Posted on 09/26/2005 5:34:31 PM PDT by mwfsu84
My major complaints with the GOP are Bush's spending, and the stonewalling RINOs in Congress. And yet, what is the alternative? To vote Democrat? Or to not vote at all - which is just as helpful to Dems.
Every time I think how disappointed I am with Bush, I try to remember how much worse it could be with a legitmate Bush-hater.
The Democrats won't cut spending. They'll raise taxes. We'll see national health care. A Democratic President won't nominate moderate SCOTUS justices - unless you consider Ruth Bader Ginsberg a moderate. We'll cow tow to the UN, probably pull out of Iraq, establish relations with Cuba and Hugo Chavez. They'll be no legitimate challenge to the ban on partial birth abortion. This fall, an upcoming SCOTUS case will be whether a minor has a right to have an abortion without parental consent. If a 15 year old child wins that 'right', do you honestly expect ANY leader from the party of Planned Parenthood to challenge it?
You think gas prices are high now? Wait until you see prices caps imposed, Jimmy Carter-style, so you'll have higher prices and longer lines. We'll have a president that preaches to us the value of sacrifice, which as we all know, worked so well during the Carter years.
As disgusted as we are with George W. Bush, we can't give up on the Republican Party.
I give up, you have NO clue......................
And you do, of course. Tell us more about how we are winning and how you find comfort in the status quo.
My suggestion was simply an opinion, in response to a posted question.
You seemed to have gone off the edge.
By the way, there are probably others on this site who recognize when things are NOT working.
Again, tell us all how we are winning.
Ronald Reagan in 1964 was not the same Ronald Reagan of 1980. Reagan's politics changed as time passed. He became more and more of a conservative. Reagan's writings in the 1970`s laid out a conservative policy that supported a strong national defense, limited govt, deregulation and fiscal responsibility on both spending and tax reform. And Reagan came to see the errors of his ways on the abortion issue too. He became a supporter of pro-life/right to life issues. Reagan is the only President to have a book published while in was in office. It was called, "Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation". Great essay and book. Read them. You may learn something about Reagan the man.
Reagan wasn't only a gentleman of the first order, he was a master of rhetoric. He knew how to play a crowd better then anyone and would sneak in little tidbits that would play up the specific audience he was speaking to. He learned this from his days touring the nation for GE. Everyone in America knew of Ronald Reagan and everyone who knew him liked the man.
Reagan lived the American dream through a long, successful and for the most part, healthy life. It's not what Reagan did as a young man supporting FDR that counts, or what he did as Governor of California either. What counts most, is what Reagan did as President. His two huge election landslides show that the American people knew who Reagan was and they trusted him.
One thing Reagan wasn't. Reagan was no RINO. You've leveled a lot of cheap shots at Reagan on this thread CT. You should be ashamed of yourself. Now go take a nap.
the "power brokers" would gather in a back room, jawing and bullying and trading favors, whilst smoking cigars, getting whom they wanted in.
I'll try again, as you're either extremely dense or have never backed up in your life. But you sound like a good back seat driver.
The Democratic power brokers didn't want peoples choice Jimmy Carter. Dukakis and Biden ran the gauntlet, until he plagiarizes a coal miner, and the base settled on Dukakis. Even Mondale was forced on the Democrats when he did a lot of hanky panky in the primaries. Granted, they got Kerry, but not in a back room. They got him by ridiculing the Dean scream, and there the MSM did the dirty work . Really toots, it's a no brainer, plain as the nose on your face. To wit...
The Democratic rank and file has more to say about who the candidate is going to be, than their 'smokey elites'. It's just the opposite with Republicans. Their 'elites' tell you 'who' can win and then negotiate the bones the the base will get if they go along.
But, in '92, even though Clinton and his team thought that he WOULD lose, but looked at this run as a "dress rehearsal"
Wrong again, the dress rehearsal was when Clinton spoke for hours, late into the night, driving Dukakis's acceptance speech off prime time. Clinton early on had the DNC's number, he knew how manipulate them, and relied on the base in the 90 primaries. He also kicked them in the pants with his new democrat label.
those who bought into Ross Perot's crap
The base had nothing to say about it, Bush 1 that is. They saw how he tried to voodoo Reagan, and saw his 1000 points of light for what it was, feel good nonsense.
The apple doesn't fall far from the tree, so they say, and I think W has some of those 1000 points of his own that are contrary to conservatism. However, with these shortcomings, he still has been a great president considering the alternatives.
It is very unlikely that our two parties will ever agree on any important issue enough, or ingnore such an issue enough to bring about one of their downfalls.
