Posted on 11/16/2012 6:47:24 AM PST by Kaslin
GHWB, GWB Rove and Co. are the reason we are in the mess we are now electorally.
Minor repair : )
...actually, if you knew of my history with the show...even less....
: )
check this out, real real SOON:
www.gone2012book.com
Bush, unlike Rove, just went the heck a way and shut up.
That is the true test of a man and a leader.. at least for this round anyway, imo.
One sentence synopsis: In order to win elections, conservatives must become liberals.”
Maybe that’s true. Maybe.
But it might also be true that conservatives win elections when they become conservatives. Problem is, we don’t know enough about that possibility because we haven’t had a conservative run since 1984.
We’ve had one sort of to the right of the moderate pack run in 2000 and 2004. And he barely won twice. But all the other times, the moderate lost.
So I’m not sure that the moderate path is the winning one......
Compassionate Conservatism was code for Big Government. The entire Bush family owes the country an apology.
Exactly. And that is the attitude over at the once great NR.
He, Lowry and others are in full “bend over and take it” mode as long as they can “elect” moderate, spineless cowards.
Yeah, I guess it’s not that original of an idea. It probably depends on where you live whether you can implement it in your own state.
I have to disagree. As used, the term compassionate conservative IS based on using government for what “they” perceive to be “the good”.
How is that different from all out liberalism? Why do they think their ideas are superior if only “they” were in charge. Again, that’s how the left thinks.
And frankly, I don’t believe there are good, compassionate people on the left. They may delude themselves into thinking that but to me it’s the kind of “compassion” in where they burn down your house to kill the fleas because they felt sorry for your dog.
I think it's more the self-announcement or self-description, the "I'm not like the rest of them," than the actual political stance that rankles.
You can't be Ayn Rand and hope to win elections (and if you're in politics you probably shouldn't want to be Ayn Rand). You have to be more of a mensch than that.
But the more you say "Message: I care" (with people hearing "Message: you don't care" implied) the more it irritates people.
Leftists thrive on equivocation. If a phrase like "compassionate conservative" can have two meanings, they will use each meaning when it suits them, even in contexts where the other meaning actually applies.
One of the things conservatives need to do is fight for control of the language, and an essential part of that is to refuse to accept labels which have multiple meanings. If a politician is asked whether he's a "compassionate conservative", the correct response would be that he wants to help the poor become financially independent. He should neither admit to being a "compassionate conservative" (implying agreement with policies the left deems "compassionate") nor deny it (implying that he didn't care about the poor).
There's a substantial "Emperor's New Clothes" element at work too. Those who have taught themselves to see the emperor's raiment will regard as fools anyone who does not.
Additionally, many people believe that there is some fundamental limit as to how evil a person can be; if they are put in a situation where someone must either be telling the truth about something, or else be unimaginably evil, they will take the view that because the person cannot be unimaginably evil (implied by the fundamental limit above), the person must be telling the truth. The stronger the apparent evidence that the person must be evil, the more unimaginably evil the person would have to be, and thus the greater the impossibility of the person actually being that evil.
Totally spurious comparison. This is what you get when you let an adolescent skull full of mush, who has never done anything in the real world but write sophomoric columns, tell you about the real world.
Bush had a geographic history and family ties to the Hispanic community. He also ran against two of the most inept, totally white bread 'rats in political history.
Romney ran against a racist agitator and class warrior whose only job had ever been to stir up racial antipathy against (wealthy) whites. Romney could have been a righteous down for the struggle white guy but his goose was cooked before he got in to the ring.
Bunch of nonsense. His whole argument boils down to marketing. He conveniently overlooks how Dubya’s “compassion” and idiocy brought about Obama in the first place!
You really need to see a shrink who will help you over your Bush derangement symptom. You are very sick
And you need to stop pimping out Townhall hack articles. They can’t pay you THAT much to deal with their drek, can they?
No one forces you to read them.
And you can not tell me what sites I can post from. Get it?
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.