HILL OF BEANS - Bush's No Action On Affirmative Action

New York Press ^ | January, 2003 - Volume 16, Issue 4 | By Christopher Caldwell

[Sabertooth]

As you know, that's wrong. It was the Ideologically Correct Conservative who dropped the ball big time in '92 when they put ideology over country. When Conservatives screw up, everybody gets hurt.

Once again, there is zero accountability for the Bushes. I voted for both of them, but when Bush 41's performance as President lost him millions of his 1988 votes, it's Pollyannish folly to ignore the consequences of his "vision thing," or lack thereof.

You aren't going to build a successful coalition by saying that "no matter how badly Republican politicians screw up, no matter how much of the Democrat agenda they advance, you have no choice but to vote for them."

It's a cold, hard political fact that if you say "the RINO way or the highway," you are going to lose some votes. How many? That will vary. In some races you'll get away with it, and in others, you won't.

I think, though, that it will cost the GOP more than it helps, and the urgency of efforts by RINO apologists to bluster at the possibility of defections indicates to me that they secretly understand the danger they court.

You all protest too much.

[Sabertooth]

Who's appeasing the left.

President Bush's prescription drugs plan is a road map to an enormous expansion of the Great Society welfare state.

I'm saying vote them OUT!

That's fine for Democrats who advance larger and more expensive government, beyond what we already can't afford. What do we do with Republicans who are tugging on that same end of the rope?

[Sabertooth]

The GOP is effective when they provide conservative leadership, as Reagan did and as the takeover in '94 showed.

Shhh... you might wake the lotus-eaters.

[Consort]

The GOP is effective when they provide conservative leadership, as Reagan did and as the takeover in '94 showed.

Yes, but as highly as we regard Reagan, I still wonder why he didn't veto those Democrat deficit budgets. He vetoed very few major budget bills.

[Jim Robinson]

I don't know that the prescription plan is as enormous as the Great Society. Could even be a step towards privatization of medicare. How about the Democrats currently running for President? I think most (if not all of them) are for a "onepayer" 100% government provided healthcare system. Which one of these guys do you prefer? And which one of these Democrats do you trust with appointing the next crop of Supreme Court Justices?

[AAABEST]

As you know, that's wrong. It was the Ideologically Correct Conservative who dropped the ball big time in '92 ...

You guys say this as if the conservatives were being spiteful or trying to get rid of '41. That's not what happened. '41 couldn't get his base behind him, even if they were coming out, they weren't inspired to go into the streets and bring others. Who's going to rally behind someone who stabs them in the back.

Your foolish message, one which you're trying to pawn off on others is "you better vote this way or else". That's no way to get anyone behind you, no way at all.

For example, in 2,000 I went into the street for GWB and nearly was arrested in the process. This time around I'll be lucky if I have the energy to pull the lever, I certainly won't be motivated to do anything beyond that, because he I think he sucks. Preventing the other guy from getting in is a lousy motivator, having something to believe in for a change would be refreshing.

To blame conservatives for '41s lack of leadership and back stabbing is illogical, absurd and poorly thought out. Huge mistake as well. The election was his to lose, which he foolishly did by being a weak leader and peeing away the solid voting block that Reagan left him.

Kind gentler, compassionate conservatism....it's all a big lie and a bunch of crap designed to serve the dynasty adn it's not working.

[Jim Robinson]

C'mon answer the question. Which Democrat would you be happier with?

[Consort]

The RINO thing is a cop-out because there are RINOs at both ends of the GOP. They can't be counted on; they can be dangerous, they are unpredictable, ideologically pure to a fault, ready to attack friend or foe, ......

[AAABEST]

Reagan had for most of his Presidency, a hostile house, senate and media. There was no Fox news, Rush or GOP controlled house. This would be a wet dream for somone - like Reagan on a mission who has a solid political philosophy.

See when Reagan dealt with the Rats, he was doing just that, dealing. He always got something back, and provided solid leadership and had great and measurable conservative victories. In a world where it seemed all was against him, he won the cold war and made drastic and very fundamental changes to the tax structure. He was a conservative giant, Bush '43 is a mental midget.

GWB just gives it all away in a pathetic attempt to garner political wins, and our country is suffering greatly for it. He doesn't get anything in return, and if I'm not mistaken, the freak has still REFUSED to use his veto pen. It's uncanny.

[Consort]

One good development. Not as many Conservatives are saying they'll vote for someone else or not vote at all as there use to be. That was a big loser of a strategy.

[Sabertooth]

I don't know that the prescription plan is as enormous as the Great Society. Could even be a step towards privatization of medicare.

Bush is asking for $300 billion for ten years. The Democrats are offering $1 trillion. If this scam passes, the price of admission will be somewhere in that range. Then...

The baby boomers retire and qualify for the freebie plan. Each year thereafter will see a larger constiuency for the drug handout. How will it possibly be privatized?

