The old lady with the poison apple (really the evil step mother) are the rinos, trying to get the conservatives to take a bite..."Go ahead, take a bite, all your dreams will come true." Lies, deceit, trickery, deception, death etc..
Posted on 03/17/2007 3:11:01 AM PDT by Aussie Dasher
Time magazine has chosen a weeping (and Photoshopped) Ronald Reagan for its first redesigned cover in 15 years. The theme: "How the Right Went Wrong."
This is not the first time Time has run an altered photo of Reagan on its cover. The August 16, 1993 issue featured Reagan turned upside down, and the blaring headline: "Overturning the Reagan Era." The implicit message in the wake of the 1992 defeat and the passage of the Clinton tax increase: the Age of Reagan was over. Higher marginal tax rates and HillaryCare were here to stay.
The American people had something else to say about that in November 1994.
Once again, conservatism is being left for dead. The November elections were a body blow. The mood at CPAC was said to be glum (funny, I didn't see anyone roaming the exhibit hall with their heads hung low, but I don't seem to have the same magical divining powers as reporters). And conservatives are said to be disaffected with their choices for President.
As conservatives, we face challenges to be sure. But forgive me if I'm not exactly quaking in my boots at the latest in a string of Time magazine covers or New York Times/CBS News polls portending doom for Republicans.
As I wrote on my blog a little over a month ago, we can expect a concerted effort to depress Republican turnout going into 2008. The Democrats will be portrayed as fresh, vigorous, and exciting. Republicans will be framed as disappointed in their candidates, hungering for someone new.
Lo and behold, that is exactly the message we see from this Time cover, and the New York Times/CBS poll earlier in the week purporting to show that most Republicans want new options in the 2008 race.
What's left unsaid is that leading Republican Rudy Giuliani (who campaign I support and am doing some work for) has a greater favorable-to-unfavorable ratio of any the Democratic candidates amongst his own party. To the extent that the Republican candidates are less favored, it's because they are not as well known. (An average of 33% of Republicans don't know enough about any given member of their Big Three; for Democrats that number is 13%.) And the Republicans are not as well known because none of them has received Obamamania-like coverage.
Despite all this, the leading Republican candidates are leading or competitive in the polls. According to the Real Clear Politics average of all public polling, Giuliani leads Hillary Clinton by 4.8 points, while John McCain is up by 1.6 points. We are told that Democrats lead by 20 points or more in the Presidential generic ballot (traditionally a dubious measure). The fact that they can't keep pace in head-to-head matchups says more about public dissatisfaction with their candidates than it does of Republicans.
Sometimes, it seems like Republican despair (the Times uses this word in their piece) and division is mostly an artifact of press rooms and cocktail parties than it is of grassroots voices in the Republican Party. Indeed, this seems to be their strategy. Democrats can't attack Republican candidates who are broadly popular nationally using the standard playbook, so they'll play up Republican division and "despair."
This isn't to say that the primary season won't see disagreements. That's what primaries are for. But more often than not, these divisions will be greater in places like Washington, D.C. than they will in the heartland.
Another interesting fact Time ignores is this: contrary to the conventional wisdom, this primary race is in many ways more conservative than 2000. In 2000, George W. Bush ran as a "compassionate conservative" largely uninterested in deep cuts in government spending. Today, virtually every Republican carries the banner of spending discipline. With the exception of Chuck Hagel, the primary candidates or prospective candidates haven't really wavered on the prosecution of the war.
So, if conservatism is a "broken" brand, wouldn't candidates be running away from it rather than running on it?
2006 taught us the consequences of running away from the core principles that unify all Republicans, chief among them smaller government. Had we stood unambiguously on these principles, we would have fared much better than we did. The appeal of our ideas is the same or stronger than before; it was our leaders' willingness to carry them through in 2006 that "went wrong," not the conservative movement.
