Thanks, Victoria ...
Posted on 09/17/2003 1:44:36 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
A picture hangs on my office wall that reminds of the glory years of the Reagan Revolution. It shows the White House team entry in the D.C. Nike Challenge from 1985. The six participants include Dick Hauser, then Deputy Counsel in the White House; John Roberts – newly confirmed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and then a young White House lawyer; and me, also a young White House lawyer. The captain of the "White House V-toes" was Pat Buchanan, at the time the Gipper's communications director.
Whenever a visitor's eye turns to the picture, I point to Pat and say, there's the man who put Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer on the U.S. Supreme Court. Only the politically inclined get it: Pat Buchanan's primary challenge to President George H.W. Bush in 1992 bled the incumbent and opened the door to Perot. Perot, of course, put Clinton in the White House, and Clinton put those justices on the highest court.
Buchanan fans sputter a lot when they hear this recounting of history, and many splendid arguments follow. They protest too much, the Pat people do, because of the impulse to disguise guilt with vigorous and emphatic denunciations. Facts, to quote Reagan quoting Lenin, however, are stubborn things. Buchanan wrought what he wrought, and honest accounting requires that the two Clinton appointees be put credited to Pat's legacy ledger. So much for the pro-life platform upon which Pat has long stood. There is no doubt that he sincerely believes in the platform – but there is overwhelming evidence that the unborn would have been far better off had Pat never launched a public career.
This history becomes relevant as the California recall vote draws near. Like Pat, Tom McClintock is a smart, talented and principled public man. Like Pat, Tom is supported by a legion of dedicated, energetic activists. Like the Buchanan campaign of 1992, the McClintock campaign of 2003 thinks it has momentum, a mirage created wholly by an elite media eager to wound a Republican front-runner. A decade ago, that front-runner was President Bush; these days it is Arnold.
And like the Buchanan campaign of 1992, the McClintock campaign of 2003 is playing the role of unwitting pawn of the Democrats to a perfection.
It will not be clear for some years what the real costs of the McClintock candidacy will be. The GOP is already damaged in California, but the real disaster will arrive only if Cruz Bustamante replaces Gray Davis, winning the second part of the California recall with a margin less than the total number of votes garnered by McClintock.
The die-hards ought to think about Breyer and Ginsburg as they launch rhetorical salvo after rhetorical salvo at Arnold. These attacks are very similar in tone and detail to those hurled by the Buchananites against the elder Bush in 1992. Whether they will result in the declaration as unconstitutional of such laws as a ban on partial-birth abortion remains to be seen, but Pat Buchanan clearly didn't set out to destroy such protections with his candidacy of 1992.
But he did. What will the McClintock ledger show a decade hence?
I've read some erudite comments (all from our pragmatic side) and yours hits the bull's eye! BRAVO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Off to watch Arnold on LKL.
Well, I voted for Bush I twice, and for Dole. So I have nothing to apologize for.
Maybe you can tell me how far conservatism was advanced under Bush I? Because I can't see it. In fact, in hindsight the opposite appears to be true. Perhaps someone from CA can point out conservative gains in CAlifornia under Wilson, another 'moderate'.
No, these fellows actions, and those of other 'moderates' throughout the country, indicate to me that they have no intention of advancing conservatism, in fact, it appears they detest it, as do many moderates on this board.
So don't tell me to just keep electing moderates and everything will be OK, because your moderates have ALREADY proven they consider conservatives a necessary evil to be ignored after the election.
I still may end up swallowing my principles once again & vote for AS, if its clear TM has NO chance. But I'm getting DARN close to saying to hell with 'moderates' & the consequences be damned.
And once enough people like me bail the GOP will have three choices: become irrelevent, move left (as they already feel comfortable doing), or go back to their roots, which is what I'll pray they do.
I'd just like to add a few more facts if I may. I've been following politics since I was a teenager. It's true that Bush SR promised not to raise taxes, "Read my lips, no more new taxes." However, Bush SR. wasn't planning to go into war with Iraq. Let's not forget that the conflict with Iraq cost us plenty, our economy grew weaker and the stock market stagnated. If I recall correctly, the Dow Jones went down 18-17 percent. Unemployment rose and jobs creation slowed; as a consequence sales fell sharply. Adding to that, the interest rates were high due to the savings and loan fiasco. And the most important thing that many have forgotten about is, BECAUSE OF THE WAR Bush Sr. was forced, mainly by the Liberals, to raise taxes as part of his budget agreement.
Of course the Liberals exploited the fact that Bush SR raised taxes and Buchanan capitalized on it. As a result we got the magnificent Clinton whose ability to increase taxes fooled everyone into forgetting this little fact and just talk about Bush SR's broken promise. So, just to remind everyone, Clinton's 1993 tax hike was $241 billion over five years.