At first blush, I'd agree with you. But I do think the Dems have taken a fatal plunge down a path. Either they get resurrected by the insurging of different coalitions and parties, or they drown under the weight of their own liberal hubris and actions. Sometimes I suspect this Closseau-ian ploy is exactly what Move-On has in mind -- "and now offering.. the NEW, new Democrat party..." which perhaps might decide to leave America, move to some third world country and show the world how socialism, properly done, and with funds collected by the local leading tyrant.. can work!
History does repeat itself; sometimes, in not directly predictable patterns such as your excellent recitation of history provided.
I agree, take cheap shots at Reagan, quote all the stats you want to compare how Reagan was a big spender, but at the end of the day...
RONALD REAGAN who had to overcome a DEMOCRATIC CONTROLLED HOUSE BY TIP O'Neil and a DEMOCRATIC SENATE time and time again whipped the democrats over and over again.
Now we have all THREE BRANCHES OF GOV AND WE CAN't even match what Reagan did with two hostile branches of Gov.
The democrats were scared to death of Reagan. Thats a fact!
In the states that elect Jim Jeffords, Collins, Snowe and others no conservative can be elected. The center in new England states is well to the left of the nation as a whole. A candidate for state office must get more than half the votes. That means in liberal states a Republican has to be to the left of the national center to even hope to win. The only reason to support them is if the Democrat wins he or she will be far much more left of center than the RINO. In those states the choices are far left or RINO. The same is true in very conservative states but from the opposite side. A Democrat in South Carolina has to be pretty conservative to win. For a Democrat to win in South Carolina he or she must be far to the right of Snowe.
Let me see if I can reach you with common sense.
About 18 states are liberal and about 18 states are conservative. 14 states are up for grabs... They are the home of the RINOs and DINOs.
At any given time there will be about 36 liberal Senators in the US senate. At the same time there will be about 36 conservative Senators. That leaves some combination of 28 RINOS and DINOS. In South Carolina you can elect a real Conservative. That can't be done in Maine. In New York Democrats can easily elect a Schumer. It is the way it is. In moderate states you get a Voinovich and Dewine. You could not elect a Jesse Helms in Ohio. You couldn't elect a Schumer in Ohio either. That is just the way it is. Read the election returns and learn.
RINO Voinovich in 2004 got 63 percent of the votes to Bush's lowly 51. Voinovich did not even campaign. Good solid RINOs don't have to campaign in Ohio. Bush worked his rump off to pull off a 51 to 49 win. Voinovich did nothing to win 63 percent of the votes. Ohio is RINO and DINO heaven. For the last 15 to 20 years the RINOs have ruled. But soon the DINOS will take over for a few years. That is just the way it is.
If the Democrats elect 20 DINOS and the Republicans only 8 RINOs the Democrats are pretty much in control of the Senate. They have the chairmanship of all senate committees. They are free to hold investigative witch hunts on any conservative Repubican they chose. If the Republicans elect 20 RINOS to the Democrats 8 DINOs they are in control of the Senate. Nat total control.. but it is a a lot better being 56 to 44 than 44 to 56. Since Republicans have nearly 20 RINOS the RINOs have real power. But that is the real world. Conservatives have to learn to win in the real world or forever lose. The party with the most ?INOs always wins out.
The same is true in the House. There are always about 150 true conservatives in the house and 150 true liberals. that leaves some combination of 135 RINOS and DINOS in the house. The party with the most ?INOs controls the house. The house rules are tough. When the Republicans hold the majority because they have the most RINOS the Conservatives rule the house. Ask Tom Delay or Nancy Pelosi how that works.
Barry Goldwater was the proponent of driving all the RINOs out of the house and Senate. He got it done in 1964.
In 1968 I interviewed LBJ. I asked him what he attributed his success at getting the Great Society passed. After all, I remarked, FDR had proposed all of the Great Society measures in the 30s and 40s and could not get them passed. LBJ had gotten it done. I asked him to what he attributed his success.
LBJ looked me in the eye and said, "I could not have done it with out Barry Goldwater's help" Barry got rid of all the moderate Republicans. That gave me an iron lock on the house and senate. With that lock the Great Society was easy.
LBJ clearly understood the value to the left of of far right purists driving the RINOs out of the party. LBJ understood the real world.
You must believe that conservatives can command a majority of votes. What part of it is impossible for 36 percent of the voters to cast 51 percent of the votes escapes you?
Barry Goldwater fixed it so that for 2 short years he commanded the presidency, the house and the senate with total liberal rule. It was a filibuster proof senate. There were few if any RINOS and the world belonged to the DINOs. WE have the legacy of the Great Society because Barry Goldwater shared your beliefs.
