GUESS WHO????
or...
Posted on 12/03/2005 6:27:44 AM PST by governsleastgovernsbest
By Tony Snow
Dec 3, 2005
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- When Democrats gibber about Republicans' writhing in a culture of corruption, they're on to something -- but not what they think. The Republican Party in Washington is in trouble not because it's overrun by crooks, but because it's packed with cowards -- and has degenerated into a caricature of the party that swept to power 11 years ago promising to take on the federal bureaucracy and liberate the creative genius of American society.
The collapse stems from the simplest and most natural of causes, the survival instinct. Within months of seizing power in 1995, Republicans began backing away from Big Ideas, from tort reform to the necessary overhaul of the Social Security system. They started consulting pollsters to assay "correct" issues and positions. They played it safe -- or so they thought.
Over time, imagination-grabbing ideas melted away. Gone was the Reaganite breadth of vision, and in its place stood the musty idol of Incumbency. Republicans drew the wrong morals from the decline and fall of Newt Gingrich. They thought his boldness got him in trouble, and chose to crib plays from the Bill Clinton playbook -- tacking left, at least oratorically, so as to appease, rather than confront, their critics.
Hence, George W. Bush's "compassionate conservatism" -- a slogan that exceeded skeptics' worst expectations. That phrase, aimed at reassuring suburban white moms and queasy left-wing Republicans, became a white flag on the core issue of government size and might. Bush insiders even began boasting about "big government" conservatism -- oblivious to the fact that big government does not conserve or preserve; it crushes and digests, devouring institutions that challenge its supremacy.
Leaders in the Party of Lincoln stopped talking about people, and started talking about programs and expenditures. They justified head-snapping shifts in policy by claiming the need to take issues "off the table." The multi-trillion dollar Medicare "reform" is a case in point. It was designed less to save a system than to deny Democrats a talking point. Yet, the only things Republicans really took off the table were their moral authority and the loyalty of their partisans.
This helps explain one of the great ironies of the age. We live in what ought to be an era of Republican triumphalism. The president's one reliable bit of domestic-policy conservatism, his tax-cut agenda, has succeeded brilliantly. The most recent Commerce Department figures peg the third quarter economic growth rate at a sizzling 4.3 percent -- despite the ravages of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and the oil shocks that followed.
Republicans have won the battle over whether centralized bureaucracies can eradicate poverty, or perform social services more efficiently than private or volunteer operations. Throughout the country, the same patterns appear: Where elected officials govern with a light touch and without imposing onerous tax and regulatory burdens, prosperity flourishes -- and people flock to the scene. "progressive" states, on the other hand, are becoming empty husks, with more rigid class distinctions than in any other section of the country.
The GOP also wins big on values. Virtually every time the ACLU files a lawsuit, Democrats lose supporters. Despite these advantages, however, the GOP founders. Its Washington potentates simply refuse to embrace the party's ideals or successes (including the war). They have forgotten the most important rule of political survival: If you want to remain an incumbent for long, you don't jettison your principles. You act on them.
When House Speaker Denny Hastert broke arms to secure votes for a pork-packed highway bill, calling the legislation a "jobs bill," it was an embarrassment. When the president signed a campaign-finance bill he called unconstitutional, he seemed to lack not only conviction, but vision.
Fortunately, irate constituents roused some conservatives from their dogmatic slumbers. Young Republicans rebelled against the apostasy of their elders, especially in the matter of the federal budget, and state parties seized the initiative on everything from spending limitations to school choice.
Capitol Hill Republicans now admit their Democratic colleagues don't want peace -- they want the Alamo. So the GOP is fighting back. Hastert approved calling the bluff of anti-victory Democrats last week by demanding a floor vote on the idea of vamoosing Iraq immediately. He scored another triumph this week by restoring the good name of the National Christmas Tree.
