Posted on 05/17/2006 10:22:24 PM PDT by Aussie Dasher
"The simple fact is, conservatives are NOT the majority in power right now. Bush was always more moderate than conservative, and the Senate is presently controlled by a moderate Republican and liberal/moderate Democrap coalition."
The House is more conservative than the Senate. But on each issue, the equation has three parts: President, Senate and House.
Things have gone as things have gone. Not everybody is pleased all of the time.
I assure thoughtful people that things will NOT be better with any one of the three sides turned over to the opposition party's control.
Think committee chairmanships. Judicial appointments, national defense, tax legislation are three areas that have gone WELL due to Republican control.
It might be worth a trip to that "planet" just to eyeball one!
I agree with your outlook on this whole thing. There's something that I don't understand about many of the "real" conservatives as they call themselves.
They say they want to teach a lesson to the Rinos and if the Repubs lose the majority they'll be made to come around more to the conservative side. I understand that part but they go on to say when that happens we'll take the majority back.
I don't understand how they think we'll regain the majority after having given it up and allowing the Dems to strengthen their position. Is it just wishful thinking?
You know I'm getting a little tired of this 'bend over and take it like a...' attitude. I'm not playing to this bantor. You think you're ticked off now, wait till the presidency and congress are ruled by the true moonbats!
Just a thought... If the Democrats win this November we can trust they'll still mess stuff up. Thus they'll be ridden of their top point in 2008. That the Republicans messed stuff up. When the people see that the Demos did as badly or worst it might take away some of the dislike of the Republican party. Just a thought...
Agreed. The problem, of course, is that we don't know before hand that someone like Toomey could have done as well as Spector did in the general election.
I'm with Tascott. A minor loss. The GOP gets Conservative after that, the Dims won't even be able to organize a photo op with a slim majority, AND they have to take a ton of blame for anything that goes wrong. Sets up a massive sweep in 08--one that keeps us--real Conservatives--in power for another ten years.
True enough...I should have written it will SEEM to the ordinary voter that they can't even organize a photo op. Meanwhile, we get to pile on the blame and consolidate under actual Conservative values. In my humble opinion, that's not a bad thing.
Yesterday, RSC Chairman Mike Pence speaking to a group of bloggers reinforced this point. Pence, no tool of leadership, told the group that the loss of the House would be "disastrous." Pence just returned from an overseas trip and he noted that a Democrat victory would "send a deafening message to the capitals of the world about our commitment in Iraq."
Majority yields committee chairmanships, which control the legislative agenda, including judicial appointments like Roberts and Alito.
Anybody think a Chairman Leahy would have pushed through Bush's SC appointees?
Nope. I think that at least SOME of those pushing for the Dems to win know that too.
A win is much better than a loss.
I'm tired of our elections being decided out of fear and uncertainty. Wouldn't you like to vote FOR someone and not against another? How about this. We vote for the best guy and do everything we can to get him elected.
The "he's too conservative to win in the general" canard is what is getting so many RINOs elected. That's what they said about Ronald Reagan. If we'd listened to such things we would have never elected Ronald Reagan.
Here's my reason---when losing one house temporarily forces our party back to its Conservative values (less government, less debt, less spending)--we (real Conservatives) place ourselves in excellent position to hold power for a very long time.
Now, if we hold both houses and the executive branch for the next two years, we are going to have to answer to voters for what many of them PERCEIVE as some consistent mismanagement of our country. Make the political calculation here. If one house has a dims majority at that time, it will be very easy to paint dims as responsible for it all.
I'm not swallowing all the polls here...but I don't want us to be so naive as to miss the end goal: not merely two years of government by a group who are only interested in acting like real Conservatives sometimes to appease us...but in longterm government by true Conservatives who would not forsake their base on spending, immigration, etc etc.
I never said that about Ronald Reagan.
That all sounds too convoluted for me - since the U.S. House drafts Articles of Impeachment, I'll have to stick with my simple, more direct approach : )
I never said that you did. Yet, it was widely said by those Republicans who were trying to defeat Ronald Reagan in the Primary.
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.