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.

[Mo1]

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

Think they'll get the hint?

[ought-six]

Mike Reagan prefers the boiled frog approach for the destruction of our republic.

[anniegetyourgun]

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

[maica]

"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"

This statement is the KEY to outsourcing. Whenever anybody moans about jobs being lost - there is your answer.

Add to this statement the cost forced on every company & product by liability laws - and tort lawyers.

[panaxanax]

Bush-Bots just don't get it, do they?

What we REAL CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICANS are trying to do is force President Bush to re-connect with the voter base that got him (and his Dad) elected in the first place. I/we feel abandonded.

REAL CONSERVATIVES do not like to be told "that we have nowhere else to go" in regards to how we vote in this election.

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

I have voted straight Republican for over 35 years. I worked for President Reagan, both in his Governor and Presidental campaigns.

If we end up with Kerry as a President, then MAYBE that will wake up the future GOP candidates to stand by their promises and not turn a blind eye to the "base" once elected.

Yes, GWB has done a good job on the war on terror and I shutter to think how Gore would have handled it. GWB walked into a large pile of s**t when he took office and we Republicans were looking forward to a breath of fresh air under the leadership of GWB.

My suggestions to the President would be to start standing up to the libs and put some ink in that veto pen. Stop pandering to the leftists, NAFTA, Chicoms, etc. and then you will have our full 100% support, thus easily winning the election.

We're still hoping and praying that he will see the light before it's too late. It boils down to the fact that we're tired of "settling for the lesser of the two evils".

We really do want you in there George! Please remember who got you elected. We want a REAL CONSERVATIVE for a President.

[Poohbah]

You do know what Custer's last words were don't you?

"Where'd all those damn Indians come fro--"

[Consort]

The Custer Conservatives have their principle, morals, integrity, conscience, personal views, etc — but so does everyone else — yet they have no common sense.

CusCons will be Kerry Conservatives this election cycle.

[panaxanax]

It depends on who you are referring to when you say "they".

At least Custer had a set and was willing to give the ultimate sacrifice. I think he was a hero when he stood in the face of death and fought a bitter battle defending his principals and orders.

We need more like him in today's world.

[Poohbah]

You're getting far more from this President than you will get from anyone else.

[gatorbait]

Then how about "The KY Conservatives", for those who will bend over and take anything?

This must be you then,for if you are one of those addressed in this article,then those who back that kind of foolish action certainly do bend over and take it, including the rest of the country. It makes me wonder if principles is now the code word for unappeasably suicidal.

[Poohbah]

Custer was also a lousy tactician who handed the initiative to his enemy. If he'd merely died leading his troops to victory, he'd rate the title "hero." But he also got his troops killed with sheer ineptitude.

If that be your role model, then God be with ye, pal, because nobody with a lick of good sense will.

In short, he refused to recognize reality. And reality has this habit of triumphing over everything.

If you're unwilling to vote for Bush because he only gives you 50% of what you want, then you are, frankly, not a Custer conservative--you're a spoiled-brat conseravtive.

[panaxanax]

"You're getting far more from this President than you will get from anyone else."

Your response is a clear example of the "settling" that I referred to. We want a REAL CONSERVATIVE!!!!!!!!!

Thank you!

[Poohbah]

Your response is a clear example of the "settling" that I referred to. We want a REAL CONSERVATIVE!!!!!!!!!

Gosh, I want a million bucks.

Want into one hand.

Defecate into the other.

Which one fills up first?

[Consort]

If we end up with Kerry as a President, then MAYBE that will wake up the future GOP candidates to stand by their promises and not turn a blind eye to the "base" once elected.

Yep, you are the typical CusCon Kerry Conservative that I described above (unless you are a Liberal Troll, which is just as bad).

[Mo1]

Ummm .. I'm thinking if Custer knew ahead of time what the outcome would be .. he would have choosen a different path

One would think they might learn something from past mistakes of others

[panaxanax]

"....you're a spoiled-brat conseravtive."

You're probably right and it's Reagan's fault. He spoiled alot of us.

I don't have the time to engage in an immature name-calling argument with you this morning. Perhaps I just hold people, including Presidents, to their word.

Of course, that's just my opinion as a "...spoiled brat conservative".

[EllaMinnow]

[gatorbait]

would urge Conservatives to vote for Bush. I can't imagine any Conservative being happy with a Kerry in the White House. Can you ?

You can't? A segment here on FR and ,by extension those who love to go to Loser Post ,is full of them.They are whole groups who seem to want a Kerry win because it'll teach the nation a lesson and the country will then be eager for their message.I think they get this idea from the Perot,buchanan,Peroutka(?),Browne,Goldwater Presidential libraries.

The alternate theory is that our Custerites LIKE being on the losing side;it fulfills some martyrdom fantasy and they wish to drag us down with them. Think about it, they carp and whine and attack without care nor consideration. I do not know what is worse,the idiot factor who sees no difference between the President and the Dems, or the idiot factor who have "principles" and vote for the third party lunatic loser du jour'ergo voting against what they claim they want.

"Is a puzzlement"

[panaxanax]

I took the same picture when we visited the battleground. What a great experience it was.

[gatorbait]

What have the republicans done to solve this problem?

A hell of a lot more than carping loser third party types have .You know, the type of cogitation described in that article cost 3 Senate seats from 2000 forward, perhaps some House seats as well. But, by golly,Suicide,I mean Principle,won out. Do you not think that with a larger majority in the Senate and a full backing of the President might get you closer to what you claim to want?