Bush Aims To Forge A GOP Legacy

Washington Post ^ | 1/30/5 | Thomas B. Edsall and John F. Harris

[B4Ranch]

Once you get the taste of a deserved win in your mouth you will never forget how sweet it was and always crave for more.

Competition is being suppressed by the NEA! It is rude and shameful to be a winner according to some educators!

Public gloating is rude but winning is wonderful! Spelling bee nixed because it 'leaves child behind'

[F16Fighter]

"Too bad for you the only people who are 'threatening to leave the GOP' are a bunch of self proclaimed 'true conservatives' that probably haven't voted Republican except when Buchanan was running (and getting soundly crushed like the loser that he is)."

Red Herring.

Now remind us again how it is that a "true conservative" can both promote AND ignore an Illegal Invasion; As a CiC refuse to enforce the US sovereign border FROM said illegal invasion; and spend OUR money like a socialist?

[RS]

"If there was no Perot on the ballot most of the people who voted for him would simply have not voted and Clinton would still have won."

We disagree, without the distraction of Perot, the Republicans could have presented a more cohesive message without having to fight on two sides.

In any case, I don't believe that 20% of the voters in this country go to the polls for a single issue, or once there, that they would decline to vote for President at all.

[fallujah-nuker]

Here is what Don Feder wrote back in 1992, "After winning as a conservative in 1988, Bush extended an olive branch to his enemies and his middle finger to his erstwhile allies. He signed the quota bill, and all the racial con men were for him this year, weren't they? He initialed the Clean Air Act, and all the environmental wackos were in his corner, weren't they? He signed the Hate Crimes Bill and invited homosexual activists to the White House for the signing, and that crowd clambered aboard his reelection bandwagon, didn't they?

And what did he do for his core constituency from 1988? For evangelicals, he appointed John Frohmayer head of the National Endowment for the Arts and stuck with him through Mapplethorpe and "Piss Christ." His first Supreme Court appointment voted to uphold Roe v. Wade and declare a graduation invocation a violation of the First Amendment.

For fiscal conservatives, he raised taxes, rolled over for congressional spending, re-regulated and gave us the greatest bureaucratic expansion of all time."

Regarding conservative votes as an entitlement program got Bush Sr. defeated in 1992.

[RS]

"Regarding conservative votes as an entitlement program got Bush Sr. defeated in 1992."

Which proves my point... without Perot to run to and "feel good" Perot voters would have had to actually use their brain, and voted against the Clintons.

Using 20/200 hindsight, do you seriously think that Clinton was a better President from a Conservative standpoint then Bush or Dole would have been ?

[fallujah-nuker]

"Using 20/200 hindsight, do you seriously think that Clinton was a better President from a Conservative standpoint then Bush or Dole would have been?"

I really do not see much of a difference between them where the rubber hits the road. A positive outcome of Clinton's victory was the GOP taking control of congress in 1994, Bush Sr. even made a similar comment at the time. I think Bush has a much better chance of getting another amnesty for illegal aliens passed than a democrat would. Recall that it was Reagan who did so last time in 1986.

Back in 1952 Senator Pat McCarran warned that that immigration would be used to transform America by those who did not like America (Senator McCarran was a Democrat by the way, his positions would put him to the right of every Republican in the Senate today). Ted Kennedy's immigration act of 1965 seems to have done the deed.

From 1952 through 1988 the Republican ticket carried California in every election save 1964, now the Democrats have carried California in 4 straight presidential elections. This is due the demographic shift in California's population due to immigration. Dubya's amnesty plan works for the Democrats, not the GOP.

[Clintonfatigued]

"Too bad many GOP voters are on the verge of breaking away over the immigration and spending issues."

You're so right. There's something you missed though--many conservative voters are disillisioned by the Free Trade At Any Cost crowd. If Republicans don't reject free trade and return to their roots of economic patriotism, they will create an opening for the 'Rats.

[RS]

"A positive outcome of Clinton's victory was the GOP taking control of congress in 1994, Bush Sr. even made a similar comment at the time."

... and you take this as some sort of endorsement of Clintons presidency ?

BTW, is the GOP taking control of Congress a good thing from your Conservative point of view ?

[bayourod]

"You forget how quickly Perot shot out from nowhere to give us the Clintons ...TWICE..."

