President Bush doing that...which he actual managed to do, in a small way.

Please refrain from claiming to know what others think. I want a smaller government;however, I know that it's not going to be done in one fell swoop and NEVER done by a Dem. There isn't one president, from Washington on down, who has made the government impressively smaller. Washington even made it larger. Some presidents did nothing, but most have overseen its growth.Even Ike, who didn't do a whole lot, added to the growth of government and look at what his federal roads programs did.

It's the big picture and the consequences that I look at. How about you ?

[Mudboy Slim]

"If one were to review the State Of The Union Speech, a time of great promises and spending initiatives, the only thing that stands out in my mind was the promise to cut the beans out of the discretionary budget and continue to provide the military with the things they need. No ovation from the left. The Congressional Repubs took a few days, but began saying similar cutting words."

I did review the SOTU speech and in it Dubyuh pledged to hold Domestic Discretionary Spending growth to 4%...after some "griping" by the Right--both pundits and Congress--Dubyuh came out in a weekly radio address less than two weeks later and revised his pledge to limiting said growth to 1%!! And issued a list of 128 Federal programs he proposed eliminating or cutting back significantly.

"I really trust the guy, and I try to convey that trust. If he were to buy my trust and not get it willingly by trying to appease ME!, I would not trust him nearly as much in the future."

Fact is, Dubyuh's performance in the War on Terrorism has built up a great deal of trust in my eyes, too...and I am not so full of myself to believe he's gonna switch policy priorities to appease me; however, if I can be part of a cacophony of voices urging him to the Right, I will consider my time well-spent.

FReegards...MUD

[Poohbah]

Poohbah, isn't this your argument?

Yes, it is.

[Mudboy Slim]

"I've also heard that you write songs..."

LOL...that's just a nasty rumor!!

FReegards...MUD

[panaxanax]

".....it is they who are being "undependable",

Perfect answer Mudboy! Just absolutely PERFECT!

We didn't leave them, they left us.

Thanks :)
panaxanax

[Mo1]

I heard someone mentioning an idea recently.... Maybe folks who support Bush should just try posting graphics to the "conservatives" who try to bicker with us :-)

What and not listen to them tell us how much better we'll be by shooting ourselves in the head by letting Bush lose the election???

BTW ... LOVE the graphic

[missthethunder]

"Just tell me one more time how great it is when my middle class job gets outsourced or off-shored so some filthy rich CEO can buy three or four new mansions and I end up as a door greeter at the Great Wall-mart! "

You think having a dem would help your job problems.


AFL-CIO motto: Kick me again! (Ann Coulter)
Townhall.com ^ | February 26, 2004 | Ann Coulter

