Posted on 07/10/2003 1:06:07 PM PDT by Constitutionalist Conservative
I agree. While I agree with the JimRob strategy of sticking with the GOP, I realize that there is a limit for everyone. For me, personally, it is the Assault Weapons Ban. I'm willing to give Bush the benefit of the doubt, and concede that the White House statements were made for political reasons, and still plan on voting for him in '04. However, IF by the slightest chance it reaches his desk, and he sgns it, I will have a VERY hard time voting for him. Again, I will be shocked if it actually reaches his desk (thank God for a Repub House), so frankly, I'm really not worried about it at this point.
Your "conscience"????
You only have two viable choices:
DemocRATS or Republicans
In #234 Jim Robinson reminded you of some of the principles that the DemocRATS stand for.
Are they the principles that your conscience allows you to further? If not, and you don't do everything in your power to stop DemocRATS from getting back in office, you have aided and abetted them in their agenda.
And that's a fact.
The only viable party wherein conservatism has a voice at all, is in the Republican party.
If you don't help keep Republicans in power, you are in effect, helping to take away the only voice we have.
You have that right -- but be prepared to be viewed with contempt by the more clear-headed. You will not be permitted to wash your hands from your complicity in helping to take away our voice and furthering the DemocRAT agenda.
Conservatives have NO VOICE AT ALL in the DemocRAT party.
That my friend, is reality. Deal with it.
No, that is reality which may be offensive to you or others who 'vote their conscience', but reality regardless of you or them accepting it or not.
I just wanted to bump that statement and make it large so no one misses it. No truer words could be spoken about one-issue folks!
I am so sick and tired of hearing the President has to do this or that for someone's cause or they are sitting out the election, I could scream. Republicans need broken-glass voters not whiners who cannot be counted on!
You are obviously intelligent and see the big picture. electability versus ideology requires an artful balance and an intelligent voter recognizes that.
And regarding criticism of Bush. I understand that some are fearful that criticism of a number Bush Administration policy or political decisions, be they politically prudent or not, is a threat to keeping Republicans in power. All I can say is that all politicians, regardless of political stripe, are ALWAYS hugely concerned with getting elected and re-elected. It goes with the territory. All of them are prone to become detrimental 're-election machines' if they are not careful. As such they fear the electorate. If Bush's political constituency starts to make noises that he's not sticking to their principles, he will modify his decisions. Guaranteed. Fail to make any noises and Rove will turn him into a re-election machine. Thus mindless adherence to the Republican Party line, to any party's line, is ultimately anathema to the goals of that party. In other words, grumbling from the rank and file is essential to keeping the elites in line. I guarantee you the folks over at National Review are aware of this, even if numerous Freepers are not.
And I agree. Seems only the hardcore, party holdouts can't seem to grasp, or refuse to admit the obvious. The two beltway parties are like a two lane highway, both going the same direction.
"Amen!" bump
As a devoted constitutionalist and conservative, I can be counted on to grumble loud and long about the GOP's current direction. But, my goal is that my grumblings combine with those of many others, in the hope that the 'elite' will finally 'get religion' on these issues.
So if I vote for the Constitution Party, I'm doing the above? Well, bring on the contempt! Because if I see anymore liberal b.s. come out of the White House and/or the GOP controlled Congress, I'm doing just that.
Please. And don't bother explaining the "reality" to me. I've been holding my nose for years as I pull the handle. One of these days, I'm going quit going for the "lessor of two evils" nonsense and waste my vote, and then feel good about it.
Come on Jim, better start reading more threads.
Would be far better in my opinion to run our most conservative candidates as Republicans where they at least stand a chance of being elected. They're bound to have more effective direct influence on legislation and policy as elected representatives than they will ever have shouting from the peanut gallery.
I disagree, as the Republican party seems to have merged into the Democtatic party. I predict both of the beltway parties continue to decline in numbers. They got too big, too corrupt, to entrenched. I think *many* folks are now looking for an alternative to the business as usual, two beltway parties.
Of course, that means they'd have to clean up there act a bit and make themselves presentable to the electorate. Refer to CONGRESSMAN Ron Paul, big (R) small (l) for example.
Clean up their act? If the party had not been completely taken over by left leaning, politically correct, so-called conservatives, that support the party regardless of their actions, there would be no clean up to do.