Who knows, he may even figure out the Paradox of Incumbency. Politicians who run just to protect incumbency may save their seats, but only by destroying their party's heart and soul. If you really want to build lasting power in politics, you need to forget about mere incumbency -- and remember the principles that got you elected in the first place.
LOL. That works. LOL.
Nonsense. Reminds me of throwing a tantrum, picking up my marbles and going home. I certainly won't be following this approach because it's immature. An adult works to change the situation and influence their errant congressman through letters, calls, personal face to face etc. as well as thoughtful choosing of who gets campaign contributions. Those who don't receive contributions need to be told precisley why.
But to vote solidly against all R's is throwing the baby out with the bath water and a very good way to get RATS in office. And to not vote at all slaps the faces of those who went before us and struggled and died so we COULD vote and I won't besmirch their sacrifices in that way.
No, really, is that you????
Get a grip. Only a rabid zealot would not choose to choose his battles. Since when have you voted for the Perfect Candidate for anything? Some things are more important than others. Sometimes all things are important, but you have to support the guy who supports what's most important, even if you don't agree with EVERYTHING they do. It's called 'prioritizing'.
I LOVE YOUR TAG LINE!
LOL!!
YUP!!!
LOL!!!
about 10 years ago-- but YES!
LOL!
I guess it is obvious by now... I have no dignity!
LOL!
Nonsense. You have a sense of fun and are not too full of yourself to show it. John Kerry is quite taken with his "dignity" and we don't need any more of that kind.
YARG!
Kerry........
For someone with so much "dignity" he sure makes an arse of himself, and that wife of his... the comedic value of those two is PRICELESSS!
I guess it just depends on how long you like being betrayed. For me, a decade is long enough. We don't live forever. Some massive conservatism is needed and needed now.
I should post those pics for Mark on Monday night.....
I agree with you.
If I were back in November 2000 and knew then what was going to happen (but could not alter events-- I know, hypotheticals are bad), I would vote for W all over again and again in 2004
AMEN!
TRUE CONSERVATISM!
AMEN!
HEY THERE!
AMEN TO THAT!
I did vote for W..... but dang... the RINO's are driving me insane!
INSANE! And there was never any inkling of insanity within me BEFORE these elections.... not one shred....
'Like Reagan, you win with ideas...you win by fighting for your ideas...not "persuading"'
Do you not see the contradiction here? "Winning with ideas" IS persuasion! "Fighting" for your ideas by engaging in the argument, rather than foaming at the mouth, or literally fighting your "enemies"- IS persuasion. Disengagement would be fatal- TO THE REPUBLICANS; disengagement is what the guy above was counseling when he said he wasn't going to vote anymore.
Not voting in the Rep primaries is counterproductive; it NARROWS the field and gives the incumbent the advantage. Jeesh. It's like the Suni's (sp?)counseling the same thing in Iraq! We should know better. In fact, the US is teaching the Iraqi's the method of "persuasion" rather than hammering their foes. Politics ... the art of the possible.
I do not like RINOs, but do we really think that W is in the same category as Chaffee, Snowe, Collins, and McCain?
W campaigned on compassionate conservatism. He has followed up on items he campaigned on in 2000. He has advised Congress to spend less, yet they spend more.
Now it would be great if Congress had a spine and enforced spending discipline. It would also be great if there were no need for a War on Terror so that the President's attention were not diverted and he would feel as though he would be at the same risk his father was to Leon Panetta when Congress shut the government down because the Democrats were salivating for tax hikes.
But this is not the world we live in.
What I can point out is that this President did grow the economy by introducing tax cuts, which would be fabulous with responsible spending, but Congress, not President Bush, gave us the pork in the highway bill.
We love small government. So why is it that we do not hold Congress responsible? The higher we point the blame, the less responsible Congress becomes.
:-) How lovely! I have consumed vast quantities of chocolate already today (Lake Champlain chocolates are fantastic!) and yet this is a welcome refreshment! Thank you :-)
Ping!
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.