Again, go back to that time on this forum. It howled with "how can they stand behind him, when clearly he's violated eveything they stand for". Of course, we were talking about the feminists. Why couldn't we understand their unity then, when we are in fact calling for it now.
President Bush is not a criminal or a degenerate.
I would generally agree with that.
He is a Republican who is not as conservative as some on this board, and he has accomplished some conservative goals,
His public marketing during 2000 was compasionante conservatism. His public marketing during 2004 (when you get right down to it) was you're safer with me in office and it wouldn't be right to change since we're in the middle of the war on terror. But to the evangelicals, the message was he would hear them and act on their agenda. That hasn't happened to a large degree. Oh, there have been some wins, but there have also been some setbacks. Most notably, CFR. But in general, the evangelicals have been very patient, but I'm starting to see cracks. I think in the long run John Roberts will disappoint them. I don't think Roe v Wade will be turned back any time soon. I really haven't seen any real work to turn back the ACLU and their trespassing on all things Godly. The administration was largely silent during Judge Moore's 10 commandments issue. After fighting a affirmative aciton case in I believe Michigan, when it was lost the President praised the decision he just lost. And while there was some lip service on gay marriage, civil unions was offered as a compromise which is the same thing, just a different word.
In addition, the border issue continues to fester.
Do I think that President Bush is a socialist who is determined to bankrupt the country?
Neither do I. But the other evening, I wondered aloud whether this was a Reagan like speech or a LBJ like speech. Most everyone agreed, it sounded more closely to LBJ. And on a fiscal level, there have been many spending bills filled with pork that would have this forum howling if it would have been Clinton and a democratic congress.
All over this board are articles about the disarray the democrats are in because of the takeover of the party by the far left. The moonbat wing has caused infighting and are weakening their party. The extreme right is going to do the same thing to the Republicans if they continue down this path.
Possibly. And yes, both ideologies have moonbat wings. But I still go back to my earlier post and the thing about standing on and never giving up the courage of your convictions. Are the more conservative than I or more conservative than you to compromise on their convictions to avoid infighting. Many of their convictions lie in religion and the belief the founding fathers were divinely guided in the founding documents and the formation of this country. Frankly, instead of a Constitution, they should have simply used the Bible. It's all there in black and white (some editions have red in certain places. But since their convictions lie in faith and religion, you're asking them to basically blaspheme.
I read Chuck Colson's articles on this forum, and I think he's a little too strong and over the top. But he is steady in the presentation of his beliefs and convictions. A bit out there in my view, but consistent. During Clinton, how many times did Rush advise to stand on and by the courage of your convictions? Honestly, how often do you hear that now. Not very often. How often during Clinton did he encourage compromise, and how often do you hear it now? Almost constantly.
I've heard Rush chastize the President on an issue, yet when it went the Presidents way he praises the result. Maybe that's why talk radio ratings have been drooping recently. People are scratching their heads wondering what's going on in talk radio. Suddenly convictions mean nothing. Support of the CIC is.
What good do these vitriolic attacks on the President accomplish?
They can accomplish plenty. If not snuffed out, they can influence and cause a course to change. But the Presidents machine (and he has one) can count on a loyal legion to dampen the embers of dissent.
You mentioned Guiliani. I believe the social conservatives will fall apart. The other large possibility is McCain will get the nomination. If it becomes a race between the two in the primary, I'm not sure what would happen. In 2000 a large undercurrent was to install GWB in order to instill a little payback for Clinton defeating GHWB. That was a major factor in the party machine derailing McCain. I haven't seen a 2008 contender yet (can you believe we are already talking about that) that is the anti-McCain. Guiliani vs McCain. Pretty much two peas in a pod. McCain is probably a little more pro military.
I agree that sniping for the sake of sniping is not productive. But sometimes a little complaining can instill change. But if it keeps getting snuffed out, it will always be seen as sniping.
On our side, I am not asking for people to sacrifice principles. For example, if people adamantly believe in the pro-choice position, I am not asking that they support all of the President's pro-life positions; ditto for stem cells. Orrin Hatch is a good example of someone who disagrees on stem cells but supports the President on other issues.
Here is the problem, as I see it. You and I are having a civil conversation about the general trends in politics, whether or not the evangelicals will get discouraged (I personally think not) and whether some of the spending has gone overboard.
No problem, as far as I can see.
However, if you were to say something like this: "Well, how do you Bush-bots feel about your hero spending money like a drunken sailor? He's no better than his daddy, who was a wimp just like he is," then perhaps we wouldn't be having such a nice talk.
It isn't the disagreement. It's the attitude that whatever pet cause someone has is THE defining issue and that anyone who supports the President is a simpleton or a socialist. This is not helping to advance conservative ideas, because I can guarantee you that statements like that do NOT make me re-examine my position, but rather make me dig in my heels. I am certain that attacks on Bush-critics in that vein results in the same feeling.
My position is that disagreement if conducted in a civil manner is not a problem. Angry name-calling and mockery is a BIG problem with me.
I hope I have explained my position more clearly. Thank you for taking the time to post your thoughts.