Posted on 10/25/2007 7:55:38 PM PDT by freedomdefender
The conservatives that decided to "crack-up" are a bunch of idiots. Just because the Soviet Union took a hiatus it did not mean that communism went away. In fact I can see communism not just in many portions of the united States of America, but when I look hard enough and snap out any denial, I can see it in within the conservative movement as well.
In my opinion, Pat, Perot, and the other populist-protectionist champions are a huge part of the problem. These are people that unwittingly step right into the communist den by railing against commerce when foreigners are involved (admittedly, some commerce with some foreigners is acceptable to these people but the industry in question and the origin of the foreigner matters a whole lot). But that's not where the problems end. These conservatives have sympathies to the efforts of labor unions, embrace environmental movements (because the arguments can be used as a means to discourage trade), show their disdain for the profit motive, engage in class warfare rhetoric, and look for -- and call attention to -- every single dark cloud amongst a sky full of silver linings.
Quite frankly, the louder the chorus of these so-called true conservatives gets, the more I believe that they're responsible for the "crack-up", have cracked-up, and that more of a crack-up is needed for the future. Maybe conservatives, in the long run, really would be better off with another Clinton presidency: at least she wouldn't be stupid enough to implement a cut & run from the WOT and for this reason, her friends in the media would suddenly and mysteriously run stories that would cause Americans to rally behind our efforts for a change.
The other fall out could be positive as well (save for another Ginsburg appointment). Conservatives would be forced to get their house in order or just get on with the divorce; either way, we'll get resolution on this issue and move on from there. We also may come to the conclusion that the president is really handicapped by a Republican congress who does not want to do a single thing to limit the size and scope of the federal government. Many conservatives lay blame at the feet of president Bush for the run-way spending. And while it is true that Bush could have and should have busted out his veto pen much more often, the legislative branch -- which was in Republican hands for both house and senate -- brought him the bills to sign. Anyone that really understands the process knows that legislative deals are made all the time and a Bush non-veto on a sh!tty bill may have been a necessary quid pro quo for a tax cut or a contentious -- contentious for North-Eastern senate Republicans -- Supreme Court appointee. You just don't know the behind the scenes muck that goes on in the legislature but it rarely is favorable to taxpayers or to our liberty; you all do remember the Gang of 14 (it had seven "R"s) and the thud of scoial security reform (this wasn't Bush's fault).
Conservatives on this site rally behind a seemingly endless stream of populist editorials that seek to skewer Rudy Giuliani and this is probably a good thing during a primary. When the editorials go beyond this and seek to sabotage a candidate to the point where he -- should he become the party's candidate -- could not recover from the editorial assassinations in time for the general election, we will get a Democrat.
So, do what you want if Rudy happens to become the party's nominee, Conservatives, whether it is not voting for him or voting third party, but just do not forget to fix the problems where they really lie, in the congress and even within ourselves for being so divided.
Amen, Pat.
I agree with you...
IMO-
What we should focus on is getting conservatives elected to CONGRESS and the SENATE, this way, they can ride in on the coat-tails of someone who is nationally popular like Rudy, but keep him in check if he ever starts to get too out of control. A popular President backed by the GOP AND moderates controlled by a Conservative legislature is basically a perfect situation.
Well when I see the faux Pub Pat writing this, one wonders just what he’s angling for. Sorry, I like Pat, in the past, but his gripes seem to be more like pandering to Richard Land than having the Republicans actually win this next election.
That price is much, MUCH TOO HIGH!!!!
I am not here to defend Giuliani. Instead, I am here to ask the question: what identity is there left to lose? See the post below, from a fellow FReeper, written today, and tell me just where some of these identity problems are probably lying. Notice this Freeper's tagline -- can you be sure that he can reasonably tell who a RINO is and who is not one? This sh!t is scary no matter what context it's put in!
To: GregoryFulThe private sector has hijacked the Amerian economy.
124 posted on 10/26/2007 1:19:10 AM EDT by stephenjohnbanker (Pray for, and support our troops(heroes) !! And vote out the RINO's!!) [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
No, the ultimate cost is continuing to move the Republican party to the left and continuing to eliminate the influence of conservatism in the political process. Anyone not thinking that is worse than Hillary Clinton is office is a fool.
Let me correct my earlier comment, then,,,
"The price of a Giuliani nomination is also the 'loss of WHATEVER CONSERVATIVE IDENTITY' the Republican Party has left".
As is shown by the comment about the private sector hijacking our economy--
liberal Republicans like Guiliani are much more dangerous than liberal democrats,,,
because liberal Republicans BLUR THE DISTINCTION between conservatism and liberalism,,,
MAKING LIBERALISM MUCH MORE ACCEPTABLE!!
