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 ...
"so too is conservatism evolving apace away from the small-government, libertarian model"
You're saying this as if it's a good thing...or am I missing something?
The nominee could be the most fervent strict constructionist justice we've had, and the betrayal has still occurred. Such a weak appointment implies weakness and an unwillingness to take on the left.
BS ... the liberal MSM put his piece of crap over the top twice. Had he been a Republican they would have torpedoed his candidacy way back in the early '90's.
Think of it as "trickle down" Conservatism! We are not a party, we are a Very big tent! It's not necessarily a bad thing to have this family fight! Perhaps we'll get some of our family members into "re-hab" with some tough love sooner rather that later!
Either way every one has to come out "honest" or they don't make it through tough love!
This seems to describe that antithesis of Rush & Co.
There are two things that kept George in office for his second term...And barely, at that...
The first thing is that we wrapped ouselves in the flag to support this two-term long war...
The second, George promised to pick Supreme Court Justices in the mold of Thomas and Scalia...
Question: Where would George be without the war???
Do you know the reason why 30% of conservatives are against the anti-Miers nomination? It is because they did not get the BLOODY battle that they were waiting for with liberals. They want a fight more than anything else. They want an openly know conservative judge so they will drive the liberals and the media insane and in raged with hate and they in turn will spew anger and hate toward liberals. Although there is over 80% chance of losing the war of getting the conservative judge on the Supreme Court because of liberal and RINO senators, but it seems that winning the war for them is not the goal but rather the emotional intensity of fighting a bloody war with the left.
I prefer sleeping bags to tents but I stay close:')
Well, I won't argue it with you yet again. I think the appointment already has been very damaging for Bush and the judicial appointment process. I devoutly hope that, if she is confirmed, she will prove to be a real conservative justice. I would take no pleasure in having my fears confirmed.
Bigger question: Where would this country be without George?
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.
I prefer to be a loser with my integrity and ideals intact than a bought and sold winner.
(This is the reason Bill Clinton was elected twice.)
I have seen governor Ryan (R, Illinois) voted for twice. I have seen Bill Clinton voted for twice. Both men destroyed their party.
There is something to be said for integrity.
anti-Miers=Miers.
Big Government Conservatives have been the rule since 1964.
False Evidence Apperaing Real
The whining over the "unknown" is really starting to grate on my good nature.
That's a common brain-fart of the far Right because integrity ancompromise are not antithetical one to the pother.
Smaller government is a myth. Only Calvin Coolidge was able to actually shrink the size of the government, during his term.
Nobody-NOBODY- else in the 20th century did anything but grow the size of the government. Even the sainted Ronald Reagan.
The American people don't want smaller government. If they did, they'd put people in office who could actually shrink government and not worry at the next election.
What are YOU willing to give up so that government can shrink? Nobody wants to "give up what's comin' to me" so that programs could be reduced or eliminated.
The American people have what they want: a government that responds to lots of their needs for which they are willing to pay high taxes.
I fail to see how this article can claim that Republicans are no good at governing. Bush has been very successful until about 6 months ago. His alleged failure at Katrina was more a political failure (not getting in front of the cameras quickly) than anything else. He is not directly responsible for FEMA's incompetence, and he is not at all responsible for the Louisiana government and New Orleans failures. He fired the FEMA head and that is really all he can do.
None of this proves that Republicans "can't govern." I'd like to see them try to defend a nation against terrorism and bring democracy to the Middle East. They all lack any kind of vision, and of course won't allow for any mistakes.
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.