Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Howlin
Then I wonder why it is that the "BushBots" are constantly called socialists?

"Constantly" might be a stretch. But, I can certainly identify with those who mourn the weakening and tearing down of our Constitution at the hands of Democrats and Republicans alike (not to mention their SCOTUS appointees).

I can't help but wonder how we'd be ranting non-stop about Campaign Finance Reform and The Patriot Act if they'd been passed and signed into law by Democrats.

It's just that, after a while, it becomes obvious that there will be no real reform until things get bad enough, or the slippery slope gets steep enough. Until then, vilifying the Republicans and Bush as socialists and casting third-party protest votes will accomplish nothing other than perhaps help get Democrats elected.

It's all a matter of perspective. Some see the glass as 2/3 full, others as 4/5 empty. Once there's a big enough hole in the bottom and/or there's only a few drops left, people will wake up and do something. Consider that Al Gore was one robe short of counting and recounting chads until he could manufacture enough votes to win Florida and the presidency. If the decision had gone in his favor, I was prepared to fly the flag upside down (the distress signal) or burn it in my driveway. On the one hand, I'm glad the Constitution prevailed, if only barely. But, the slow march of socialism continues. Revolution will wait for a darker day. To ensure its arrival, Dems will 'Bork' any and every even marginally-conservative SCOTUS appointee Bush might have occasion to throw at them, no matter what race or gender. If he manages to get a Clarence Thomas past them, it will be only by the grace of God. Let's hope Bush has what it takes to appoint a Clarence Thomas.

(Thanks for the kind words. Don't let my lengthy reply discourage you from complimenting others. ;O)

237 posted on 07/01/2003 12:16:14 PM PDT by newgeezer (Admit it; Amendment XIX is very much to blame.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies ]


To: newgeezer
>>>It's all a matter of perspective. Some see the glass as 2/3 full, others as 4/5 empty.

"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.

Ronald Reagan, in his autobiography, An American Life

239 posted on 07/01/2003 12:25:24 PM PDT by Reagan Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson