Posted on 05/07/2006 2:27:02 PM PDT by WaterDragon
The Republican Party is uneasy as it shambles toward the crucial 2006 congressional elections. Many of its supporters claim to feel demoralized, if not seduced and abandoned, by the conservative president they thought they elected in 2004. With President Bush's Nixonian economic policies and unwillingness to curtail federal spending, and the Republican faithful as confused as everyone else about the Iraq War, this is a good time to gain some political perspective from two veteran architects of the Reagan Revolution.
In the midst of another difficult political predicament, Germany's Iron Chancellor, Otto von Bismarck, once said he had finally found two experts who clearly understood the problem. Unfortunately, they disagreed with one another on the solution. So do Bruce Bartlett and Kevin Phillips. But with the GOP political-direction-finder whirling like a compass needle in a magnetic storm, perhaps they can at least help illustrate its different aspects.
(Excerpt) Read more at philly.com ...
Maybe not, but "shamble" is a legit verb, and they used it appropriately.
sham·ble Pronunciation Key (shmbl)
intr.v. sham·bled, sham·bling, sham·bles
To walk in an awkward, lazy, or unsteady manner, shuffling the feet.
Yep - it's all the Republicans fault we haven't drilled in Anwar - (we wont remember that the pubbies house and Senate did vote it in when Clinton was Pres nd he VETOED it) or that the demRats have - for decades - blocked drilling anywhere, will allow no new refineries or expanding old ones, Clinton blocked gas wells in Utah, Kennedy and jKerry are blocking wind power in a section off Cape Cod that is perfect for it - but, on a clear day, they might be able to see from their fancy digs, no new nuclear plants - - yep all the republicans fault.
I'm sure you're not a smoker either - I know you'd be too upset paying $6.-7.00 for a pack. Nor would be caught dead spending 5 bucks for a lat-tey! Altho' I don't hear you complaining about those prices...
If you're fortunate enough to find someone to align with your perspectives and ideologies 100% then you ought to marry them. I'll say this for sure though: I would rather squash every last "terrorist" who might be here enjoying the magnificence of the USA then worry about them cleaning sand out of their shorts and eating camel dung soup every day back in their third world hellhole. Our government should not be in the business of "democratizing" the rest of the world when we're losing our own here at home. If the French want to be overrun by the Islamofascists that's their problem. Our government is letting it happen here to us and we're bickering about whether or not President Bush is a conservative or a NeoCon! What's relevant is that the GOP has sold out and you're either unwilling or unable to acknowledge it.
Oh, and to be to the point of your question: If being "for" the war on terror means allowing our soldiers to be blown to smithereens by roadside bombs and taking bullets for an ungrateful people while we wait for them to get the stones to run their own country then yes, I would say I'm opposed to it. I believe it was General Patton who said, "You don't win a war by dying for your country. You win by making the other bastard die for his country." We should take the necessary steps to end the "war" once and for all - and we have the technology to do it and do it now without further loss of American lives in the pursuit of foreign democracy in a place where they apparently don't want it.
'Tis a rare occasion that I learn a new word. Guess I'll have to shamble off this point.
Don't take it hard... I've got a pretty good vocabulary and even so, I took the safe way out and looked it up before committing myself to a correction-post. I suspect it's pretty obscure these days.
I found your post of the definition interesting, especially the part about it once meaning a meat-market. Sort of describes the Dem party better than the Republican these days, if you know what I mean...
We can't. We wouldn't be there if the Constipation Party was in charge. We wouldn't be ANYWHERE if the CP was in charge.
In the war on terror, we can't be hamstrung by an isolationist policy fostered by an 18th century reading of the Constitution.
let the rats in again - and the first thing they do is dump the electoral vote - which will deep six the votes of the red states - and the blue big city lib/socialists will have finally taken over this country - and you can then kiss this country goodbye
On the other hand RINOS are very very happy..
yep - it does stink in here tonight
so you claim you're not a DU troll? Funny - never heard anyone but the DU'ers use the term "Bush-bots" - Freudian slip?
