Posted on 04/04/2005 8:42:23 AM PDT by logician2u
COULD this be the same Republican Party that was on such triumphant display after President Bush's re-election just four months ago?
Republicans and conservatives are quarreling over Congress's intervention in the Terri Schiavo case, and the rising influence of Christian conservatives. Some Republicans in Washington and statehouses are balking at federal tax cuts in the face of deficits or spending cuts, while a few are worried that the war in Iraq will lead to more foreign entanglements. Republicans are beginning to whisper in the past tense as they discuss Mr. Bush's signature second-term measure, the revamping of Social Security.
Conservative commentators and blogs are even warning that Republican divisions could turn into turmoil once President Bush begins his fade from power. "The American right is splintering," the sometimes-conservative commentator Andrew Sullivan wrote in a column for The Sunday Times of London headlined, "Bush's Triumph Conceals the Great Conservative Crack-Up."
In truth, a lot of this talk seems overstated. Even Democrats say that Republicans are in a more commanding position than any major party has been in at least a generation. The party has already scored legislative victories this year, including the bankruptcy bill, and remains in accord on the fundamental notions that have guided it since the Reagan presidency: from tax cuts to spending cuts to big investments in the military.
Still, passions unleashed by events since Mr. Bush's second inauguration - the right-to-live-or-die debate in the Schiavo case and the lagging support for the Social Security plan - are testing the governing coalition of conservatives and Republicans, and putting its many wings and factions on display. And there's no reason to think things are going to get easier, as Mr. Bush and Congress turn to rewriting immigration laws and the tax code and prepare for midterm elections.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
BTTT
Never believe anything that is printed in The New York Slime.
In Their dreams!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sounds like wishful thinking.
The Times has become a liberal stream of consciousness.
Especially from the Week In Review section, where they dispense with the normal standards (such as they are) of objectivity and accuracy they have and pretty much write whatever pops into their pretty little heads!
Hey NY Times;
1) this is the same party;
2) the divisions have long been there;
3) the fact that we could all come together in the last election shows you just excretable your own favorite candidate and social positions are.
Just who keeps inviting these liberal gossip hacks to these secret meetings nobody else seems to know about?
Get a grip.
Oh, look - The Slimes found a handful of RINOs to blow up to look like a real crowd. (snore)
Wouldn't be much of a big tent if everybody in here agreed about everything. That's what the "big tent" analogy is about.
The media goes out of its way now to make every disagreement about a particular legistlative item a fatal blow to "republicanism". I disagree with their assessment, but SO WHAT if the majority of the republican party decides that the President is wrong about how to fix Social Security?
And isn't it expected that a lame duck president will start losing battles with congress? And isn't it a good thing that congress not simply rubber-stamp everything the president wants?
Notice that it's always Republicans who are forced to be "inclusive" or some other nonsense. You never hear the Slimes and the rest of the liberal media question the lack of pro-life or pro-gun people in the Democrat party. Good Democrats like Zell Miller are villianized, but RINOs such as Snowe and McCain are treated as heroes.
Yes, there are divisions. That's the sign of a vibrant organization that's engaged with the world around it. The donkey party continues to stick its collective head in the sand over virtually every issue. Where's the Dem debate over social security? Where have the Dem leaders been in the aftermath of the Pope's passing? Where were the dem leaders during the Schiavo case?
The democrat party is a dead from the neck down party. They have no leadership and no central purpose or theme. Sooner or later, the ground troops in labor and elsewhere will grow tired of seeing their millions of dollars and man hours of support go for nothing.
What then, Ms Pelosi?
So far, I haven't seen anyone rebut the points conservatives quoted in the story (you did read the story, didn't you? LOL.) made. Rather, it's been the usual venting against the NY Times, as if shooting the messenger is a suitable substitute for reasoned discussion. Bear in mind that, in spite of what many wish for, the Times does have a circulation far exceeding the membership of Free Republic. It is still a force to be reckoned with, even if its editorials do tilt leftward. (News stories from all but a handful of daily papers also slant left, so the Times is hardly alone in that department.)
Do any of you agree with David Frum, for instance, that there "are a couple of hundred Republicans" who oppose the war on Iraq? Or that "Hillary Clinton is probably the most unifying thing the Republican Party has," as Stephen Moore says?
Let's hear it. Disregard the fact that the Times printed this article and concentrate on what's being said by various Republicans.
Thanks.
I think I did consider what was said... I didn't see anything that requires a rebuttal. On virtually every major issue you will have disparate opinions within the GOP. Our party is secure enough to air those differences in public. That is a sign of strength, not weakness.
Did you even read my initial response? (LOL)
Of course. I'm not in the habit of responding to posts I haven't read.
Your contention that "disparate opinions" are a sign of strength could be applied to the Muslim world as easily as the GOP. A common goal is a sign of strength; differing ideas on how to achieve that goal could indicate either a) misunderstanding the importance of achieving the goal in a given time, or b) uncertainty as to whether the goal can or should be achieved at all.
I refer specifically to David Keene's observation about Republicans' "relatively coherent vision: . . small government, less taxes, small taxes." If that's the goal, where's the discussion about how it may be achieved while Republicans are in control of Congress and the White House? It's not happening in the Terri Schiavo episode, nor in the ongoing debates on Social Security, same-sex marriage or the various and sundry proposals to identify, track and monitor citizens and illegal aliens.
If it's not, perhaps Stephen Moore's statement about Hillary being the unifying force is more accurate than Keene's wishful thinking.
Comparing the GOP to Muslims is somewhat nonsensical. The GOP can be divided into camps that simply have a different emphasis on their political ideology. The Muslim world consists of legitmate practicioners of varying degrees and murderous psychopaths.
With respect to the Republican party, the differing elements of the party were able to come together only this fall to re-elect George Bush. I would therefore contend that national security is the unifying issue as opposed to shrinking government and lowering taxes.
While I think that the latter principles are shared by many in the party, they aren't shared by a large enough number to force those notions on the sizeable Democratic party minority that exists in Congress. There simply aren't the numbers and there simply isn't the will.
Therefore, what? Wait until the Congress is 2/3 or 3/4 Republican and hope that a majority of those will be "fiscal conservatives?"
What you are telling me in not new, not surprising, not even discouraging, since I have for many years doubted the sincerity of Republican party leaders when they talk of cutting the size and scope of government. There is always another excuse, and the latest -- "we just don't have the numbers" -- is a tacit admission that the GOP has no core principles other than getting elected and beating the Democrats.
Riding the national security horse will eventually bring about the same fall that the "law-and-order" horse suffered after Reagan, IMHO. You can't continue to use fear and expect the voters to like you.
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.