Here is a LINK of Clinton's tax record:Clinton's 1993 tax hike not only broke America's tax hiking record but also Bill Clinton's campaign promise to cut middle class taxes in his 1992 campaign.
Sheepish at negative public reaction from his breaking of both tax hike records and his promises, Clinton admitted in 1995: "People in this room are still mad at me at that budget because you think I raised your taxes too much. Well, it might surprise you to know I think I raised them too much, too."
Bill Clinton promised to cut taxes while campaigning in 1992.
In 1993, Bill Clinton raised taxes by a record $241 billion over five years.
In 1994, Clinton again tried raising taxes with his nationalized health care plan.
In 1995, Bill Clinton admits he raised taxes "too much."
In 1996, Bill Clinton vetoed tax cuts.
In 1997, Clinton finally accepted tax cuts at Republican insistence.
In 1998, Clinton again refused to cut taxes in spite of a growing surplus.
And in 1999, Bill Clinton not only again opposed tax cuts, but sought $100 billion more in taxes over the next ten years (according to CBO), despite a $1 trillion 10-year, non-Social Security surplus.
____________________
The same ploy concocted by the Liberal media and the Democrats to conquer and divide (oldest trick in the book) is being applied here regarding Arnold. He's been accused by the Liberals of being a Liberal on social issues. This, of course, won't deter Democrats and Liberals since they advocate the same issues, but is for Conservatives' consumption. With a little bit of luck the Liberals will be again laughing all the way to the bank when Bustamente wins and Conservatives are left with a deep satisfaction in their hearts while pounding on the table as they exclaim… Ha! We just taught a lesson to the GOP, and if GW doesn't do something about illegals, we're going to teach him as well. Ain't this country great!
Bush I the moderate broke his promise & raised taxes to fund larger government. He learned nothing from 8 years as VP for the greatest president of this century.
Yet he we was elected again. I guess only Republicans are held accountable for breaking promises.
Would you rather they not be?
Do you really want your party to be as morally bankrupt as the democrats, as long as they win elections?
So that's why you vote for GOP losers, to put Democrats in power?
What I want is for my party to reflect my values, like it did 20 years ago.
The "facts" to which he refers to are: "Whenever a visitor's eye turns to the picture, I point to Pat and say, there's the man who put Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer on the U.S. Supreme Court. Only the politically inclined get it: Pat Buchanan's primary challenge to President George H.W. Bush in 1992 bled the incumbent and opened the door to Perot. Perot, of course, put Clinton in the White House, and Clinton put those justices on the highest court."
All right, jones, as long as you're ascribing fantastic blame to one inconsequential guy, let's take a little trip down memory lane.
-Nitty Gritty Great Bird Bush was POTUS, and, of course the GOP front-runner. Despite the fact that he relegated his benefactor Reagan to something of a museum curiousity and couldn't cobble two words of inspiration together, he was the "R" guy.
-Grifting billyjeff was the silver tongued challenger. He was an odious piece o' crap, and a lot of folks, from both sides, knew he stunk. It was a wonderful season for for voter disenchantment.
-Perot, nut that he was, was lucid, and spoke to issues of concern to about 19% of voters during that season.
-Pat gave a glowing endorsement to the unworthy Great Bird Bush during the Republican National Convention.
-Billyjeff won, thanks to Great Bird's failure of ideas and inspiration, and appointed Ginsburg and Breyer.
Hugh, you are veering dangerously close to blaming da man for the numbskulled failures of your inept heroes.
I agree, but in a place like California the only way you'll be able to do it is incrementally, in other words, little by little. Get the people you have now --Arnold-- elected and keep working on changing the majority of Californians' mind, and in time you'll be able to elect a true Conservative.
I wish you were right, but there are NO facts in evidence that electing moderate republicans leads to incremental conservatism. In fact, the facts show the opposite. ESPECIALLY in CA.
From your lips to God's ears! I do fear Hugh is right, but no matter what, some will never get it. Like it or not, in California this is the way it is.
Skeeter, think a little. The consequences of getting Liberals in power has tremendous repercussions, from Courts to schools, to workplaces, and in every walk of life. The result of such is more and more Liberal-minded individuals running institutions. Cut your loses, compromise and look ahead.
I'll drink to that.B A's wife: "You'll drink to anything!
I'll drink to that, too.
LOL ! Hey ! Yer stealing MY lines !! hehe ! ...
ROFLMAO - Yup, William nailed you down cold. Which whackjob do you plan to support wholeheartedly and absolutely, forsaking all others? Will it be Alan the Grifter? Will it be the sartorially and hygienically challenged Howard Phillips?
Thanks, Victoria ...
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.
