If you want a Google GMail account, FReepmail me.
They're going fast!
Posted on 10/12/2005 6:06:38 PM PDT by quidnunc
Try this for a picture:
The nation with a President whose Investor's Business Daily Leadership Index stands at 41, a 9-point plunge since August; Republicans, who during his presidency have rated him as high as 95, now rate him at only 79. Declining support for the American presence in Iraq. Deficit spending at record levels, with more to come for Katrina recovery. Gasoline at $3 per gallon, and big jitters over the prospect of winter heating bills double those of just a year ago.
-snip-
So what is it about this, perhaps the fastest fall in presidential approval?
The ideologization of the right.
For decades, a conservative ideology — a set of "correct" beliefs forming a lens through which one views reality — did not exist. The conservative movement, such as it was, contained former Communists and anti-Communists, free marketers and compassionists and private-sector welfarists; unionists (Ronald Reagan's "hardhats") and those driven by a commitment to the Taft-Hartley Law's section 14-B; Burkeans, traditionalists, libertarians, religionists, and believers in living one's life according to an individualized secular virtue; neo-con refugees from the liberal swamp.
The conservative umbrella kept the rain off all these disparates; the conservative tent had room for just about anyone.
Conservatives took over the Republican Party and drove it to political power. On their way to consolidating power, two things happened. (1) They demonstrated time and again that they were not particularly good at government — that in many ways they don't do the governing thing well, often not so well as liberal Democrats. (2) They coalesced around a set of views and values one generally had to embrace in order to have one's claim of allegiance to the conservative flag accepted.
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at timesdispatch.com ...
I don't want a "conservative activist" (although I strain to imagine the reasons why one would be particularly horrible at this point in time). I want someone who will defend and restore the rule of law, like Thomas.
I know. I do, too.
That being said, some folks have an unusual fixation on Meirs religion and specualtion on her being pro life is misplaced.
Neither has much to do with whether she is able to interpret the constitution through an originalist prism.
"I prefer to be a loser with my integrity and ideals intact than a bought and sold winner."
I'm sure moonbots will line up to disagree with you there.
These fools are a waste of time. They don't even care if they know what they're talking about as long as they get obedient drones.
They keep calling me "the far right" and spewing it with the same hatred as Nancy Pelosi and I can't figure out how I got the lable to begin with. I support teaching both ID and evolution in schools. Ive been quite supportive of Harriet Miers nomination although I have a few legitimate questions. Ive been very supportive of the President on all but a few issues.
These people have a bigger problem than they're willing to admit. It's more than just the "far right" who have had enough. They're frightened children who need to blame someone for the massive failure of the party coming down the tubes.
I scanned the article twice and did not see that last sentence.
It was Ross Perot who was responsible for Bubba being elected twice...not actions on behalf of conservatives.
If this is true, coservatism is dead
This could have been written in 1976 by an author lamenting Reagan's primary challenge to Ford.
I want my Constitution back!!!!
"Right the Dems would of passed the Tax Cuts and have Soc Security Reform on the table. They would of passed the Refinery Bill the House passed on Friday. They would have appointed John Roberts, Priscilla Owens, Pickering and Brown to the courts. Sorry but for any Freeper to be saying this clearly indicates a segment of Freepers is NOT intrested in reality but only in spewing their knee jerk Bush hate."
A tax cut WITHOUT a spending cut is simply a postponement of a tax INCREASE at a later date, for another administration. If you can't understand such a simple concept, you yourself are not interested in either facts OR reality.
You sound about as smart as the average used car salesman on a $1000.00 dollar lot.
I think they've found out how to solve that problem - just run as Republicans to get elected.
If you want a Google GMail account, FReepmail me.
They're going fast!
"Obiedience to party doesn't suit me. If you roll over does your master rub your belly?"
I’m not going to let the democrats take over the leadership of this country because a hand full of pencil pushers didn’t get their way over a Supreme Court nomination. There are not a lot of “Pat Buchanan Republicans” out their, yet the few vociferous ones who want to impeach Bush and give power to the Democrats are getting the attention in the press (I wonder why?)
There is a huge difference in the two political parties maybe more so then ever before. I understand that people on the far right aren’t happy with the Republican majority, but the flip side is much worse.
Threaten somebody else.
You probably really dislike the Mike Pence crowd.
Hey pal, the purpose of this forum is to decrease the size and scope of government. What might your twisted definition of "conservatism" be?
Spot on, Cicero.
This reminds me of 1991-1992, when Dick Darman gave Dubya's dad shockingly bad economic advice, in the wake of breaking the tax pledge. Remember how the IRS withholding tables were tweaked, to reduce taxes withheld from a paycheck?
It accomplished nothing, because the average increase was less than $10 a week. Even economic illiterates discovered (the following year) that it wasn't a tax cut.
It seems to me that second terms fail because the nature of being President, and the isolation from the real world.
I wouldn't want to be a Presidential staffer for more than six months: the hours alone would wear me out, let alone the stress. I truly think that part of the problem is staff fatigue. President Bush may be in bed at 9:30, but everybody else is doing 16 hours a day.
"Threaten somebody else."
What do you mean? I don't believe I have ever "Threaten" you. Unless you are referring to me challenging your ignorant stances the Miers nomination.
"Unless you are referring to me challenging your ignorant stances the Miers nomination."
What stance is that mr wizard?
I'm saying that it is what it is, and no amount of fulminating and pontificating will make it otherwise. The small-government model is fading and the model which advocates using government to move towards desirable, socially-conservative outcomes like the ownershio society is in the ascendency.
And of course you dodge the question as to if you think this is a good thing or not. I'd have a lot more respect for you liberal/moderates if you were simply upfront about your political philosiphies.
Running Bob Dole in '96 was like Adlai Stevenson's candidacy in '56. After the debacle in '95, when Newt shut the government down without a viable exit strategy (and lost the political battle to Clinton), there was no energy on the Republican side. Ergo, Dole got the nomination because it was "his turn".
I'm not sure Dole would've won in '96 with Perot off the ballot.
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.