We have to remember that they are ALL politicians and we need to remind them that we are here and what are views are. If your senators don't know you by name you probably haven't written them enough.
Well as far as I'm concerned, the so-called "moderates" don't give us anything except a bone up the @$$.
So I still think we're better off by tossing the bums out.
new tagline, thanks
http://www.nathannewman.org/EDIN/.election/.1994/.1994anal/.WDB.html
1994 was an abrupt, brutal and fundamental change, in which Democrats lost 56 USHR seats (35 incumbents and 21 open seats) to for open-seat losses for the Republicans. In sheer volume of turnover, 1994 ranks fifth of 21 off-year elections since 1918 -- just a shade behind 1946.
I suppose you have a problem with my hypothesis?
Republicans were very unhappy after Nixon lost in 1960. After all, Ike had been a very successful and popular Republican President. Nixon should have won just as Bush 41 did after 8 years of a popular and successful Reagan.
Conservatives were very unhappy after the loss to Kennedy. If they were going to get beat with a moderate NIXON, the right came to the conclusion they might as well lose with a real Conservative like Goldwater. And many were certain that if the voters just got the Conservative message they would vote for a real Conservative. Over and over they said we need a choice not an echo. They believed that voters would not support a Democrat clone like NIXON, but they would come out for a genuine conservative. After Nixon lost the Governorship of California to Brown in 1962, Conservatives were certain of one thing... They needed to kick out the RINOS and then win a real victory. Massive victory was just a year of purity away.... UH HUHHH! There are many Democrats who believe that only a real true blue liberal can win. No more DINOs for the left.. they want a true believer.
Goldwater of course got the grass roots behind him. He won the 1964 nomination in a rout. Party professionals knew what was going to happen but the rank and file believed that Barry would sweep to victory ... Once the nation really saw what conservatism was, "In their heart you know he's right!" is what they preached." The truth was most voters agreed with, "In their guts they know he's nuts."
We know the result...Goldwater suffered a terrible defeat. He was painted as an extremist and responded to that charge by claiming in his acceptance speech that "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice." That was real dumb city but the base was ecstatic with their choice not an echo.
So what happened after the Goldwater debacle? Did the Republican party fold? Certainly not. The far right was devastated by the magnitude of the Goldwater loss. The moderates and centrists came back to take over the Republican party. And the excesses of the total rule of LBJ and the left, gave the presidency to Richard Nixon in 1968.
Right now the Democrats are walking off the mirror image of the Goldwater plank. They are going as far left as Goldwater went right. But after a loss the moderates will be back to take over the Demoratic party.
Hillary and Clinton know better. They have tried to move to the center where victory lies. Bill tried to help her move to the center by publicizing his friendship with the Bush family. That resulted in the polls showing Hillary in trouble with the base... So she and Bill MUST ATTACK Bush to hold the far left. Every time the far left sees Clinton with Bush 41 they go ballistic.
By first being a friend to the Bushes and then turning on them, the Clinton's have proved themselves to be untrustworthy. Moderates put great faith in trustworthiness. The moderates are not ideological. That why they are swing voters. They vote for people they believe they can trust. Some times that is a leftists sometimes it is someone on the right. The key is trustworhtyness. The Bush-Bill Clinton friendship had to be a plot planned in Karl Roves fertile brain. It put Bill and Hillary in a no win situation. To hold the base they have to sacrifice what it takes to win the center. But with out the base she can't win the primary. And with out the center she can not win the general election.
So the Democrats are about where the Republicans were in 1962. The base will not stand for anything other than total opposition to Republicans. They want a choice not an echo. The more dirty tricks pulled on Republicans the better the Democratic base likes it and the more of the center the Democrats lose. It is a fact. The centrists who hold the balance of power will not support untrustworthy obstructionists who turn on friends.
But this will not end the Democratic party any more than the loss of Barry Goldwater did to the Republicans. Once the left suffers more defeats they will become so hungry for victory they will embrace moderate Democrats who can win. Their hatred of all things Republican will cause them to embrace a moderate Democrat.
The pattern repeats many times.
Harry Truman said it best. Harry said, "The only things new under the political sun is the history you don't know."
The Alternative? A much better breed of Republican with respect for the Constitution, National Security and fiscal responsibility.
You know, what we thought we were electing.
What is Chief Justice Roberts ... chopped liver? With out moderates he would have been filibustered. With out moderates electing Bush we would have a New Chief Justice selected by President Kerry. His choice would have been to the left of Ginsburg. Now that is a real bone up your anus...
