Posted on 01/05/2006 6:18:00 AM PST by Theodore R.
Judgment day for Republicans
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted: January 5, 2006 1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
This year marks the 12th anniversary of the "Republican Revolution."
It will also herald a judgment day for the GOP.
Republicans in Congress have several factors working against them:
Despite having control, at least in theory, of all three branches of the federal government since 2001, it is difficult to perceive any significant positive change of course for the nation. Spending is way up – even if you don't consider the expenses of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nearly five years after America was the target of a devastating, unthinkable terrorist attack, the borders remain unsecured.
A major scandal that touches the president and many members of Congress – including the Republican leadership – is unfolding in Washington. Though lobbyist Jack Abramoff bought favors from both Democrats and Republicans, it is clear that, when the smoke clears, the party in power will pay a much higher political price.
According to a new poll, about half of Americans believe – correctly – that most members of Congress are corrupt.
These factors, and others, lead me to believe Republicans will be punished badly in this year's mid-term elections – worse than anyone now imagines.
Somehow Republicans have managed to squander every advantage they had a dozen years ago as "mavericks" who were going to make government more accountable to the people, less corrupt, responsive to the rule of law, more moral.
It hasn't happened. That's obvious to one and all – even the most hopeful of us. The Republican Party is clearly part of the problem. A significant portion of the GOP base now recognizes, rightly, that no fundamental change in the direction of the country will occur because of the election of Republicans to office – even if they occupied every single seat in the House, Senate, Supreme Court and the White House.
"Republican" no longer connotes smaller government, more freedom, less intrusion in our personal lives and a more vibrant economy as it did after eight years of Ronald Reagan. "Republican" today more likely connotes – even for those who tend to vote for the party – incompetence, corruption, compromise, betrayal.
None of this, of course, is to excuse or rationalize the Democratic Party as a viable alternative. That would be like rejecting the frying pan for the fire.
But, nevertheless, think what will happen on Election Day when 2 to 3 percent of the previously most passionate "Republicans" stay home. Think of what it will mean when 20 to 30 percent of the grass-roots activists Republicans have counted on to work for them don't show up this year.
That's what I expect to happen in 2006.
I expect the Democrats to make tremendous gains in the House and Senate by default – simply because the Republicans have blown it over the last 12 years.
They have squandered the greatest historic opportunity to rein in unconstitutional government in Washington since the War Between the States.
They may be finished for another generation as a majority party. If it doesn't happen in 2006, it will surely happen in 2008, because the party leadership shows no signs of "getting it." They have put personality above principle – and there is no chance of going back.
There are no Ronald Reagans waiting in the wings. Instead, the leading candidates for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008 are Sen. John McCain and Rudy Giuliani. Neither holds a candle to the legacy and values of Reagan.
But there is a silver lining under this dark cloud.
Maybe Americans will understand there is no national salvation to be found in one political party or the other. Maybe they will begin to understand that we are not supposed to be a people ruled by elitists in Washington. Maybe we will start acting like the self-governing people we are supposed to be. Maybe we will start taking charge of our own lives again instead of looking to Washington to solve our problems.
Maybe 2006 will be the year we begin "Taking America Back."
Then I guess we'll be cancelling each other out. :)
I totally agree with you. Those two, but especially the perscription drug plan...Why President Bush Why? You know I truly believe that he thinks America has this huge money machine. It might have to do with the fact that he never had to worry about money throughout his life and doesn't fully appreciate the need for fiscal restrait at times.
For the rest of you, I am not criticizing the President just making a personal opinion!!!!
I suppose. Lots of people will settle for more of the same old corruption.
Thanks :)
Then I guess we'll be cancelling each other out. :)
You're voting Green?
OK, I apologize for you.
I'll be voting Republican. I could never vote Libertarian - what with their party's support for drug legalization and abortion.
I consider supporting drug legalization and abortion to be corrupt, so there you go. Apparently, corruption is in the eye of the beholder.
Scroll down and click on the link that says "Show more results".
Look at the URL. It should say something like: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/user-posts?id=45020;more=35394574
That number after "more=" is a sort of date. If you gradually reduce it, you will get to earlier and earlier posts. If you increase it, you go forward in time. It's a hit-or-miss. I really wish FR had a way to search the dates more precisely, but I remember the old days of having to close tags, so I can't complain.
I wish I knew how to decode the expression after more=, but I don't.
Thanks again. I will try it.
Sick to death of the Bush family.
The government is rotten with corruption as it is. We don't need any dynasties.
i agree...they have to come out swinging.
A case could easily be made that our Government is in fact an exact reflection of the people. Perhaps that is our real problem"
if that is the case, then yes, we do need a Revolution.
Yeah, I got that. My point was running for senate is probably a great plan because I don't think running for President will work out for him, at least not before 2012.
Being distinguished with a record than can NEVER be bettered.
Implemented a new expectation relating to "the tone" of government.
Eliminated substantial difference of opinion, most successful at forging compromise solutions.
Two words: Gag me.
I know, it was in the article posted. I wouldn't say he is a shoo-in, but given a choice over Clinton family values as opposed to Bush family values, what would you pick?
The presidency is far more important. Mr. Bush has got what it takes to do the job and has a whole family familiar with it. Governors are much more likely to win the presidential election, senators almost never do.
The presidency is far more important. Mr. Bush has got what it takes to do the job and has a whole family familiar with it. Governors are much more likely to win the presidential election, senators never do.
I really don't want anyone from the senate in the White House.
Dynasty shineasty, that is a bull crap argument. I'd rather have three bushes for a hedge than two Clintongs any day... I'd really like to have Dick Cheney, but he is too aged and his health is a concern...
I really hope he will run for Florida Senator, it will be a shocking thing for the democrats and I think he has 80% chance of winning against Bill Nelson.
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.