In the past decade, the AFL-CIO has lobbied Congress on three major issues of any importance to union members:
Oppose the North American Free Trade Agreement;
Oppose permanent normal trade relations with China;
Support drilling for oil in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
The unions lost every vote. Demonstrating his savvy political skills, the head of the AFL-CIO, John Sweeney, repeatedly throws the federation's support to political candidates who opposed labor on all three issues. So if you ever find yourself negotiating with Sweeney, make sure your opening bid is "nothing."
Sweeney's curious lose-at-any-price strategy has cost the unions everything. The only two Democratic presidential candidates to vote with the unions on any of these issues – not all, but any – were Representatives Dick Gephardt and Dennis Kucinich. Gephardt was out of the race after the first primary, and Kucinich can't break beyond the Aliens-Kidnapped-My-Mother crowd. (Dennis Kucinich did his tax return this week, and under "occupation" he wrote "Jay Leno punch line.")
There is only one candidate for president who didn't vote for NAFTA, didn't vote for trade with China and supported drilling in ANWR. That candidate is George Bush. He got into office by beating Al Gore – the guy who was the head cheerleader for NAFTA. And unlike Dick Gephardt, Bush spends more time on the phone with Jimmy Hoffa than with Barbra Streisand. As president, Bush enraged free traders – and our precious European "allies" – by imposing tariffs on steel imports.
Sweeney has rewarded Bush by calling him a "horror" for organized labor. Apparently what "organized labor" really wants isn't good jobs at good wages, but ... abortion on demand! The AFL-CIO has vowed to devote massive union resources against Bush in the crucial swing states of Missouri, Ohio and Florida in the coming election.
Strictly following his strategy of selling union votes for nothing, the AFL-CIO has endorsed Sen. John Kerry – who voted for NAFTA, voted for trade with China and voted against drilling for oil in Alaska. Skilled laborers will have to wait another day for "fair trade" and high-paying jobs in Alaska, but at least Sweeney's candidate supports the issues that really matter to the average blue-collar worker: gay marriage, global-warming treaties and hybrid cars.
Kerry denounces "Benedict Arnold" CEOs who ship "American jobs overseas." (Experts are still trying to figure out why Kerry didn't mention his service in Vietnam in that statement.) Sweeney seems to be satisfied with Kerry's explanation that – like his vote for war with Iraq – he voted for free trade, but then was shocked when free trade resulted.
Sen. John Edwards calls protection of U.S. jobs "a moral issue." Reminding audiences that he is the son of a mill worker almost as often as Kerry mentions that he served in Vietnam, Edwards says that "when we talk about trade, we are talking about values." As the son of a mill worker, he has seen with his "own eyes" what bad trade agreements "do to people." Of the evil trade agreements (supported by AFL-CIO's candidate) Edwards says: "Those trade deals were wrong. They cost us too many jobs and lowered our standards."
Except – like Kerry – Edwards also voted for those trade agreements every chance he got. In 2000, Edwards voted for trade with China. Having seen with his "own eyes" what happens "when the mill shuts down," Edwards voted to shut down a few more mills. Edwards also voted his conscience to oppose drilling in Alaska. Whenever Edwards' conscience speaks to him, it sounds remarkably like Barbra Streisand.
Edwards' only fig leaf for claiming he backs labor is a hypothetical vote he never actually cast. He bravely claims he would have voted against NAFTA – if only he had been in the Senate when it came up for a vote.
That's an interesting moral calculus. Edwards didn't mind forcing American workers to compete with a billion Chinese – famously including child workers and slave laborers. But trade with Canada and Mexico he says would have offended his delicate moral sensibilities.
In his stump speech, Edwards implies he ran against Jesse Helms by saying he beat "the Jesse Helms machine" to win his Senate seat. It was a real David and Goliath match-up – pitting a poor, beleaguered multimillionaire trial lawyer against an elderly senator of humble means. But the mere mention of Helms' name invariably elicits sneers from the party of the little guy.
Helms voted with the AFL-CIO on all three big labor issues – against NAFTA, against trade with China and for half a million good jobs in Alaska. Indeed, Helms was one of the main lobbyists against trade with China. The guy Edwards actually beat, Lauch Faircloth, was in the Senate for only one of these votes. The AFL-CIO didn't have to take Faircloth's word on how he might have voted on NAFTA: He voted against it. The AFL-CIO endorsed Edwards and opposed Faircloth and Helms.
It's not particularly surprising that the party of trial lawyers, environmentalists and Hollywood actresses keeps voting against blue-collar workers. What's strange is that the AFL-CIO keeps voting against blue-collar workers, too!

Sorry for reposting the whole article

[Cold Heat]

Fact is, Dubyuh's performance in the War on Terrorism has built up a great deal of trust in my eyes, too...and I am not so full of myself to believe he's gonna switch policy priorities to appease me; however, if I can be part of a cacophony of voices urging him to the Right, I will consider my time well-spent.

FReegards...MUD

Yes, but you do it in a thoughtful and insightful way!

LOL!

You know that I follow no person blindly. But, withholding a vote or write ins will not accomplish that excellent and needed goal that you and I both seek.

You were correct to say that we all seek it.

I think we will get more than currently seems to be the case. I think government growth, as a percentage of GPD will be controlled.

I do not think that it will ever actually decrease in size. Unless of course, the economy takes another terror hit.

[rdb3]

Bush may not claim to be pro gun control but he almost broke his wrist signing the extension on the Assault Weapons Ban he signed it so fast

Now you are telling lies. No AWB bill has been sent to him from Congress. So how could he sign it? And he has not issued an EO to that effect, either.