Posted on 04/03/2006 11:04:05 AM PDT by Conservative Coulter Fan
When the terrorists tried to blow up the WTC, with truck bombs, in '93, Clinton IGNORED it and later said that it was a NEW YORK CITY POLICE MATTER.
McLame IS on his second wife ( he left his first wife, after she saw him through the effects of the war, when he came back, for a younger, wealthy wife ), whose father is "mobbed up", to boot.
Maybe I am underestimating how much contempt the liberals have for america. I still think Gore would use it for political gain.
Gore wouldn't have done a damned thing. He and Clinton and the rest of their ilk, STILL think that terrorist attacks, on AMERICAN soil, are something which the LOCAL POLICE FORCE should take care of. If President Bush hadn't of reacted, the way he did to 9/11, NO Dems would think of doing what he DID do.
Heh. Here is what I wrote yesterday long before you posted http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1608373/posts?page=11#11):
"I'll just get this out so that the GWB loyalists don't have to:
- Without GWB we would be in danger of terrorism (partially true - but not the basis of the criticism in this article...no one has said that he is failing as commander in chief; even FDR can win a war)
- The Democrats would be worse on spending (arguably false, as if the D's were in charge, the GOP would become an effective opposition party)
- if you oppose GWB, you are a RINO using DU and DNC talking points (whatever...that's one of the points of the article ie that the vilification of those who dare question the king is poor procedure and in this White House has led to profoundly liberal policies)
Now...if the Bush loyalists have better arguments than those to SUBSTANTIVELY deal with this article and not just bitch and moan at the author and those who agree with them, then there are a lot of us here who are all ears.
(While we're at it, I wonder if the accounting guru's who have us the numbers for the prescription drugs benefit factored in all of the amnesty for illegals who will now officially become part of the Republican welfare state? Anyone think of that? Anyone?)"
As you can see, your completely predictible post falls into the third category, ie, that those who are critical are just a bunch of lefties.
Yawn.
When you are ready to vigorously, respectfully and intelligently debate his record as a conservative and the status of the movement under his stewardship, then come back. Plenty of freepers are eager for that discussion. If you just want to resort to the same old, tired and predictible name calling, well, it's all been said before.
What makes the far right actually believes they could win a majority of all voters in a general election when they cannot even win a majority of Republicans in a primary election. In Pennsylvania a Conservative Toomey could not get a majority of Republicans to nominate him. When the choice was your type of conservative against a very liberal Arlen Specter, the voters chose the liberal. However in that primary far right Conservatives did manage to let every PA. voter know how Conservative Senator Santorum was. As a result it looks like Santorum is going down in defeat this year. The Toomey supporters at every opportunity screamed... Toomey can win.. Look at Santorum. He is as conservative as Toomey and Santorum wins... Now it looks like Santorum can't win.
Conservatives , convinced they have majority support, have managed to re-elect Specter. In that effort they did what it takes to defeat Santorum.
if conservatives ever figure out they have to convince a lot more voters before they try running candidates they might someday have a chance at victory. But like all perennial losers, they rationalize their defeats. Their defeats are always someone else's fault.
Right wing conservatives need to grow up and take responsibility for their own failures.. If they ever do, they might be a factor.
I am always amused when far right Conservatives tell Republicans they are going to take their vote and go home. They always think the Republicans will come beging on bended knee. That never happens. The Republicans, of course, do the logical thing. The Republican candidate reasons he can never count on the far right. So to get to a majority the Republican Candidate move a bit more to the left to get a dependable majority. Right Wingers never ever figure that out.
Many things are predictable here and elsewhere. That has nothing to do with their truth or falsity. I read your post before posting mind and paid no attention to it.
Those who cannot see the big picture and the absolute necessity to keep the RATS from ever regaining the levers of power are either: good hearted but easily confused and manipulated people, out right Leftists who dedicate their lives to Bush hatred, or Psuedo-Conservatives who are perpetually pissed off and have never supported the President OR any other candidate capable of getting over 2% of the vote.
Bush has implemented conservative ideals beginning with the most important: Fighting those who would destroy the Nation, cutting taxes, implementing a rational foreign policy and reigning in an out of control Judicial system.
Policies which the Perpetually Pissed Off whine about are secondary and only become important when the three MAJOR policies have failed. Efforts by the Treason Media to deflect the awareness of the nation into Bush Hatred are directed at the most conservative president we have ever had (including Reagan.) Why would anyone claiming to be conservative join the mindless mob of Bush haters?
In this case it is like a sports fan furious because his team is only winning by three touchdowns with 10 minutes left in the game when he thinks they should be up by five so he demands the coach be fired and eleven players be recruited from the stands to play in place of the first team. Such people are and always will be politically irrelevant.
As for me, I maxed out financially for the Pres when he ran, and contributed substantially to his re-election. How much did you put in?
I also put in time for him, and other candidates to help him. I have never supported a third party, given money to one, or cast a vote for one.
