Posted on 06/15/2005 7:21:08 AM PDT by Gipper08
My friend Howard Phillips recently wrote a column outlining the philosophy and historical track record of the Republican Party since George W. Bush became President. Sad to say, even a cursory review of this record reveals the fact that the Republican Party in Washington, D.C., has become little more than a carbon copy of the Democratic Party.
Phillips writes, "Sadly, the GOP's elected and appointed officials conform themselves almost without exception to that which Mr. Bush espouses, including:
a. an expanded Federal role in education,
b. record setting subsidies for pro-abortion and pro- homosexual organizations,
c. increased funding for the United Nations,
d. the attempted extension of Bill Clinton's assault weapons ban (blocked in Congress),
e. social Security benefits for illegal aliens who have returned to Mexico,
f. the ongoing reduction of the U.S. Navy (which now stands at 289 ships, compared to 600 under Ronald Reagan),
g. amnesty for illegal aliens,
h. nominees for the Federal judiciary and the Office of Attorney General who espouse the doctrine that Roe v. Wade is 'settled law',
i. support for Food and Drug Administration policies approving the abortion 'pill', RU-486, which has been used to kill scores of thousands of unborn children,
j. overturning Ronald Reagan's decision to withdraw from UNESCO,
k. increased funding for the National Endowment for the Arts,
l. multi-billion dollar support for the Federal Legal Services Corporation and its 25,000 left-wing legal activists,
m. murder-abetting assistance to the Communist government in Angola,
n. historically high multi-trillion dollar fiscal deficits and trade deficits,
o. a multi-trillion dollar Medicare entitlement program,
p. a $20 million 'New Freedom' program to evaluate the mental health of 53 million students in the government schools.
q. enactment of the McCain-Feingold campaign regulation law which criminalizes free speech,
r. support for the U.N. Law of the Sea Treaty (UNLOST) which President Reagan rejected,
s. endorsement of homosexual 'civil unions',
t. promotion of FTAA, NAFTA, CAFTA, and the WTO,
u. a too broadly drawn Patriot Act with its outrageous 'sneak and peek' provisions,
and many more things, a significant proportion of which would have been blocked by a Republican Congress had a Democrat President proposed them."
Of course, most conservatives have chosen to ignore or even deny these facts. The only answer they seem to come up with is, "Think how bad it would be if Democrats were in charge." However, with Republicans like these, who needs Democrats?
Gee, let me guess who you have in mind.
You won't find one-they are in bed together. One World Order on fast track.
I've given up. For years we were told to keep working for the party.. "Just wait till we have the congress and the presidency!". Well, now we have it, and the Federal Gove't is bigger than ever. I've dropped out of all political activity.
I agree, though the alternative (democrats) would be worse, we need to get tough with our elected officials and face the fact that they have let us down in many areas...
I can only imagine how a Democrat administration would have given the author grist for his mill...
I for one am disgusted by the cowardice of the GOP. This morning Laura Ingram has been running clips of a speech given by Dick Durbin. He talked about our "gulags and concentration camps". He said our "torture techniques" are worse than the nazis or pol pot.
Most disgusting is the fact that not one republican confronted his claims or rebutted them. Not one republican pointed out that the so called "torture" is all legal under the geneva convention. Not one stood to remind Durbin that terrorists aren't even covered by the geneva protections.
There isn't a dime's worth of difference between the two major political parties. I don't think you have a chance in 2008. Unless the dem half of the superparty runs Hillary.
It cannot wait until 2008.
You cannot simply keep on voting a party line and hoping for the best, figuring that everything will be made right with "the right candidate" in "the next election".
Because even if you get the perfect candidate...if, for example, P.J. O'Rourke runs for and wins the US Presidency, as the deal in the Senate over judges demonstrates, the President does not run the GOP. He has his policies, and GOP Senators have theirs. So do Congressmen.
You've got to fight the battles NOW, RIGHT NOW, and break heads where needed to get the agenda passed NOW. If Republicans will not do it with their current lock on power, they are never, ever going to do it. Kicking the can down the road to "2008" or "the next election" is a very good way to extend the political careers of Republicans - their primary desiderata - but a very bad way to get what you want out of them.
The crucial turning point for the pro-lifers should have come with the abandonment of Terri Schiavo to her death by the top Republican leaders. They made grand statements and showed resolve, but then the polls allegedly turned and they melted away. She was allowed to die. Pro-lifers were furious, but many have already fallen back asleep and speak of "the next election", as though the same men who did it last time will behave differently.
They will only behave differently if they suffer real, painful loss of money and support and criticism RIGHT NOW. Criticism that could destroy them RIGHT NOW if they don't knuckle under to it. There is no reason to be nice to legislators who betray you. There is every reason to stand them up in front of an open political grave and start pushing them into it if they don't decide that it is better to piss off the other side and take the damage from them then to take the immediate damage from you. That is how the real world works. Conservatives have been far too nice.