"We wouldn't be ANYWHERE if the CP was in charge."
I think that's an unwarranted and unfair assertion.
I am an isolationist but I really believe in America first for Americans. By that I mean that we ought to lead by example. People of other nations see what we have and don't want to partake of it but want to take it away. That's the globalist/socialist/communist ideology. Supposed equality for everyone with a small ruling class. I don't want to live that way.
I'm now beginning to see that where we disagree is interpretation of the Constitution. I believe in a strict and originalist perspective - as I do with the Bible as an even more important matter. I earnestly believe that with the resources and manpower in this country we can have anything and do everything we want to do without help from anyone else. I also believe that "reading into" the intentions of the Founding Fathers has brought on curses like abortion, et. al. I believe in progress but not at the expense of personal liberty. I suppose it's all about one's perspective. As far as being hamstrung we've brought that on ourselves. You go in to battle and do what needs to be done until the desired result is achieved. We have all this amazing military technology and they have what amounts to peashooters and yet our troops are dying.
Also, I'll take an 18th Century interpretation of the Constitution over the abolition of the 2nd Amendment and the vulgar abuse of the "eminent domain" seen under the watch of this administration. You want your guns and property taken from you with no recourse and no just cause be my guest - even though the precepts of the Constitution guard against it.
By the way, I find it interesting that you've seen fit to reply to my responses with constant insults to my belief in the CP. That's politics as usual and one of the reasons that the GOP is in trouble. They'll sit there with all their bluster and point out Democrat shortfalls but do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to fix the problems.
What it boils down to for me is that I really despise centrist policy. You see, at least you know where a liberal stands but with a "centrist" it changes like a chameleon. This is what's riled me up with the GOP most of all. Weak policy, both domestic and foreign, and no backbone to stand up for what's morally right.
If you really believe that I feel sorry for you.
I tend to agree with you. This message board is filled with bushbots and apologists. Bush has been a disapointment to me. He has been bad on spending, has pushed huge new entitlements, and has been a disaster on the borders. A lot of people who spent a lot of time and money getting Republican control of the congress and the White House are pissed off at the type of big goverment faux "conservatism" we've got for our efforts. We've got nothing more than a less bad version of the Democrats in power. The only reason I voted for Bush in 2004 is because Kerry would have been an unmitigated disaster for the country and as bad a job as those in power have done, the Dems are worse. Its hard to keep getting excited about voting for the lesser of two evils. A lot of us are fed up and I hope the Republican elite begin to pay attention to the base and to Conservative values. If they don't they will eventually pay the price.
Thanks for this ENCOURAGING reminder; seriously. You're exactly right. I just forgot how Reagan was labeled a traitor to the Conservative cause on more than one occasion.
As far as Lincoln, I'll take your word for it; I was just a little boy during his Presidency. (Chuckle.)
i would certainly say that idealogues and people who are dogmatic are often unhappy
Commodity prices go in waves, not straight up or down.
There is a tsunami of oil supply coming in the next 2-3 years. Drillers have been scrambling for a year in response to the high price incentive.
The free market works even in oil.
What doesn't work, is the Fed's proclivity to debase our currency (down 96% since 1913) which appears to make commodities go up when in reality the long term trend for most commodities is down.
BUMP
The old media has purposefully and methodically done the job of "trashing" Bush and creating most of these destructive rifts between some "Republicans" and this administration.
And, isn't it odd, that some here still proclaim that the old media is dying and irrelevant. LOL.
No, the old media is breathing well. They're numbers are going down but they just lie more and more blatantly, and the uninformed voters eventually absorb their repeated distortions.
****
The socialist/marxist/liberal media is the most destructive, relentless, and ruthless enemy of this Republic.
Finally got to you, huh? Good--and needed--diatribe. We saw what happened when supporters revolt during the Meir fiasco: things change. But when supporters DON'T revolt, they are just as responsible for the impending losses to Democrats as Bush is. It's not the ones who object, but the Dear Leader worshipping enablers, who are going to be responsible for any losses.
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.