Posted on 05/03/2006 4:49:58 PM PDT by Logic Times
The Left’s hatred of George W. Bush has no rival...
...or so it once seemed. But not so fast. There is a new breed of GWB hater: the Betrayed Conservative, a creature of surprisingly intense emotions for a member of the rational Right. The Betrayed Conservative is good news and bad news for the conservative movement. The good news is that there are vocal, passionate conservatives out there – large numbers of them – unwilling to accept anything less than sound conservative policy out of Washington. They are angry and active and have imposed some measure of discipline on that exasperating collection of spineless Republicans in the nation’s capital. At the drop of a bad Supreme Court nominee or immigration bill, the Betrayed Conservative explodes with the sort of colorful epithets that would make Al Franken blush. And make no mistake, Bush is their whipping boy, and they rarely stop at forty lashes.
The bad news is that Betrayed Conservatives are a political disaster. Betrayal involves a breach of confidence, but in the history of American conservative politics there has never been any confidence to breach, never been a reliable tradition of conservative policy in Washington implemented by principled public servants. Such animals have rarely walked the halls of the Capitol Building, and when they appear, they are hunted down by both the rabid Left and vacillating Right with the viciousness of ritual murder. Such creatures of principle – Newt Gingrich for example – threaten all pure politicians.
(graphics in the article - follow link)
(Excerpt) Read more at logictimes.com ...
Its only one issue that has no long term consequences to the wolves, win or lose.
Even if you were to introduce 9 or 10 other issues.
But to the pig... it means everything, regardless of the other issues.
So, in the name of conservatism, we must accept defeat, we must fall back, to retain any semblence of authority.
We draw the line, and it's crossed, so we fall back.. all in the name of the party and conservatism because the alternative is too horrible to contemplate.
So tell us please, when the line is moved back to where the dims want it to be, will it be okay to rebel? Or do we hold the line in the name of conserivatism?
Tell us please, how to maintain our principals, and control of government, and disipline our elected representatives at the same time?
Those is DC know the score, and they know that when push comes to shove' they're really the ones doing the pushing and shoving.
The slowing boiling pot of water and the frog works whether it the dims or the republicans in power.
The game is afoot, but it's not the game WE think it is.
Wake up dude! Our country, the one we think we have, is in peril, and BOTH sides of the aisle are driving us to its destruction.
We've agree on that for some time now. One of us wasn't paying attention. LOL I can't explain the Senate bill nor the President's direction on this. I don't feel we need NEW laws, or a NEW immigration policy. What we need is for the policy (laws) we already have to be enforced. I do not agree with President Bush's stance on this issue. But as I've been trying to point out on this thread, I don't think it behooves us to jump ship (so to speak) on the Republican party. I don't believe for one minute that the Dems would do any better. And in other issues facing our country, I'm quite sure we'd be far worse off than we are now if the Dems were in control. That is such a, "well, no duh!" statement, I can't believe I'm even having to say that to a FRiend. ;)
I was calm and collected in 86, when we were promised strict enforcement in exchange for amnesty.
Here we are, 20 years and 20 million illegals later, our president and congress are making the same hollow promises and expecting us to lick it up - again.
It is entirely rational for anyone who cares about this issue to be enraged.
Anyone who claims to care and isn't is either a)lying, or b)insane.
>So we have to accept liberals just because they have a "R" behind their name?
No. We work, and we work, and we keep working to make the "R" party more conservative. We vote in primaries. We write to our representatives often. We speak up when it counts. And for the good of the United States of America, we never give up. Never, never, never!
It is not the duty of the American people to vote for a political party. It is the duty of the political party to represent the will of the people. If the GOP decided not to represent the will of the majority of its party, then it is the GOP's fault and only the GOP's fault if they lose an election.
There is more then one issue...it's the spending stupid
not you Uncle.
http://www.cbot.com/cbot/pub/page/0,,1391+chart,00.html?symb=ZB&month=M&year=06&period=&study=&study0=&study1=&study2=&study3=&bartype=&bardensity=
And it will continue to happen, because, apparently by your reasoning, we have to keep moving left to get to the center.
Of course the left is still trying to move things further left of center so the center keeps moving - LEFT!
Please tell us where we draw the line? Please tell us when and how we can displine those who espouse conservative ideals when running for office, yet move left once they get there?
Are we going to be forever stuck on stupid with the game we think we are playing, but the ones we think we control are writing the rules?
When is enough, enough!!
And what recourse do we still have, if any?
I think extremist is more accurate than purist. Most ideologies can be carried to an absurd extreme.
The very definition of conservative implies moderation and caution. I think some people in their effort to "out-conservative" the other guy lose sight of the fact that extreme and conservative are somewhat contradictory terms.
I understand. I've been enraged on this issue as well. I don't know anyone in my family (except for my lib sis), who isn't upset about border security and the illegal alien problems. Heck, I've ranted and raved with the best of them over it.
That being said, I will never believe that the Democrats would do any better on this issue, and I believe the Dems are one of the worst enemies we have in this country.
You've got to present a credible threat to those you want to motivate.
Let's say someone is behind on their car payments. You call them up and they give you a song and dance and promise to pay, but don't. You call again and they give you a sob story and promise to pay, but don't. You call again and tell them that if they don't pay you'll have to repo their car. They ask who's going to pay if you take their car, and think they have you in a bind.
At that point you send a tow truck out and drag that heap away. If you don't, word will spread and more people simply won't pay. We're at that point with our leadership on this issue. They've put us off and faked us out. Now there are 20 million illegals squatting on our lands.
If we don't repo their offices, we're out of business as a Republic.
And did you vote in the primaries? Is your (R) incumbent (assuming you have one) a RINO? Was there an alternative, or did you go with what you knew?
My (R) incumbent senator up for election this November is a RINO: DICK - L.O.S.T. Treaty front man - Lugar. He had NO, zero, zip, nada, (R) opponents?
Now what?
I appreciate the fact that you tried to find an answer to my question. I have been unsuccessful in finding the answer as well.
Yes, the President made a comment about not wanting vilantes, and that made perfect sense to me. But for folks to now take that word and use it against him everytime this issue is discussed.....well, I don't think that is fair, nor helpful. You sound as if you believe that just because our President cautioned against vigilantes, he was saying that the Minutemen would be worse than "the bad guys". I disagree with that assessment.
You say he gave the media a "one-word club" to beat the Minutement with. IMO, the media will always find their one-word wonder to use against us. It's bad enough that the MSM convinced Dems that this one-word was a "club", but it's more disturbing that members of his own "base" would believe it.
God bless the Minutemen. They have already done more to bring this issue to the public arena than anything that has been done for years. I'm also proud of the fact that they have been ever so careful about how they organized this effort and have proven that they aren't a bunch of vigilantes. They are Americans trying to protect our country and deserve our support and respect.
The only offices you will "REPO" with this strategy are conservative seats. The so-called RINO's will sail to re-election. By the time we have another chance at correcting the problem in 2008 the boomers will be retiring by the millions and they are not about to listen to small government conservatives that tell them their Social Security benefits have to be cut. If you think AARP is militant now you haven't seen anything yet. With the demographics of this country I can't believe than anyone on this forum is delusional enough to believe that this nation is just thirsting for small government when the reality every single day says just the opposite.
Please explain the analogy. I don't see the nexus between your analogy and this topic.
Dang. My prediction was off.
I said just today that the hacks and the RINOs would blame conservatives for their failures (caused by the abandonment of the conservative agenda) AFTER the election.
But they've started already!
Dang! And here I thought FR was a conservative website all along!
Now THERE'S an expert on what is best for conservatism!
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.