For the anti-open-borders types, President Bush and the White House and the Republican majority has already made it crystal clear than, in the competition between you and the business interests who profit from dirt cheap illegal labor, business wins and your concept of the country loses. You have to cut your support for the President NOW, and for the Republicans. Make them come and get you BACK by forcing them to do what they manifestly do NOT want to do, and WILL NOT DO unless they are facing screaming down in flames and losing power to the Democrats. You cannot just blythely kick the can down the road three years and figure that the Republicans will change their spots. If you don't stand up the Republican leaders in front of an open political grave RIGHT NOW, there will be another 7 million Mexican illegals in America by 2008, and whoever is elected, even if it's Jack Kemp or P J O'Rourke, still isn't going to be able to do anything about it. They will be comfortably ensconced in power...and you'll talk about how important it is to get the right Congressional leaders in there in "2010". Speaking of "the long haul" is a very good way to hang the carrot in front of your face and NEVER deliver, while extending majority Republican power for a good long run.
If you want to actually STOP illegal immigration, then you have to take away the Republican majority and support and money RIGHT NOW if they will not buckle under and stop doing what THEY want, to do what YOU want.
Likewise with the exploding debt. Like Medicare perscription drug expenses? That was given to you by President Bush and a Republican House. Democrats will always go along with it.
Like Edward Kennedy's education bill, No Child Left Behind? He drafted it.
It goes on and on, and it will keep on going on and on unless you stop kicking the can down the road and get right in the faces of the Republicans, not too politely, and demand that they do what you elected them to do, or you will abandon them NOW.
Since most people won't do that, most people want to be too nice to politicians, what you are going to get is more of the same. And then, even if the Republicans win big in 2008, the talk will be about how they need even bigger majorities in 2010 and how the new GOP President needs to be re-elected in 2012, and so on and so on. In the meantime, there will be 15 million more Mexicans in the country, and 15 million more babies aborted.
There comes a time, if you ever want to win your causes, where you have to tell your leaders that they will do what you sent them to do, or you will turn on them and throw them under the train. That time is right now. Really, it is a few months past.
Schiavo + immigration + the "compromise" on the filibuster and the unwillingness of the leadership to break the compromise and put the nuclear option back in the hazard tells you that you are expected to go back to sleep and keep giving your money, support and votes NO MATTER WHAT.
Yes,we the people make the decisions.We must take the country in the "right" direction.It is up to us.
Yes,I believe Mike Pence is the only one who can right the ship.Other "conservatives" were part of the problem while Pence and his band of conservatives were fighting the good fight.
You are right it cannot wait.2008 IS NOW!
I think this is too pessimistic. Most of those issues that the author listed could have been applied to Reagan as well, (ie amnesty, deficits, etc) and Reagan is now regarded as a conservative icon - and rightfully so. The good conservative policies of Bush and Reagan definitely outweigh the bad. Back in the '80's I heard the same stuff about Reagan...he takes us to the same end as Democrats- just slower; he's too nice to them; etc. Now those same pessimists sing a different tune.
Take a look at Mike Pence and the 25 or so house conservatives.They are fighting the good fight and they need your help!
"I've dropped out of all political activity."
I agree to some extent. I've switched my focus from National Politics to Local Politics. If I can work to get the death-grip Socialists out of Wisconsin, it's got to do some good for the Nation as a whole somewhere down the line.
Me too and lot's of other consevatives too. But pay back is right around the corner in the 2006 election, then the GOP will feel the heat as they are swept from power in a 94 like election.
This is why our next president will either be a very liberal Democrat who pretends to be centrist or a centrist Republican who plays footsie with liberals to win their approval.
The DC Circuit judges are a clear positive. And there is a reasonable prospect that the judicial appointment issue is not over yet.
However other than that, it is difficult to see any real difference in public policy between the Bush Administration and a hypothetical Kerry Administration. Kerry would have been weaker and less effective but given the policy direction, that is a positive.
As proposed, the Social Security "Private Account" reform is a Wall Street bailout, not a Social Security reform. The means test proposal is crazy--the determination of "means" is how much money the retiree made during productive life; if he lost it all and has no means, he still is treated as rich and loses FDIC payments. That is simply nuts. If you were going to means test Social Security which I would favor, you would do so based on current period tax return income. I oppose all of the current proposals.
Private accounts which simply set aside money in the name of the FDIC payor and vest rights to the money, perhaps coupled with means testing, in exchange for limitation on public funding after 2018 might be a true "reform" but the government is not going to do that.
Abortion is somewhat of a red herring issue.
It is clearly murder; it clearly violates God's Law.
But in our secular legal world, the test is different. The Constitution provides that "no person shall be deprived of life, . . . . without due process of law". State (and federal law) that permits abortion after life commences is unconstitutional, based on the litteral language of our fundament law.
Pro abortion forces should be encouraged to resolve the existing dispute by attempting to amend the constitution to provide an exception for non-due process termination of life by the mother; perhaps limited to periods before the third month.
But absent a change in the constitution, this argument gets resolved on facts and literal words on paper. Maybe you can't prove personhood before month three or two or whatever; but at the end of the day, you are looking for judges who will apply the literal words.
The judges are the only thing you get from the Republicans--and you need to hope for three Supreme Court vacancies not coming from the Rheinquist, Scalia, Thomas group (presumably at least four in total).
I respectfully do not agree with mysterio--I see Mrs. Clinton as a clear winner against any Republican currently on the table.
The only political salvation I see is to get money together to get truly organized to support a serious third party movement. At this point, there is enough dissension among both Republicans and Democrats that a third party candidate focused on the borders; foreign policy; and the economy would have a real chance to win.
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.