Posted on 07/10/2003 1:06:07 PM PDT by Constitutionalist Conservative
he news this summer has been rather bleak for conservatives. The Supreme Court first decided to write "diversity" into the Constitution. A few days later, it issued a ruling on sodomy laws that called into question its willingness to tolerate any state laws based on traditional understandings of sexual morality. In neither case was there much pretense that the Court was merely following the law. At this point it takes real blindness to deny that the Court rules us and, on emotionally charged policy issues, rules us in accord with liberal sensibilities. And while the Court issued its edicts and the rest of the world adjusted, a huge prescription-drug bill made its way through Congress. That bill will add at least $400 billion to federal spending over the next ten years, and it comes on top of already gargantuan spending increases over the last five years. The fact that a pro-growth tax cut is going into effect this summer hardly compensates for these developments especially since expanding entitlements threaten to exert upward pressure on tax rates in the future.
Republicans have been complicit in each of these debacles. Both the affirmative-action and sodomy decisions were written by Reagan appointees. President Bush actually cheered the affirmative-action decision for recognizing the value of "diversity." Bush has requested spending increases, and not just for defense and homeland security. He has failed to veto spending increases that went beyond his requests. But let it not be said that the president has led his party astray. Many congressional Republicans have strayed even more enthusiastically. Bush originally wanted to condition prescription-drug benefits on seniors' joining reformed, less expensive health plans. When the idea was raised, House Speaker Denny Hastert called it "inhumane." Congressional appropriators the people who write the spending bills have been known to boast that they would beat the president if ever he dared to veto one of their products.
We have never been under any illusions about the extent of Bush's conservatism. He did not run in 2000 as a small-government conservative, or as someone who relished ideological combat on such issues as racial preferences and immigration. We supported him nonetheless in the hope that he would strengthen our defense posture, appoint originalist judges, liberalize trade, reduce tax rates, reform entitlements, take modest steps toward school choice. Progress on these fronts would be worth backsliding elsewhere. We have been largely impressed with Bush's record on national security, on judicial appointments (although the big test of a Supreme Court vacancy will apparently not occur during this term), and on taxes. On the other issues he has so far been unable to deliver.
It is not Bush's fault that Democrats oppose entitlement reform, or that the public wants it less than it wants a new entitlement to prescription drugs. He should, however, have used the veto more effectively to restrain spending. Had he vetoed the farm bill, for example, Congress would have sent him a better one. We need presidential leadership on issues other than war and taxes. Instead we are getting the first full presidential term to go without a veto since John Quincy Adams. Bush's advisers may worry that for Bush to veto the bills of a Republican Congress would muddle party distinctions for voters. But this dilemma results from a failure of imagination. Why must the House Republican leadership always maintain control of the floor? When Democrats and liberal Republicans have the votes to pass a bill, sometimes it would be better to let them do so, and then have the president veto it. The alternative cobbling together some lite version of a liberal bill in order to eke out a congressional majority is what really makes it hard to press the case against big-spending Democrats.
The defeats on racial preferences, gay rights, and the role of the courts generally reflect a conservative political failure that predates this administration. Republican politicians have never been comfortable talking about moral or race-related issues, and have been eager to slough off these responsibilities to the courts. Their silence is not, however, only an abdication of responsibility; it is also politically foolish. Opposition to racial preferences and gay marriage is popular in every state of the Union. And if the courts are going to block social conservatives from ever achieving legislative victories and Republicans will not even try to do anything about it social conservatives may well conclude that there is no point to participating in normal politics. There goes the Republican majority.
To get back on track will require effort from President Bush, congressional Republicans, and conservatives generally. Bush ought to bear down on spending; we suggest that an assault on corporate welfare, followed by a reform of the appropriations process, would be a fine start. Republicans need a strategy for dealing with the judicial usurpation of politics that goes beyond trying to make good appointments to the bench a strategy that now has a two-generation track record of nearly unrelieved failure. On gay marriage, a constitutional amendment appears to be necessary to forestall the mischief of state and federal courts. But a mere statute can make the point that Congress controls the federal judiciary's purview. Congressman Todd Akin's bill to strip the federal judiciary of jurisdiction over the Pledge of Allegiance has the votes to pass the House, and has a powerful Senate sponsor in Judiciary Committee chairman Orrin Hatch. It should be high on the Republican agenda.
Conservatives, finally, have to find ways to work with the Republicans their fortunes are linked while also working on them. The Pennsylvania Senate primary offers a choice between a candidate who is conservative on both economics and social issues, Pat Toomey, and one who is conservative on neither, the incumbent, Arlen Specter. The White House and the party establishment has rallied behind Specter. But President Bush's goals would be better served by a Senator Toomey. And as recent events underscore, this is not a bad time for conservatives to declare their independence from the GOP establishment.
Answer: No.
Comment: Merely another group of degenerates.
Lurking placemarker. We should all ban together.
"We must all hang together or assuredly we will all hang seperately."
-- Benjamin Franklin
Yes and I was proud to cast my vote for Ross Perot then rather than the spineless incumbent. Nearly all my relatives voted for Perot. They are all staunch Republican conservatives. Bush handed the election to Clinton.
No, posting the actual legal text that you claim is unconstitutional would simply expose your argument as being based upon an oft-repeated urban myth.
Nor would it take much space or require many words. Each Section of the Patriot Act is comparitively small.
You could, as I've done already in this thread, post and cite a single problematic section with ease.
Well, you could at least post it easily. Finding and citing a Constitutional problem in the Patriot Act is considerably more difficult, primarily because there is no such Constitutional problem with the law.
And that fact leaves you in an uncomfortable position; you can't post and debate any of the actual legal text because doing so would further expose your lie.
Ergo, you have to find **other** ways in which to channel any debate on this subject (e.g. personal attacks, change of subject, distractions, etc.), rather than be caught cold with the actual legal text.
Which basicly means that you'll simply attempt to waste my time in any number of petty ways, rather than posting the actual legal text that you claim is unconstitutional.
Come on kid, post the legal text that you claim is specificly unconstitutional!
I dare you.
I challenge you.
And I'll continue to mock you if you don't.
All the man is doing is whinning and describing a political recipe for disaster. He's naive and your foolish.
But if you simply repeat an urban myth in the style of the Big Lie (where a lie told often enough is accepted as fact), then you have credibility in your mind.
Oh sure.
OK
I understand you completely now.
< /MOCKING! >
The portrayal - by the Left-wing media, Hollyweird, and DemonRats - of the Republican Party and the Conservative Agenda for restoring a Constitutional form of government to America is not our concern. Let them say what they will. Wisdom is proved right by her actions. The goodness, the rightness of our cause will be and is already being displayed as we advance! Look at Southack's list of President Bush accomplishments in Post #303. Look at just about any scientifically adminsistered poll of the American people (not at the spin the leftpress put on it). Look at the numbers of homeschoolers, and how many of their numbers are at the top of any nationwide testing measure - National Spelling Bee, National Geography Quiz, etc. Look at Free Republic and its steady rise in veiwership and participation and see FR's numbers in comparison to leftist sites on Alexa.
I'm "fearless" when it comes to how my Conservative principles and the Republican Party are portrayed. I trust the American people to figure out for themselves that Leftists are hiding behind pusillanimous propaganda, class warfare and bigoted rhetoric, and how empty of meaning these things are. It is not in the portrayal that we place our hope, and the portrayal can not steal our hope.
Jim Robinson makes the case much better than I ever could; I suggest you click his "Find in Forum" and read every post he's written on these issues. I agree with him 100% - the ax blows to the tree of liberty have taken years to wedge so far into the base our Founders built. But they built on rock, be sure of that, and these storms will not topple the American Spirit, Cause, or, ultimately, Constitution.
We can not disclaim all responsibility for the damage that has been done to that noble document, however. Voting for third party candidates bought us eight years of torment and tearing of our Constitution under Clinton. Conservative stay-at-homes contributed to the foil! And some of us who now know the truth were once pawns of the opposition.
Tell me what great battle for liberty was ever won by a single meeting on a single field? Our perspective of wars past is skewed by our distance - the Revolution, the Battle to remain United, the War to topple the Nazis and Communism...none of these, nor any other, were won in a day, a week, a year, or even an election cycle. Be encouraged! Don't listen to the propaganda of the enemy who would have you believe that all is lost and you will never regain your ground. Don't believe their lies! Don't think for a moment that anyone else believes their lies! They have turned up the volume and pumped up the presses precisely because our victory is at hand!
