Republican-domination of all branches of government has not yet even threatened to yield lower taxes or government control. Fancy that: Lord Acton said something pertinent to say about that I think.
Why not make W sweat a bit and make him court us for a little while? Who want's whose vote? Work for it!
You're assuming that the GOP can hold Congress.
I'm not willing to make that assumption.
Legislatively, I'd say you're probably correct. However, as has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, the judicial area is where we'd be hurting. If you look back at the Clinton years, he didn't get to really hit his stride until his second term. It took that long to grind down the military, stuff various agencies with liberal flunkies, and poison the judiciary. Lately, it seems that its been easier to get judges to rewrite laws that have large civil effects than to get the legislature to.
First, no guarantee this would happen.If the voters perceive a Bush loss, they'll vote with the winner. Secondly, gridlock did not work all that well in reality.Need I say more than "judicial appointments" Thirdly, this is yet another exercise in wishful delusion at best and political suicide at worst.
I remain amazed at the fecklessness of some of my fellow conservatives. Somehow winning and building upon what we have is not the real goal;it's standing on Little Big Horn principle and spitting at Sitting Bull. That's a Fools' Parade and I prefer to not march in it.
Remember "stroke of the pen, law of the land...kind of cool"?
Regards,
Yes, actually, it would. Why? Because foreign policy is the responsibility of the executve branch. The president is our Chief of State as well as our Commander in Chief. One need only look to Bill Clinton's monumentally (if not criminally) negligent handling of this nation's foreign policy, which directly resulted in, among other things, the 9/11/01 attacks, to understand the danger Kerry (and all Leftists/Democrats) poses to all of us.
For other examples, look to the Johnson administration's ratcheting up of our involvement in Viet Nam, followed by its failure of the nerve and will necessary to win the war. Look to Carter's pathetic foreign policy which led, among other things, to the fall of the Shah of Iran, the rise of Ayatollah Khomeini and of Islamic radicalism.
George W. Bush is the only U.S. president to take the action necessary to begin to turn the tide of Islamic radicalism. In doing so, he has reasserted U.S. sovereignty and right of self defense, and basically told the "international community" (i.e., international Left) to go pound sand. (It's really why they hate him so much, in case you haven't figured it out.)
President Bush's defeat would be seen by the Left, the Osama bin Laden's of the world, and even Republican elected officials here as a repudiation by the American public of all that GWB has been able to accomplish in defeating radical Islamism and separating the U.S. from subservience to the international Left. As a consequence, a Kerry presidency would reverse all the good President Bush has been able to accomplish. Kerry's weakness would embolden the terrorists just as Clinton's weakness did. In fact if GWB is defeated this November, it would be a monumental defeat for the United States in the War on Terror.
This nation cannot afford another 9/11 or worse, a series of such attacks. But Leftists like Kerry wouldn't care, becase the Left wants this nation hamstrung, if not fully disolved.
Maybe "real" conservatives are suicidal, so they won't mind a Kerry presidency, but I'm not. For me — and anyone else with even an ounce of common sense — it's GWB all the way.