Times like now teach us almost nothing about broad shifts in public opinion. At this point in 1999, George W. Bush was leading by double digits -- at another time when the Republican brand was in the media doghouse after the Clinton impeachment. No one could have predicted the razor-tight 2000 election back then. Until the February 5 GigaTuesday primary, the parties will be focused on duking it out for the nomination. At that point, public opinion will realign based on the parties' nominees, and this will become a contest about the future. With Democrats lacking in bold ideas and a clear direction on the war since taking control of Congress, the Time cover looks like another example wishful thinking and media cocooning for the Democrats.
Socons are taking over,
Funniest post of the day. If the Socons are taking over, why is it that they only time they even get lip service is a couple weeks before the election.
There's an abstract poem there somewhere.
You've misinterpreted the symbolism I intended. Do I need explain?
Sorry, I made a feeble attempt at humor. I agree whole heartedly with your point.
Don't get me wrong. I don't think we can win but I will never give up to socialism. I will keep right on opposing Democrats until they put me up against a wall.
The old lady with the poison apple (really the evil step mother) are the rinos, trying to get the conservatives to take a bite..."Go ahead, take a bite, all your dreams will come true." Lies, deceit, trickery, deception, death etc..
Perhaps by the Republican party leadership, it is. Among the population, it is strong.
Is there a glossary somewhere which gives a description of "socon"? I've got RINO down, and I'm pretty sure I know what a CINO is, but I have no idea what Socon stands for.
PERFECT! That would solve the problem that working inside the beltway seems to cause. It must be the water.
social conservative
fiscon - fiscal conservative
Grand Old Dictionary
conserve
2 entries found for conserve.
To select an entry, click on it.
conserve[1,transitive verb]conserve[2,noun]
Main Entry:
1con·serve
Pronunciation: k&n-'s&rv
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): con·served; con·serv·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French conserver, from Latin conservare, from com- + servare to keep, guard, observe; akin to Avestan haurvaiti he guards
1 : to keep in a safe or sound state ; especially : to avoid wasteful or destructive use of
2 : to preserve with sugar
3 : to maintain (a quantity) constant during a process of chemical, physical, or evolutionary change
conservative
con·ser·va·tive [ kən súrvətiv ]
adjective
Definition:
1. reluctant to accept change: in favor of preserving the status quo and traditional values and customs, and against abrupt change
2. of conservatism: relating to, characteristic of, or displaying conservatism
3. cautious and on low side: cautiously moderate and therefore often less than the final outcome Several hundred dollars is probably a very conservative estimate.
4. conventional in appearance: conventional or restrained in style and avoiding showiness
a conservative suit
5. using minimum medical intervention: designed to help relieve symptoms or preserve health with a minimum of medical intervention
noun (plural con·ser·va·tives)
Definition:
1. traditionalist: a supporter or advocate of traditional ideas and behavior
2. supporter of conservatism: somebody who believes in or supports conservatism
con·ser·va·tive·ly adverb
con·ser·va·tive·ness noun
There is only one man who can postpone the obituary of the Republican Party and he occupies the oval office. Everyday and with days to come we are being attacked without a word from the top.
Our leaders let the assault continue like terrified children and all we can do is watch, stunned and in disbelief.
No current Republican candidates have a chance of turning this around in time before the damage is permanent. President Bush is the only person who can stop this steady march towards the vast wilderness of irrelevancy.
Unless he acts with the full power of his office and with disregard of legacy we are destined to complete failure.
The fish rots from the head down.
The question should be "is socialism growing"? I say absolutely yes!
Good material for a real "blues" song eh.
Our Repub leaders seem to be afraid of something or they just like to cower.
Well said.
Will there be a prince to awaken the slumberer?
***
Well, seriously, you asked the wrong person if you want a quick happy ending to this mess of a fairy tale. I think the devil's gonna have his day (like a few years) for awhile before the One and Only Prince of Peace comes. There is a very evil prince coming I believe first. Many will be deceived by him. There is only one way to escape the evil, deception, death that will be ahead.
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.