That's why I don't take Buchanan/Tancredo for granted.

They do not have the vote drawing power like Perot did. But they are a very serious, very real danger to the future of the Republican party if the Old Media can succeed in portraying their racism, bigotry, meanness, and xenophobia as the position of the Republican party.

Republicans are not racist. Republicans are not anti-Hispanics. But it is going to be difficult to convince Hispanic voters of that when Buchanan/Tancredo are being promoted by the Old Media as representative of Republicans.

[Howlin]

You forget how quickly Perot shot out from nowhere to give us the Clintons ...TWICE...

Ross Perot got 9 percent of the vote nationwide; Tancredo can't even muster 2 percent here on FR. Pat got .45 percent of the vote.

Try to be real.

[RS]

"Try to be real."

REAL
Perot at one time had 0% of the vote, he did not even announce he was running until Feb 1992, quit the race in July, started running again in October.


REAL
Perot got over 18% of the votes in 1992, when the Clintons might have been stopped.

It is the devil you don't know that can jump in and bite you.

[fallujah-nuker]

"... and you take this as some sort of endorsement of Clintons presidency?"

More of unintended benefit, never voted for the guy. Bush Sr. seemed to think the same.

"BTW, is the GOP taking control of Congress a good thing from your Conservative point of view?"

I think it may have been even better than Reagan's victory in 1980, or at least it had the potential to be. All my life the Democrats held the House, and in November of 1994 I was very happy, in my own state of Washington the House lineup went from 8D-1R to 6R-3D!

I recall my father telling me a main principle of politics was "you're supposed to dance with the person who brought you to the dance." I can not fathom why Republican politicians have such a hard time grasping this concept.

Dubya is a great example, without the support of Christians he would have lost, but in his inaugural address he elevated the Koran to the level of the Torah and the Bible. The NRA supported him, but his Attorney General nominee is on record supporting the assault weapons ban, the very issue that cost Democrat Speaker of the House Tom Foley his seat in 1994. Not to mention that Gonzales membership in the 5th column La Raza group should rule him out anyway.

Like I say, the GOP leadership seems to think they are entitled to conservative votes.

[Howlin]

REAL Perot got over 18% of the votes in 1992, when the Clintons might have been stopped.

Yes. And look at the stupid people who could have STOPPED the Clinton's but put their SINGLE AGENDA and their tunnel vision before what was best for the country.

BTW, Perot was NOT a one issue candidate; Tancredo is; and Pat Buchanan is finished, not just as a candidate, but as a person anybody pays any attention to.

[KC_Conspirator]

I don't fear that at all. In 92', the GOP lost across the board, but took an honest look at what was wrong and tried to fix it. Within 2 years the Republican Revolution took place.

I see no such effort on the democrats. They act like its 910 and they have no such effort to honestly analyze what went wrong in 2002 and 2004.

[RFT1]

The problem with GWB is that he govrens far more like LBJ than Reagan.

[RS]

"I think it may have been even better than Reagan's victory in 1980, or at least it had the potential to be."

??? So - Was the GOP taking control of Congress in 1994 a good thing from your Conservative point of view?

Your qualification regarding that it "had potential" seems to say that you think it was NOT a good thing --- please clarify

[RFT1]

When Uber Neo-Con David Frum and RNC shrill Limbaugh raise issues with the uncontrolled lebvels of immigration, then one knows there is an issue building. The pro business wing of the GOP better take note.

[sinkspur]

The problem with GWB is that he govrens far more like LBJ than Reagan.

Even though we've got nine hours left, yours can be safely awarded "The Dumbest Post of the Day."

[RFT1]

Many things came together in 94 to help the GOP take over congress. For sure, Clintons poor performance in his first 2 years was a big factor, but others factors were the retirements of many Democrats from nominally Democratic seats and the re alignment of the south.

[RFT1]

I stand by what I say, sorry if I tell it like it is. When a politician raises spending, domestic spending at a rate not seen since the mid 60s, when a politician does not do somthing about a threat to society such as illegal immigration, and inm fact wants to change laws to accomodate it, I call it like it is. The election is over thankfully, and I will not bite my tounge any more.

Yes Sinkspur, your understanding of both the political and theological worlds has much to be desired.