Be Happy! Don't Worry!

Constitution Party ^ | February 2003 | Jim Clymer

[TBP]

After reading this article, can someone please tell me what it is exactly that this Administration and the Republican Party do for us as conservatives? The liberals get a seven-course meal and we get crumbs. It is time we stood up for ourselves.

[WoofDog123]

"After reading this article, can someone please tell me what it is exactly that this Administration and the Republican Party do for us as conservatives? The liberals get a seven-course meal and we get crumbs. It is time we stood up for ourselves."


It is what they don't do as much of against us as liberals would if they were still in power.

[Recovering_Democrat]

Bush is pushing for tax cuts, he made a principled, reasoned decision on the stem-cell issue, he's done a fabulous job in the War on Terror, and he's restored dignity and respect to the office.

His lack of "perfection" for idealogues is not a concern for me. I've been on the other side of the aisle as a Jesse Jackson Democrat. I know the Dark Side. G.W. is the antithesis of the Welfare State Liberal, believe me.

He'll get my financial support and my vote.

I'm glad to be a
Recovering_Democrat.

[KeyWest]

You are right. Bring back Clinton. Or Gore. Great leaders taking us into the moral morass we were heading for until side tracked by Bush.

This artlcle is a real Clymer.

[Blzbba]

"It is what they don't do as much of against us as liberals would if they were still in power."


Either way, the liberals are getting their paid meal tickets and I (and you) are stuck footin' the bill!

I voted for Bush because I wanted LESS federal gov't, not more. Instead, I get a guy who's already outpaced Clintax in federal spending.

I doubt I'll vote for him in 2004 at this rate.

[freeper12]

>>Either way, the liberals are getting their paid meal tickets and I (and you) are stuck footin' the bill!


Democrats like to spend money like crazy and raise your taxes to pay for it, whereas republicans are different: They like to spend your money like crazy and tell you nobody has to pay for it.

[WoofDog123]

"I doubt I'll vote for him in 2004 at this rate. "

For conservatives, it really is damned if you do, damned if you don't. Voting for third parties probably helped get bush elected (nader), and certainly helped clinton get elected and re-elected (perot). I do not believe a social conservative (i.e. alan keyes, buchanan, any number of others) is electable in the u.s. anymore.

[Consort]

...republicans are different: They like to spend your money like crazy and tell you nobody has to pay for it.

That is one way of partially stating their goal which, I think, is to lower taxes and spend on certain programs, thus forcing other government programs to hopefully go bankrupt. The resulting high deficit would then be used as the rationale for shrinking government to eliminate that deficit rather than raising taxes to do so and keeping a big government. This is possible if the GOP remains in power long enough. And maybe not. Just an idea.

[TBP]

The point is that these guys are giving the liberals most of what they want, just more slowly. If you get bombed in the first inning or give up just one run per inning, you still lose. Losing slowly is not winning.

[TBP]

The point is that these guys are giving the liberals most of what they want, just more slowly. If you get bombed in the first inning or give up just one run per inning, you still lose. Losing slowly is not winning.

[TBP]

Right. We used to call it "me-too" Republicanism. "Me too, only I'll give you all these programs for a lower cost!"

[TBP]

I do not believe a social conservative (i.e. alan keyes, buchanan, any number of others) is electable in the u.s. anymore.

Perhaps not today, but if we don't work to get them elected, they never will be electable. We need to start building that structure now, and the Constitution Party is one way of doing that. Besides, if Republicans lose because of conservatives, eventually even The Stupid Party has to get the message that they should stop trying to get elected by going left.

[WoofDog123]

"Besides, if Republicans lose because of conservatives, eventually even The Stupid Party has to get the message that they should stop trying to get elected by going left."

Is getting that message across worth, say, 8 years of Hillary? Can you imagine what she would do with 8 years, a nice patriot act in place, and all kinds of wrongs to right?

I believe that in a country where something like half the voters don't pay ANY taxes, and new voters are being produced by our public indoctrination camps called 'skools,' getting real fiscal (or social) conservatives elected is simply impossible.

[WoofDog123]

"Right. We used to call it "me-too" Republicanism. "Me too, only I'll give you all these programs for a lower cost!""

Somewhere a while back (maybe it was national review), this was called the 80% phenomenon, where gop says 'we're for [welfare-state type federal program] too, but we only want to spend 80% as much as the dems.'

[Howlin]

"Besides, if Republicans lose because of conservatives, eventually even The Stupid Party has to get the message that they should stop trying to get elected by going left."

Ah, yes. The old "let's teach them a lesson and then they'll coming running to us" plan.

[WoofDog123]

"Ah, yes. The old "let's teach them a lesson and then they'll coming running to us" plan."

Also now known as the "Let's teach them a lesson and elect Hillary Rodham Clinton as President of the United States. That will show them!"

[Howlin]

One and the same.

[TBP]

Hillary cannot get elected President of the United States. Even in liberal New York, I doubt that she can get re-elected Senator.

In a three way race, even in New York, conservatives stand a good chance of winning, as Buckley did in 1970.

And the only good thing about the Patriot Act is that it has a sunset provision. Even if Hitlery manages to get elected, there is a decent chance she won't be able to use it.

What good does stopping the Democrats do when Republicans give us a massive education bill, Federally-funded prescription drugs for seniors, and other liberal policies, then add to it by giving us things like the Patriot Act? We need a real opposition to this, not two parties with similar agendas, one of which pretends to be conservative.

[WoofDog123]

"We need a real opposition to this, not two parties with similar agendas, one of which pretends to be conservative."

When 50% of the country voted for Gore, how can the conservative vote be divided without handing the election over? A conservative party running in 3-way presidential race won't take votes from the DNC, just like I doubt Nader took votes from the GOP (maybe a very few in both cases, but statistically negligible).

I think the only viable way to move the center of the political debate is through the media. Fox has probably done more to stop the spread of socialism/totalitarianism in the US than any other public entity, by simply providing an alternate (either conservative or more objective) view on modern politics and news.

[WoofDog123]

"And the only good thing about the Patriot Act is that it has a sunset provision. Even if Hitlery manages to get elected, there is a decent chance she won't be able to use it. "

I think that there would be an incident agrecious enough in the time frame it needed to be renewed to push it through, if it was something she wanted to keep in place.