It's beyond a mess beyond repair IMHO. There is no stopping this, except for forming a new party, a party for American's, a party that will put our own country, our own economy, our own borders and sovereignty before those in Outer Mongolia.
I personally see a sea change, one that's coming, and is being considered by those that can see the two beltway parties for what they are. The gig is up, and many understand this. Just look at the California recall. People are getting fed up, and not just in Cal, as at least 45 of our states are now operating deep in the red. It's the same old thing, only getting worse.
The two beltway parties are like two giant corporations that have merged into one. There needs to be a lot of changes, from the top down if this country is going to survive, as we are sliding down a socialist slope. This cannot be done by keeping these two parties in power. Their time is coming to an end. There needs to be a big change, and it's coming IMHO.
Conservatism needs true Americans who demonstrate individual thinking and not mindless lock-step goose-steppers who confuse the Republican Party with conservative principles.
Blah, blah, blah, Bush delivered on strong national defense, blah, blah, blah, Bush delivered on taxes, blah, blah, blah, Bush delivered on conservative judges, blah, blah, blah, Bush has to show Presidential leadership, blah, blah, blah, Bush has to bear down on spending, blah, blah blah, the answer to all of Bush's defenciencies is to put the Pledge of Allegiance bill **high** on the list of Republican priorities.
...And people wonder why NRO isn't taken very seriously anymore.
Bingo!
"By acting like liberal Democrats who want to force taxpayers to fund new entitlements, Bush is in essence saying, "I'm your guy."
Rush still doesn't get it. It's like back in 1999 when Rush was claiming over and over again that Hillary Clinton wouldn't run for Senate.
"Liberal Democrats" wouldn't have killed the Kyoto Global Warming Treaty, but Bush did.
Liberal Democrats wouldn't have pulled the U.S. out of the International Criminal Court, but Bush did.
Liberal Democrats wouldn't have killed the U.S.-CCCP ABM Treaty, but Bush did.
Liberal Democrats wouldn't have gotten the 1st largest and 3rd largest tax cuts in world history passed into law, but Bush did.
Liberal Democrats wouldn't arm pilots or order Aschroft to inform the U.S. Supreme Court that the official U.S. government position is that the 2nd Amendment supports individual rights to bear arms, not group or state rights (soemething that was too Conservative and controversial for even Ronald Reagan to do).
Liberal Democrats wouldn't sign the Partial Birth Abortion Ban, either, but Bush will sign it this very year.
So comparing Bush to "liberal Democrats" misses the mark.
Rush's complaint, which is a valid one, is actually that Bush is letting Congress spend too much.
Well, that's all fine and well, but someone as articulate as Rush should simply 'say' that, rather than confuse the spending issue with being a "liberal Democrat".
Once the conversation is accurately focused on Bush letting Congress spend too much, then a real debate can proceed.
What is Bush getting for this spending? Two conservative Supreme Court Justices, one would think (perhaps even three), as the Justices won't survive another 6 years of Bush being in office (and Bush will easily win re-election in 2004 due to his current strategy). Bush also gained the right to fire bad teachers in Ted Kennedy's education reform package, and Bush is getting tort reform passed that immunizes gun manufacturers from frivolous lawsuits, among others). Bush has carte blanc to re-vamp our military, too.
It's a good bet that Bush will get Social Security privatized in the next 6 years, as well as get school vouchers passed so that the power of the public school teachers' unions will be broken by private schools. Bush is also getting our ABM system installed in Alaska.
These are 'historic' achievements, and the history books will marvel at how one politician was able to accomplish so much with the government and nation so evenly divided.
Consider that in 8 years of Clinton, old Bill still can't point to any legislative achievement of his own. What a contrast between those two Presidents!
But there is a price to be paid. Bush is buying Congressional votes with our tax Dollars.
Lots of Conservatives may have very valid reservations about this price, and that's a fair topic to debate.
But Rush is missing it just like he missed that Hillary would run for the Senate.
Rush is calling Bush a liberal Democrat, but that's clearly not true as no "liberal Democrat" would sign the Partial Birth Abortion Ban. What Rush actually means is that Bush is spending too much of our money.
Well, how much would 30 years of a future 'conservative' Supreme Court worth?!
How much is protecting our nation from nuclear ICBM's worth?!
How much is it worth to re-vamp our military and kill the Kyoto Treaty?
Let's debate those real issues. What are we willing to pay to achieve those things in a divided nation with a divided Congress?
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.