The path to privatizing unearned subsidies ("entitlements") requires a weaning of the populace from government dependency, not a further encouragement of it. Yet Bush is promoting more dependency, hoping that the beneficiaries will be grateful to the GOP. How does this lead to a smaller and less expensive government? Who's going to pay for it?

Further, how does anyone really think that once seniors come to expect this latest freebie, that the Democrats won't outbid the GOP for their votes, as they have for decades?

How about the Democrats currently running for President? I think most (if not all of them) are for a "onepayer" 100% government provided healthcare system. Which one of these guys do you prefer? And which one of these Democrats do you trust with appointing the next crop of Supreme Court Justices?

Can't think of a one, but I can't see as that's any reason to ignore President Bush's largesse with our money.

Stopping Democrats' big government plans is easy: vote against them.

The second task is trickier: how do we stop the big government plans of Republicans like President Bush?

[Consort]

...Bush '43 is a mental midget.

I suppose that we can trade a Republican mental midget for a Democrat mental giant again. And maybe this time we can do it without a Ross Perot to confuse the issue. The Democrat base loves their guy and people like you hate our guy. The enemy within.

[justshe]

Reagan ALSO said this:

(Bold and underline formatting is mine.)

~~ Ronald Reagan, in his autobiography, An American Life

---

"When I began entering into the give and take of legislative bargaining in Sacramento, a lot of the most radical conservatives who had supported me during the election didn't like it.

"Compromise" was a dirty word to them and they wouldn't face the fact that we couldn't get all of what we wanted today. They wanted all or nothing and they wanted it all at once. If you don't get it all, some said, don't take anything.

"I'd learned while negotiating union contracts that you seldom got everything you asked for. And I agreed with FDR, who said in 1933: 'I have no expectations of making a hit every time I come to bat. What I seek is the highest possible batting average.'

"If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, and that's what I told these radical conservatives who never got used to it.

---

[sinkspur]

The second task is trickier: how do we stop the big government plans of Republicans like President Bush?

I have to laugh. You guys point to Reagan, yet, when he walked out of the White House in 1988, government was TWICE as big as when he entered.

Hell, Pat Buchanan never advocated smaller government; he just wanted to use big government for his causes.

The only true voice for "small government" are the pipsqueaks in the Libertarian Party, and they're hanging onto the toilet bowl rim by their fingernails.

[Jim Robinson]

It's not that tricky. Just takes time and perseverance. Keep voting out the Democrats and after we get a solid majority start on the Rhinos. Prevent as many liberals as possible from holding office or sitting on the bench. Make government more conservative by making it less liberal. Makes no sense whatsoever to turn it back over to the Democrats now. Keep the Whitehouse, keep the majority in the congress, and keep replacing liberal justices with conservatives. There is no other way. Stay the course. Damn the torpoedoes, full speed ahead!

[AAABEST]

C'mon answer the question. Which Democrat would you be happier with?

NONE Jim. You know that. Having Rats in is certainly not the answer, but neither is what's happening to us now. Mr. Know-it-all me doesnt have an answer right now.

I'm wondering if; a. We can make some real changes in the primaries or b. helping to push the whole thing over the edge than having a mechanism in place to pick up the pieces or at least have the satisfaction of hitting back as opposed to being dogged around. I don't like being dogged around and used, I gave that up for lent.

A. is bold and probably not do-able and b. is risky and probably wishful thinking.

Your gig of working within is a plan that sounds good, but it hasn't worked out. I've been behind it all the way (as I'm a tech and ex-military as well and realize the value of tactics), and might even try it again, but lets face it, it's gotten us nowhere and we ain't getting any younger.

Again, I don't know for sure what to do. At this point I'm probably going to put it in God's hands. I know that if we can somehow move these few thousand active FReepers in some direction and make it count, we can do great things. We shouldn't have to eat dirt, we deserve better.

Maybe meetings, planning sessions with the network and other activist orgs, property rights groups etc. Think-tanks, tactical planning. Fund raising? (nah). Summits with leaders etc.

You know how it's done, you were just some schmoe looking for like minded people to talk to you on Yahoo, now look at you. IMO this can be the beginning as opposed to the peak. We have great potential here Jim, we need to take advantage of it.

[Consort]

To blame conservatives for '41s lack of leadership and back stabbing is illogical, absurd and poorly thought out.

A lack of what you subjectively call leadership did not justify putting the likes of the Clinton's in our White House for two terms. Bush 41 never did anything in his whole life that justified that. The damage done will be with us for at least a generation; probably longer.

[justshe]

Clinton's JUDGES will certainly be with us that long.

[Consort]

I didn't read his bio, but I think all parties take a similar approach.

[AAABEST]

Sir I promise if I could have prevented Krintoon from getting in I would have given a limb for it ...literally speaking.

Your missing my point though. It's not that anyone did anything out of spite, it's that conservative weren't motivated (ie given the fuel they needed) to go out and "grass roots" the electorate. As I said, "you better or else" is not a motivator in these circles. That's pure physics.