Well, why do you say, “Good riddance”? Inglish was part of the Gingrich “Revolution” in 1994, and a very prominent leader of the GOP throughout the Clinton administration. He did everything in his power to bring the impeachment effort to victory. He succeeded, in that he led the House to vote forward articles of impeachment of which he was one of the primary authors.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/impeachvote121198.htm
Now he says that he was “self-righteous” then, and that his current attitude is more informed by his re-discovered Christian beliefs. His votes and positions have remained pretty ferociously Conservative:
http://www.ontheissues.org/House/Bob_Inglis.htm
Is the problem with him now that he calls current GOP party leaders “demagogues”? Perhaps that is his educated view based on his experience after laboring in the Conservative GOP fields for almost two decades. Considering his Conservative bona fides, do you believe that his statements should be given any respect or thought?
What about his argument that the current “approach is dividing the country into partisan camps, making it difficult for people to work together and find solutions to problems.” Do we wish to find solutions to problems? Do we need to work together as a nation to do so?
Or do you believe that it is possible to seize complete control of Congress, impeach Obama, and eradicate all Democrats and liberals? How do you honestly believe that such a plan can be carried out?
Does the Right simply want to refuse to work with the Dems on solving ANY problem, no matter how pressing, in the hopes that the collapse of the US will result in the utter abolition of liberalism and the Democratic party? How does the Right propose to deal with those who are “true believers” in Progressivism?
Take the topic of continues involvement on Afghanistan, for instance. The Right were the primary supporters of Bush’s “surge,” arguing that we needed to be committed to winning there in order to defeat the Taliban. Ann Coulter is right now mixing it up with Bill Kristol for continuing to support that position after two years, claiming that he should resign for supporting “Obama’s war.”
I’m not raising this issue to debate who’s right - just that there will continue to be people that argue over the most useful ways to handle very important issues regarding our nation’s welfare. And there are debates even within the Right! How much more firmly Conservative, circa 2005, can one be than Inglis and Kristol, who were both heroes on FR during the Bush administration.
If you say “good riddance” to them after decades of diligent service, without even giving their ideas a hearing, then I believe that you are pursuing an ideological purity that is doomed to failure. It will not win continued elections across the ballot boxes of the US. You will *never* get Conservative representatives elected, without fail, in the Northeast and the West Coast. How are you thinking that we can all untie as a nation to solve these problems?
Are you planning to just inflict your policy decisions on the entire country, whether they agree with them or not? How does that make the Right any better than Obama? Wouldn’t we just see Tea Parties of the Left rising up in 2013? After all, their believers are just as fervent.
This is a very serious question. How do we unite as one nation to solve our problems? How do you propose it can be accomplished? Do you outlaw liberal ideas, and thus force them underground? Do you physically detain and segregate Progressives? How do you see the future of our nation actually working?
The Inglis proposal is to be steamrolled by liberalism on issues where he is conservative and wholeheartedly join in with liberalism when he agrees with them (e.g. radical environmentalism, opposing the Iraq War surge, supporting the bailout).
In Inglis-world, liberals always win.
I hope we can agree that "uniting the country" is not a worthwhile goal if it is united in liberalism?
Given the fact of a well-entrenched cabal of domestic enemies, enemies who are now ruling the country by decree and, as you say, "inflicting their policies" on us, it appears to me that we can't do any such thing.
If one side thinks it's in a war, then a war it is, and the other side must deal with the fact or simply give up.
I watched Bob Inglis abandon the convictions that got him into office, line by line and bit by bit. Trying to dress this accommodation to the enemy as the outworking of his Christian convictions does not affect me as he possibly hopes it should. I have Christian convictions myself, but they do not include a guilt button that a politician can press so easily as all that.
Somewhere along the way to falling off this cliff we have dropped over, somebody seems to have got the idea that being Christian means that you must have this soft heart of marshmallow that rolls over for everybody and everything, and won't say a word that might get somebody upset. I have a word for that, and it ain't Christianity, it's "chickification". In my estimation, a Rush Limbaugh with his firm and articulate principles is more of a Christian than an Inglis who tells us all about his conservatism, while carefully directing attention away from his decidedly non-conservative actions in the manner of a cheap illusionist.
"Good riddance" about sums it up.
So did Lindsey, go figure they both turned out to be RATs
See post 14 above to answer your questions.
To address the ‘can’t we all just get along’ portion of your response, there is no such thing as coming together to solve problems when the opposition has no interest in doing so. Can you name a single issue in nearly two years where the Democrats either had intention to 1)’solve one of our nations problems’, or 2) to work together with opposition in any manner? The answer is no. They are running roughshod over the country to enact radical leftist big government control over every aspect of the economy and our lives. There is no compromise with that.