Presidential Candidate |
Vice Pres Candidate |
Political Party |
Popular Vote | Electoral Vote | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
![]() |
William Clinton | Albert Gore Jr. | Democrat | 629,681 | 40.13% | 8 |
![]() |
George Bush | J. Danforth Quayle | Republican | 562,850 | 35.87% | 0 |
![]() |
H. Ross Perot | James Stockdale | Independent | 366,010 | 23.32% | 0 |
![]() |
Andre Marrou | Nancy Lord | Libertarian | 8,669 | 0.55% | 0 |
Other | - | - |
Because 23% of Colorado's Conservative voters chose Perot in '92, the larger slice of the 8-vote Electoral Pie went to Clinton. Turnout was just over 60%.
Presidential Candidate |
Vice Pres Candidate |
Political Party |
Popular Vote | Electoral Vote | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
![]() |
William Clinton | Albert Gore Jr. | Democrat | 5,121,325 | 46.01% | 54 |
![]() |
George Bush | J. Danforth Quayle | Republican | 3,630,574 | 32.61% | 0 |
![]() |
H. Ross Perot | James Stockdale | Independent | 2,296,006 | 20.63% | 0 |
![]() |
Andre Marrou | Nancy Lord | Libertarian | 48,139 | 0.43% | 0 |
Ron Daniels | Asiba Tupahache | Peace&Freedom | 18,597 | 0.17% | 0 | |
Howard Phillips | Albion Knight | American Ind. | 12,711 | 0.11% | 0 | |
Other | - | - |
If the 21.06% of California Libertarians and Independents had voted Republican instead of Third Party in 1992, Bill Clinton would not have received that state's 54 Electoral College votes. Turnout was only 50%.
Presidential Candidate |
Vice Pres Candidate |
Political Party |
Popular Vote | Electoral Vote | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
![]() |
William Clinton | Albert Gore Jr. | Democrat | 682,318 | 42.21% | 8 |
![]() |
George Bush | J. Danforth Quayle | Republican | 578,313 | 35.78% | 0 |
![]() |
H. Ross Perot | James Stockdale | Amer. for Perot | 348,771 | 21.58% | 0 |
![]() |
Andre Marrou | Nancy Lord | Libertarian | 5,391 | 0.33% | 0 |
Dr. Lenora Fulani | Maria Munoz | New Alliance | 1,363 | 0.08% | 0 | |
Write-Ins | - | - |
Connecticut's 8-vote pie went to Clinton because of Third-Party candidates. 60% turnout.
Presidential Candidate |
Vice Pres Candidate |
Political Party |
Popular Vote | Electoral Vote | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
![]() |
William Clinton | Albert Gore Jr. | Democrat | 179,310 | 48.09% | 4 |
![]() |
George Bush | J. Danforth Quayle | Republican | 136,822 | 36.70% | 0 |
![]() |
H. Ross Perot | James Stockdale | Independent | 53,003 | 14.22% | 0 |
![]() |
Bo Gritz | Cyril Minett | Independent | 1,452 | 0.39% | 0 |
Andre Marrou | Nancy Lord | Libertarian | 1,119 | 0.30% | 0 | |
Other | - | - |
Same thing in Hawaii. 40% turnout.
Presidential Candidate |
Vice Pres Candidate |
Political Party |
Popular Vote | Electoral Vote | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
![]() |
William Clinton | Albert Gore Jr. | Democrat | 2,453,350 | 48.58% | 22 |
![]() |
George Bush | J. Danforth Quayle | Republican | 1,734,096 | 34.34% | 0 |
![]() |
H. Ross Perot | James Stockdale | Independent | 840,515 | 16.64% | 0 |
![]() |
Andre Marrou | Nancy Lord | Libertarian | 9,218 | 0.18% | 0 |
Other | - | - |
22 Electoral College votes from Illinois to Clinton. 60% turnout. Starting to get sickening.
Presidential Candidate |
Vice Pres Candidate |
Political Party |
Popular Vote | Electoral Vote | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
![]() |
William Clinton | Albert Gore Jr. | Democrat | 815,971 | 45.58% | 9 |
![]() |
George Bush | J. Danforth Quayle | Republican | 733,386 | 40.97% | 0 |
![]() |
H. Ross Perot | James Stockdale | Prud. Action Res. | 211,478 | 11.81% | 0 |
![]() |
James Bo Gritz | Cyril Minett | America First | 18,545 | 1.04% | 0 |
Andre Marrou | Nancy Lord | Libertarian | 3,155 | 0.18% | 0 | |
Other | - | - |
Louisiana. I can't take anymore. BTTT.
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.