You can't see what the moderates do to help us.
We have to have the moderates to get some of what we want. The moderates have two choices. They can get what they want from either Republicans or Democrats. They always have the better hand. Conservatives have to have the moderates to get anything done.
You need to look at the world the way it is... not the way you wish that it were.
"If I don't get my way I am going drive the center into the left's open hands!!" is an attitude, to quote a popular phrase, that is "STUCK ON STUPID!!!"
Did you really think that is what you were electing?
You were electing a man who has to play the hand he is dealt. In the Senate he has to find a way to hold all 55 Republican votes including the 19 RINOs and then pick up the votes of at least 5 DINOs. Otherwise Reid will filibuster any proposal and it is dead.
To get the votes of 19 RINOs and 5 DINOs they have to be given something. Getting anything done is always based on the art of negotiation. Some things a president wants to do can't be done because the price is too high. Some times the price is worth it. Sometimes it is not.
You need to understand the real world. It is alway Senators saying.. "Give me X and I will vote for Y". That produces a counter proposal of, I will give you V if you vote for Y. The usual compromise requires giving the senator W to vote for Y. Presidents shop all the Rinos and Dinos to find the cheapest price for 60 votes. For the right price sometimes a rock ribbed Liberal can be bought .... if the the libearl wants something bad enough. Sometimes the price of a conservative is too high to pay. Sometimes the price, for what ever reason, is too high so the goal is never achieved. Sometimes, not often the president gets a bargain.
That is the real world. Anything else is just naive fantasy.
Who the heck knows?
As far as I can tell, he's carefully crafted his life to avoid expressing any opinion about chopped liver.
People like that give me the creeps.You can't see what the moderates do to help us.
Well, we certainly agree on THAT!
Conservatives have to have the moderates to get anything done.
No, no, no, no, no....
Let the 'Rats compromise THEIR principles (if they have any) with the moderate weasels.
I have faith in conservative principles and believe we can persuade the electorate once they see how pathetic the 'Rat/moderate coalition actually is.
Frankly, that's YOU'RE big problem.
You don't trust the American people to eventually see the error of their ways and return to conservative values. You're far too willing to sacrifice principles for short-term gain. A "gain" that only discredits our real values. I can't go along with that.
By first being a friend to the Bushes and then turning on them, the Clinton's have proved themselves to be untrustworthy. Moderates put great faith in trustworthiness. The moderates are not ideological. That why they are swing voters. They vote for people they believe they can trust. Some times that is a leftists sometimes it is someone on the right. The key is trustworhtyness. The Bush-Bill Clinton friendship had to be a plot planned in Karl Roves fertile brain. It put Bill and Hillary in a no win situation. To hold the base they have to sacrifice what it takes to win the center. But with out the base she can't win the primary. And with out the center she can not win the general election.
lol. Excellent. But you have two points here; one which aligns with yours on "political history" and one treks towards mine in re change not fitting political history pattern. Oh heck, actually it does.
The larger point -- is that when one is belligerent, not in tune with a larger picture; but only scoping to a narrow goal or endpoint, the "change" happens (which is also a problem with using polling data and marketing samples, in extremis, to plot a platform). Voters don't want an extremist in office.
Two. The trustworthiness issue. Goldwater did show himself to be trustworthy; even if he did lose the election due, as you cite, a form of hardline-extremism.
But yours in re the "trustworthy" issue regarding Dem Party -- is precisely the mental trek I was on. This will hurt the Dems hard; as Dems continue to convey that they are not trustworthy. They have become that which they proclaimed to hate: Tricky Dick.
Wanna see "dense"? Go look into the nearest mirror and then get help for your projection complex.
You haven't a clue; but, in a roundabout way, verify much of what I have written, which you have then whinged about being incorrect. Pity that.
You're dead wrong about Clinton's speech at the Dukais convention. You really should read more and learn the facts. You post without knowing any and then claim that you are the expert. LOL
Both Clintons have many times over said that the '92 run was their idea of a "dress rehearsal". Yes,. they lie, but about this matter, they weren't.
Bushbash away...that's all you've ever done here. We all have your number.
Many thanks for saying all of that. I keep posting it too, but the PURISTS/UNAPPEASEABLES refuse to accept the facts.
Yes, the GOP took hold, but Clinton gave away and sold our secrets to the ChiComs and more. Ge passed all kinds of EOs, which could NOT be undone by President Bush. Clinton's true legacy is 9/11! Without his presidency, that wouldn't have happened.
I can give you many other overriding examples, but you really should know it, without my having to enumerate them all.
Keep on trying to educate those who neither know nor understand politics and history.
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.