I always thought the 3% were 'Log Cabin' Republicans (is that a double-entendre, or what?)...
Posted on 08/27/2004 7:53:22 AM PDT by OESY
...[T]here are many tendencies in American political life that will not be fundamentally affected by the outcome of November's election. For example, contrary to what Mr. Kerry claimed in his convention speech, there are profound structural causes for the widening rift between the U.S. and its erstwhile allies on the European continent that no new president could possibly counteract. And regardless of whether Mr. Bush or Mr. Kerry is in the White House next year, the U.S. will still be stuck with the dirty work of policing post-Saddam Iraq with minimal European assistance other than from Britain -- regardless of whether Mr. Bush or Mr. Kerry is in the White House....
In geopolitical terms, at least, what happens on Nov. 2 will change very little indeed. Yet in other respects -- and particularly in terms of party politics -- the election's consequences could be far-reaching. It is not too much to claim that the result could shape American political life for a decade or more....
In 1954 Ike enunciated the "domino theory," following the defeat of France in Vietnam and invaded Guatemala to install another pro-American dictator. In 1955 he shelled the Chinese isles of Quemoy and Matsu....
Like Adlai Stevenson before him, Mr. Kerry has an aura of unelectability that may yet prove fatal to his hopes. But a Stevenson win in 1956 would have transformed the subsequent course of American political history. Conservatives may ask themselves with good reason whether defeat then might ultimately have averted the much bigger defeats they suffered in the '60s. In just the same way, moderate Republicans today may justly wonder if a second Bush term is really in their best interests. Might four years of Mr. Kerry not be preferable to eight years or more of really effective Democratic leadership?
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Chesty Puller said it best.
"There's ALWAYS some poor dumb bastard who doesn't get the word."
The single biggest, and most significant issue at stake this fall is who will appoint the next Supreme Court justices.
Oh, where to start with this leftist limey loon? First, he's wrong on Quemoy and Matsu. Ike didn't shell Chiang Kai-shek (see below). The rest of the piece is about as flawed.
The First Taiwan Straits Crisis, 11 August 1954 - 01 May 1955
During the First Taiwan Straits Crisis the Peoples Liberation Army launched heavy artillery attacks on the offshore island of Quemoy after the US lifted its blockade of Taiwan, making possible Nationalist attacks on mainland China. The Truman Administration had resisted calls by hard-liners to "unleash Chiang Kai-shek." But shortly after his inauguration, on 02 February 1953 President Eisenhower lifted the US Navy blockade of Taiwan which had prevented Chiang's force from attacking mainland China. During August 1954 Chiang moved 58,000 troops to Quemoy & 15,000 to Matsu. Zhou En-lai declared on 11 August 1954 that Taiwan must be liberated. On 17 August 1954 the US warned China against action against Taiwan, but on 03 September 1954 the Communists began an artillery bombardment of Quemoy, and in November, PLA planes bombed the Tachen Islands. On 12 September 1954 the US Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) recommended the possibility of using nuclear weapons against China. And on 23 November 1954 China sentenced 13 US airmen shot down over China in the Korean War to long jail terms, prompting further consideration of nuclear strikes against China. Despite domestic political pressure, President Eisenhower refused to bomb mainland China or use of American troops to resolve the crisis. At the urging of Senator Knowland, the United States signed the Mutual Defense Treaty with the Nationalist government on Taiwan on 02 December 1954.
On 18 January 1955 mainland Chinese forces seized Yijiangshan [Ichiang] Island, 210 miles north of Formosa and, completely wiping out the ROC forces stationed there. The two sides continued fighting on Kinmen, Matsu, and along the mainland Chinese coast. The fighting even extended to mainland Chinese coastal ports. The US-Nationalist Chinese Mutual Security Pact, which did not apply to islands along the Chinese mainland, was ratified by the Senate on 09 February 1955. The Formosa Resolution passed both houses of Congress on 29 January 1955. The Resolution pledged the US to the defense of Taiwan, authorizing the president to employ American forces to defend Formosa and the Pescadores Island against armed attack, including such other territories as appropriate to defend them.