...and Giuliani for alienating the factions of the base not alienated by Bush.
Until the Republicans realize that Reaganism wins and President/Presidential candidate must unify the entire base, they are going to keep losing elections.
He is the least likely candidate to beat Hillary and polls show him not doing any better (with the margin of error) than the other Republican candidates. And, Giuliani's negatives can only keep going up as will the percentage of the base that won't vote for him.
You left out the Ronald Reagan side of the party. And, that side if the only one that is truly electable and can make the Republicans a majority party again.
Rooty puts party before principle and country. He would be the worst candidate we could nominate.
We can fight him in the primaries, but somehow most of us believe he is being pushed upon us whether we like it or not.
If he gets the nomination this “party” will go down in flames and will not return for any time in the near future.
Hillary is a totally lousy candidate, but she will win with a division in the GOP. Rudy will create that division.
I got my n****-h***** h*s mixed up.
Actually, a blast from Paddy is a plus for Rudy, in my otherwise anti-Rudy attitude.
I am a solid Conservative, Catholic, and ex-Navy, who is slowing warming up to Rudy. The Evangelical wing of the party helped bring up George Bush
Bush scorecard:
Spending - Fail
Judicial Appts - Pass, after much pressure
Immigration - Fail
Pro-Life: Pass
Smaller Govt - Fail
Defense - Pass, but too much nation building
On the other hand Rudy stacks up:
Spending - Pass
Judicial - Pass
Immigration - definitely better than Bush
Pro-life: realist. Don’t have an abortion is you don’t believe in it. Abortion will never be made illegal in US. Get over it.
Defense - Pass.
I think the hard core Pro-life folks need to realize they are never going to outlaw abortion. Rudy is more conservative than Bush on many issues. There is no perfect canidate.
You are in a dream world if you think Rudy is more conservative than Bush on anything at all.
The mind boggles at the sales job that has been done on you and others. Rudy is not to be trusted at all on social issues, life issues, and even tax issues, where he refused to sign no new taxes pledges.
As for how sanctuary city Rudy gets a “Immigration - definitely better than Bush”, you are looking at his recent comments not his record.
Rudy destroyed his credibility in debate #1 when he couldnt decide if repealing Roe v Wade was good or not. His 'strict constructionist' label encompasses Ruth Bader Ginsburg and other liberals.
Have you noticed that the Dems haven't done much attacking of Rudy yet? They WANT him to get the nomination. Then they'll trot out all that filthy, stinking laundry Rudy has, and he'll lose to Hillary.
The best way to beat Hillary is to send Rudy home.
I suppose it may eliminate the influence of conservatism and so on and so on. My problem with that is if Rudy gets the nomination, it will prove to me that conservatism isn't all that influencial in the first place, and, therefore, doesn't have any influence to eliminate.
There is a reason someone with his name recognition (and the fact that the MSM is practically wetting its pants to get him nominated) still can't get more that 30% in the polls. It's because Republicans, in the lump that is, are hyperventilating to get a conservative at the top of the ticket. I suspect that Rudy's 30% popularity translates into about 5% of people that really are Rudy fans. Think Republican Howard Dean in this case, since Dean, on his best day, had the support of about 3% of the Democrats. Dean, too, was a MSM creation.
All along I have been desperate for a real conservative to get the nomination, and then, campaign as a true conservative. If we lose, I will know that this nation isn't a conservative nation, and can stop wasting my time and energy on a pipe dream.
I wanted Duncan Hunter, bad. When I want a guy, it's a kiss of death for him, and Hunter can't get any traction. Of the front runners I think Fred Thompson has the legitimate resume on the largest number of issues. So, I'm pulling for Fred. I even plan to send him some cash from my meager resources.
I think I'm OK in this desire because the MSM fears Thompson and is doing everything in its power to undermine him.
If Fred gets the nomination, continues to campaign as an optimistic conservative, and loses, that will tell me I am, indeed, wasting my time and energy. I'll know this is a liberal nation, and I might as well accept the fact, rather than spend my declining years in misery.
I'm an extremely miniscule cog in the Republican machine in Minnesota (Secretary of my BPOU). In my position, I'm a lightning rod for many people that wish to vent vis a vis the Republican Party. I can tell you the Party is losing stalwarts in droves thanks to liberal mismanagement in the Party. This mismanagement includes people that should have known better such as Tom Delay. If we don't get back on track this cycle, kiss it good-bye. Conservatives will need to find another place to call home, and the Republican Party will entrench itself as a minority party for a couple more generations.
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.