Posted on 05/11/2006 12:31:45 AM PDT by FairOpinion
The Republicans talk about cutting spending, but they increase it--a lot. They stand for making government smaller, but they keep making it bigger. They say they're concerned about our borders, but they're not securing them. And they seem to think we're slobs for worrying. Republicans used to be sober and tough about foreign policy, but now they're sort of romantic and full of emotionalism. They talk about cutting taxes, and they have, but the cuts are provisional, temporary. Beyond that, there's something creepy about increasing spending so much and not paying the price right away but instead rolling it over and on to our kids, and their kids.
So, the normal voter might think, maybe the Democrats. But Democrats are big spenders, Democrats are big government, Democrats will roll the cost onto our kids, and on foreign affairs they're--what? Cynical? Confused? In a constant daily cringe about how their own base will portray them? All of the above.
Where does such a voter go, and what does such a voter do? It is odd to live in the age of options, when everyone's exhausted by choice, and feel your options for securing political progress are so limited. One party has beliefs it doesn't act on. The other doesn't seem to have beliefs, only impulses.
What's a voter to do? Maybe stay home, have the neighbors over for some barbecue, and then answer the phone when a pollster calls asking for a few minutes to answer some questions. When they get to the part about whether America is on the right track or the wrong track, boy, the voter knows the answer.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
Sadly, Reagan is no longer the President. He's not the one in charge now. It's not about Reagan. It's about the people who are supposed to be leading us right now and instead are caving to opinion polls, focus groups and political sensitivities. They have failed us to this point. It's not too late if they will listen and return to the conservative principles on which the Republican Party is supposedly based.
The GOP has been coasting on the "We're better than the other guys". The problem is the worse the Democrats get, the worse the Republicans get because they can afford to.
Whenever anyone in the GOP tries to scare the base with "look what will happen if they get in power!", the base is responding "Yup. Same old, same old."
The GOP should be the ones running scared, not the base who all know S.S.D.D. when they see it.
Perfect. No national election has been held on immigration. So, no promises were made.
I really don't think this will do any good. We'll just go back to square one and start over *hoping* for a better result which may or may not happen. In the meantime, Democrats have been taught their political power is not guaranteed and will know better how to defend it. I tend to worry more about 2008. We need a Republican in the Whitehouse. Imagine Hillary Clinton as POTUS. How many supreme court justices are just hanging on waiting for Dem in the Whitehouse so they can retire and be replaced by liberal justices for the next 30 years?
They are not getting the message right now. They just won't feel the effects of that until November.
I don't think Peggy is suggesting or advocating that. I think she's warning that it's about to happen unless something radically changes between now and November.
You either vote for the best candidate or, by not voting at all, you effectively divide your vote among all candidates. Whether anyone 'earns' your vote is completely irrelevant. That's just the way it is. It's your decision. You can give your vote fully to who you feel would be the best single candidate or distribute that vote equally among all candidates. Just don't lie to yourself about what you are doing.
They've gotten a couple of temporary tax cuts, a couple of decent judges appointed, and kept most of the terrorists (that we know of) out of the country.
In the meantime, we have the inaptly named Department of Homeland Security. Whether that is a good department or not the name is too reminiscent of the Third Reich.
We have the TSA. Now there's a laugh.
We are no safer now than we were before 9/11. We have government, unionized, employees that have more power than the local police. Some are polite but many are not.
We have spending skyrocketing, whether for the war in Iraq or not, and we're not paying for it, we're putting the payment off until sometime or the other.
We have the Kelo decision, plus other things, that are taking away our property rights.
We have illegal immigration waiting in the wings. Waiting to take this country to the verge, or over, of bloodshed in the streets and very few in either party look to be trying to stem the flow.
The Rs have done some good things and some bad things but they haven't "earned" my vote.
Blasphemy! I declare a fatwa on you for insulting the Prophet. :)
I'm not saying one should be ignorant of history -- but it is the understanding of it that leads one NOT to repeat it -- as though it were some inevitable truism that justifies and legitimizes its repetition. Otherwise, one is doomed to repeat the past because one thinks there is no other way to be. That is precisely why dysfunctional organizations like to say, "That's how we've always done it," and go on repeating it.
The only possibility for a breakthrough, is being aware of that pattern, and not making a big fuss about all the problems it causes and then repeating them once more, but going ahead and acting as though there were no dysfunctional tradition to maintain and uphold.
One of the worst dysfunctions is telling somebody else what they ought to do -- as though that were the only prescription for success. What matters is what one does beyond that. Whining and complaining editorial writers and complainers are a penny a dozen -- and never solve anything, and that is the vicious cycle we need to avoid repeating.
We can't just elect 'our side' then sit back and think everything will be peachy. It takes constant pounding on them to do the right thing. I've become a bit more cynical but also a bit more realistic. It's an unending war to prevent the nation from going down the tubes. But, if we don't fight, we don't deserve for it not to. I imagine it's like fighting to take a hill. You don't give up ground you've taken in the hope of taking it again in the future. (At least not without a very good reason and fairly strong certainty of taking it back.)
Please don't say you are actually surprised that politician often doesn't do what he says he's going to do.
I never thought I'd see the day when I began to wonder if "W" stands for "Weenie," but here I am., .....wondering.
It's so depressing because we've got to watch Frist and the Sissies in the Senate, and they are even bigger, ...er, worse weenies.
I've always viewed the 3rd party thing as a throw-away spoiler vote, but is sure is hard to get enthused by the "leadership" of the GOP.
OK. Let's put that to the test. I want you to list for me a single Congressmen who falls into that category. In the last individual Senatorial Approval ratings list I could find...
the man with the lowest rating still achieved a 36% approval rating (dem out of New Jersey). John McCain is probably the biggest RINO out there. Do you know what his approval rating among his constituents is? Currently 62%.
What you need to realize is that Congressmen serve their constituents first. They serve the people that can vote for them. If you refuse to vote (this is hypothetical mind you) in 2006 because you don't like what John McCain is doing, that doesn't hurt John McCain. He doesn't need your vote anyway. But it does hurt the man who represents you. Congressional politics are local. Sitting them out to make a point is a bit like burning down your own neighborhood. And congressmen are responding to their constituents. It just so happens, that 80% of their constituents aren't telling them what you think they are telling them.
As for illegals, Clinton was far more serious than Bush on enforcing the law on immigration (prosecutions are down 90%), so I doubt we would get any more illegals with the Dems yakking instead of the GOP yakking.,
The GOP is not willing to fight hard for judges. Alito and Roberts were nice, but Frist and the Sissies aren't going to fight for more than a handful of lower-level judgeships, and without seriousness at that level, nothing matters much in the end anyway.
As for the "terrorist rights," the Dems love to play politics. If they get in office, they'll grow up (at least a little) on this one, so things will get done (actual bipartisanship, if only on one issue).
Vote for a third party, then. At least vote. This is addressed to anyone considering just staying home. This may not include you.
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.