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."
Oh so now you want me to prove what I vividly remember, you slanderous liar! I know you for what you are. YOU ARE NOT TO BE TRUSTED. YOU LIE. YOU SLANDER.
I need some help and apologize for intruding on your valuable time. But I have just been slandered by a character assassin. Did I ever once predict a Bush defeat back in 2004? Do you friends, whos posts I've swapped with numerous times, recall me making that prediction? On the other side of the coin, did you happen to see my profile predicting a Bush, House, and Senate win prior to Kerry's nomination?
I do. However, there are more reasons to replace my rep than just this one.
If so, will you attempt to replace them in the primary?
Of course.
If we kick out the republicans who are corrupt, and do so in the primaries, will our replacement candidates be susceptible to attacks in the general election?
Yes, which is why we must never accept a mediocre candidate and we should never give money to the party itself.
Do you think the democrats will bother to boot any of THIER candidate out in primaries for involvement with Abramoff?
I would hope that Americans would shun the corrupt regardless of party.
We could actually run as the party which cares about corruption instead of just talking about it.
Leave party affiliation out of this. Let's be Americans first instead of politically manipulated lemmings.
For the most part those who received funds from Abramoff are giving that money to charities. They expect such gestures to absolve them with gullible voters. So it should be business as usual, the powers-that-be expect.
We'll never know, for if 65,000 "moderates" in OH had switched from Bush II to Kerry, Kerry would now be "in charge."
What if's, we can make them up all day.
To be clear, I have to hand it to Bush on the popular vote. But the electorial vote was extemely close. And I'm not in the mood of putting up with being called an idiot at the moment, after having already been slandered on this same page.
Sadly, you are probably correct.
We can only participate as individuals.
Then we will have our constructive agenda which will be totally opposite of the democrats and we will make sure that the voters see the striking difference between both agendas.
Yep.
While taking the Presidency for two terms, the Congress and the Senate, the GOP has retrogressed ideologically and sat on its hands.
Using a football analogy, these last 5 years have been like having 4th and goal and trying NOT to score.
I think the point of argument is whether or not GWB would have won without the Swift Boat Veterans; not whther the left admires the Swiftees.
I don't follow polling and "what pushes the electorates buttons," so won't render an opinion on that, but I personally supported the Switfees efforts, and personally refuse to give money to the RNC and GOP.
It wouldn't matter if President Bush won by 1 or 100 electoral votes, the same result would occur. The Democrats hate President Bush because they never got over the 2000 election. Anyone stuck on the statistics of the 2000 or 2004 elections needs to let go and move forward with life.
But our party is spending more and more money on social programs. And W has never used his veto pen.
The way the process works is that the burden of production of evidence falls to the injured party. Now it looks like "claim" and "conterclaim" as each of you has been accused to be a liar!
Oh I do so enjoy FR spats - this is one of the most entertaining places on the 'net! Almost as good as usenet.
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.