With regards to the most conservative President ever, including Reagan, I only ask: how many new entitlements did Reagan create? In fact, how many new entitlements did Carter create? How about Clinton?
As you well know, the answer is zero.
It is only the most conservative President ever, as you say, who gets the distinction of creating the first entitlement since LBJ. If that's conservatism in your mind, then it's not me that is mixed up.
I have never criticized him on any aspect of foreign policy. I think he is great on that. But as I noted earlier, FDR was good there, also...and Truman had an aggressive Cold War policy. Those things are not enough to make one a conservative. I have also praised his appellatte court appointments, and was a fan of Alito way before GWB even knew who he was. These are all home runs (though the Miers thing made me worried).
I will continue to support the President when he is right. But not when he's wrong. And I'm certainly not going to accept as fact that he's a conservative. He's not. That doesn't make him a liberal. He's simply a man who is guided primarily by his sense of pragmatism and what he thinks is right at a given moment. For whatever merits that way of thinking has, it certainly isn't a conservative point of view.
As for the politics of all this, I may well be wrong and I surely hope so. But it appears to me that the chances of the GOP hanging on to the House are right now, at best, 50-50. Leadership starts at the top. If we lose it, it will be at least in part, the fault of the man who is the head of the party. (But, it won't be the end of the world...we'll become an effective opposition which might actually reign in socialism).
"if conservatives ever figure out they have to convince a lot more voters before they try running candidates they might someday have a chance at victory. But like all perennial losers, they rationalize their defeats. Their defeats are always someone else's fault...Right wing conservatives need to grow up and take responsibility for their own failures.. If they ever do, they might be a factor. "
Interesting you should say that, since you're trying to rationalize what you perceive as a 2006 with impending future GOP losses, by preemptively blaming them on the conservative wing of the GOP. Pot, meet kettle.
And as to your statement, "The far right believes that voters are ruled by politicans. The truth is voters rule politicians." I don't believe politicians 'rule' me. In fact, I'm voting to ensure they don't. If I believed the voters were ruled by politicians, why would I advocate voting at all?
No, while I don't believe politicians RULE the voters, I do believe politicians who have become entrenched start to think they do. And the only time that political class really pays attention at all to the right wing is when we're ready to depose them. We're ready to march right now, and that has you scared. You might lose the donations that have kept you fat and happy. You might lose the power broker status that has kept you in line for the lobbying job. Sure, sometimes you might pay attention to the voters' wishes, but you're only really concerned about their interests when their primary interest seems to be tossing you out on your ass.
Silliest is your implication that the difference between moderates and conservatives is that conservatives aren't electable, and conservatives don't work to convince the public, and conservatives can't do so. But I'd say that the public largely agrees with us already on the major issue right now--the borders--and what scares you is that YOU can't convince the public and YOU aren't electable even when you pretend otherwise. How many RINOs run as conservatives? Nearly all. But there are almost none that run and win as RINOs. And how many Republicans up for 2006 election are out there banging the drum for the amnesty, instead of calling people who oppose it racists and traitors to the GOP? Gosh, I can't even begin to count. /sarc
Dead on BUMP. And further evidence they'd rather lose is that they cling fiercely to unpopular, thirty-percent stands on immigration and ports while the GOP polls go down the tubes, sacrificing party credibility on national security for their own globo-goals. Meanwhile, when the polls are down on a conservative, they'll toss him like day-old bread.
I don't have any belief at all that the GOP will lose this fall. None. I may have some doubts that the GOP will retain the majorities it holds. But the elections are months away, never mind the gloom-and-doom neocons here trying to distance themselves from conservatives early in case it IS a bad year. And 2006 is not a year for a national referendum, but a district-by-district election. The question is whether or not this fall will be a nationalized referendum on illegals in those districts. If it is generally the case, the GOP will STILL win handily, because its members are perfectly capable of patriotism. On the other hand, the Rats cannot even mouth America-first politics without pissing off their LaRaza bloc.
I agree that the GOP needs to be a party with principles, but I don't believe this election will decide them. It is far too fractured a nation to assume that with each district voting on a different person that we will come away with such a message for the GOP overall.
2008, however, will put a face on the GOP. And it will either be the face of Vincente Fox, or it'll be worth voting for.
"Is there a party platform or isn't there? Should that mean anything? That's supposed to represent principle. Unfortunately, too many liberals in the party ignore it. A party - to BE a party - has to have a platform - a base set of principles that define what it stands for. Without that, it's just a name."
It's just a name. There hasn't been a confining Republican platform besides 'vote for the GOP leadership' since Bush 1. We have finally gotten to high-schoolish 'vote for me and we'll have a good prom!' at the national political level, at least insofar as political parties are concerned. The question is whether the Reagan influence has stuck or will slide off. I'm betting this election it slides but doesn't fracture the GOP, but next election the gloves come off, and that will be the end of the conservative/globobusiness GOP alliance. But we'll see.
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.