On 15 February 1955 British Prime Minister Winston Churchill advised against US atomic defence of Quemoy-Matsu. But on 10 March 1995 US Secretary of State Dulles at a National Security Council (NSC) meeting states that the American people have to be prepared for poissible nuclear strikes against China. Five days later Dulles publicly stated that the US was seriously considering using atomic weapons in the Quemoy-Matsu area. And the following day President Eisenhower publicly stated that "A-bombs can be used...as you would use a bullet." These public statements sparked an international uproar, and NATO foreign ministers opposed atomic attack on China. Nonetheless, on 25 March 1955 US Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Robert B. Carney stated that the president is planning "to destroy Red China's military potential," predicting war by mid-April.
On 23 April 1995 China stated at the Afro-Asian Conference that it was ready to negotiate on Taiwan, and on 01 May 1955 shelling of Quemoy-Matsu ceased, ending the crisis. On 01 August 1955 China released the 11 captured US airmen previously sentenced to jail terms.
In the first Taiwan Strait crisis of 1954-55 the USSR had been quite ambiguous in its support for China's campaign to "liberate" Taiwan, whereas the United States had indicated that it was willing to use tactical nuclear weapons in defense of the island. During the crisis, it became evident that the USSR was not going to be drawn into a war with the United States that was not of its own choosing, and the PRC called off its military operations against Quemoy. The PRC could claim a limited victory because Chinese Nationalist troops had withdrawn from Tachen Island during the previous month.
Even as the crisis ended, however, the Nationalists began to reinforce Quemoy and Matsu, and the PRC began to build up its military capabilities across the strait.
Source (with maps): http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/quemoy_matsu.htm
A number of Republicans will probably vote Kerry this year because they fear that a second Bush term might actually put a dent in their precious, precious "abortion rights."
There is an interesting thing it the LA Slimes most recent poll. About 3% of Republicans are for Kerry yet 14% of 'Rats favor Bush. Assuming that the number of people who identify themselves as a D or R is approximately the same, that would mean that Bush is ahead of Kerry.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1199664/posts?page=159#159
and I would wager that those 3% lied about their political affiliation...hmmmmmmmm
I saw a bumper sticker yesterday that made me mad: Another Republican for Kerry. What a laugh. You can't be much of a Republican to support this left wing extremist.
There are always news stories about so called Republicans who are defecting. I hear little from the main stream press about Dems for Bush, though there are a lot of them. Wasn't it the L.A. Times poll that shows 3% of Repubs are for Kerry but 15% of Dems will vote for Bush?? I think that says it all.
OK, now I'm lost. Can anyone explain to me how ANY Republican can support this Kerry bum?? Even the most deluded people I know can't state a lucid case for backing this guy.
And that goes for "RINO's" too!
bump TO SUPPORT THE NEW SWIFT VETS AD AND GEORGE BUSH... http://swift2.he.net/~swift2/gardner2.mpg
I always thought the 3% were 'Log Cabin' Republicans (is that a double-entendre, or what?)...
We probably wouldn't have had a Republican House if the country hadn't elected Clinton, but look what Clinton did to make our country unsafe for eight years.
His analysis only makes sense if the opposition party in the US is a moderate one like Labour in the UK. The Democrats have become a party of Teddy and Hillary. In 2008, Republicans will have Rudy, McCain and other moderates running. Ferguson's analysis is very faulty, to say the least.
Ha! I hope that was me! Thanks for noticing, buddy.
The real question is why anyone who supports traditional Republican values could support President G W Bush. Put aside the labels and the ugly attacks and the largely irrelevant questions about who did what 20 or 30 years ago. Look instead at the Bush record over the last four years.
I joined the Republican party years ago because it best represented my political leanings. Some key points are that the federal government should be reasonably small with limited powers It should protect a fair economic market, running some programs and regulating others only where necessary. It should protect our precious personal liberties. And of course it should be run responsibly, meaning that it should strive to pay its bills just like us normal folks must do.
That's what "conservative" means to me. And friend, that ain't Bush.
"Left wing extremist"-- what a laugh. What an empty expression. This Republican is voting for someone who offers a far better opportunity for a better America. I don't care if he's GOP or Dem or Libertarian or Green or Klingon. Because I care about this country, I'm voting for John Kerry and I'm danged happy to say so.
You're cute.
Republicans voting for Kerry = (2+2=5)
They're not Republicans.
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.