It's About The Republic, Not The Republican

Ether Zone ^ | July 27, 2002 | Glenn R. Jackson

[rdb3]

You survived Berkeley with your sanity intact? Wow.

[Kip Lange]

You survived Berkeley with your sanity intact? Wow.

Well...mostly intact...I still go into a cold sweat when I hear the words "Sierra Club".

--KL

[Kip Lange]

Hey, man! Be quiet! Don't you know that you will be mercilessly drawn and quartered for pointing out the obvious fact that neither Keyes nor Buchanan has a viable shot at winning?

I think Pat's window has passed (I wouldn't jump onboard a Buchanan bandwagon, though...see anti-tarriff comments above)...now Alan, he's a fire 'em up speaker, but in terms of name recognition...to the general public it's "Alan WHO?" Plus, I don't know if he quite has the calm composure I'd look for in a prez. :-) He's still one heckuva fire-'em-up speaker, though.

I've been saying that for months here, and I'm still healing from my wounds. ;-)

Ah well, the truth often hurts. And it often hurts the one who tells it even more. :p I do hate to say it...but I like my candidates to come in the "electable" flavor. *duck*

--Kip

[mlocher]

the article is an attack on bush from a buchananite perspective

that became very clear. fact is, bush IS doing an outstanding job on the war on terror. he is hamstrung by the fact that americans do not want to see their own die. every single death of a us service man in afghanistan was sensationalized by our press. somehow every death was blamed on the united states.

it is clear that bush is trying to get surrogates to fight this war. as long as the surrogates have congruent goals to ours, that is great. let them put their lives on the lines for their own liberty -- with our help of course. besides afghanistan, we have been especially successful in indonesia.

i would like to see us be more aggressive in iraq, but i also realize that we in the united states will pull the plug on the war if we have too many casualties or if the price of oil goes too high. unlike buchanan, bush has this talent of carefully navigating a bull in a china shop.

domestically, bush got a 1.3 trillion tax cut through congress. we just need to accelerate it -- it's coming.

buchanan is an isolationist. the last 3 depressions had their roots in isolationist policies. too bad because i think he is strong on social issues and personal freedom. but carville does have it right, "it's the economy stupid" and pat would lose woefully on that.

[RaceBannon]

I was commenting on Aldrich's complaint, and how I agree in spirit with him. It seems a year ago, before 9-11, we were supposed to shut up and support Bush just because he wasn't gore. I was saddened, because some of the same issues that used to infuriate us when bill and hillary did them, were ignored or shuffled under the rug when it was GWB's turn to do them.

Hence, the term, What? Didn't you get your muffler??

[DugwayDuke]

"buchanan is an isolationist."

Buchanan is much more than an isolationist.

"the last 3 depressions had their roots in isolationist policies. too bad because i think he is strong on social issues and personal freedom. but carville does have it right, "it's the economy stupid" and pat would lose woefully on that."

Pat has ALREADY lost woefully on that. I might agree pretty much with some of his social policies (I might agree with all of them, I'm just not sure I've heard them all.), his immigration policies, and his policy on sealing the borders. I find his economic policies, particularly "fair trade" (which I think is only a small step removed from socialism) are sufficient to disqualify him. His foreign policy his even more disqualifying.

[Kip Lange]

[Joe Hadenuf]

Good post and the truth.

[foreverfree]

bump

[galt-jw]

Ah well, the truth often hurts. And it often hurts the one who tells it even more. :p I do hate to say it...but I like my candidates to come in the "electable" flavor. *duck* --Kip

"Popularity in the realm of fools is impotence in the realm of values."

L. Peikoff

[Abundy]

What a relief. I haven't seen your posts lately and thought you had been down in the basement where you were infected by the RNC pods....

It is good to see that they missed you and you still are thinking independantly - sorry to have doubted you....

[RaceBannon]

For years, I was a GOP robot, not because I really believed them, but because the weren't the DemocRAT party. When in 1994, I campaigned for a genuine conservative in Connecticut for governor, Tom Scott, I learned some things. We elected a RINO governor, John Rowland, a former congressman who voted for the first Brady Bill and is pro-Abortion instead.

It was saddening, several times, during the debates, we went to support outside the places, and the Rowland supporters told us we were splitting the vote. We explained how Rowland was a liar who could not be trusted, and sure enough, he has done nothing to stimulate growth in the state. Our unemployment rate is only 3% for a state average, but in my area it is 5%.

Manufacturing in this state is also dying. We were one of the central hubs for aviation, both for defense and civil, but with the overseas development in China and Indonesia, Pratt & Whitney, General Electric and Rolls Royce all moved overseas to go for the cheap labor. That means Pratt went from 65,000 employed in the state in the 70's, to 5000 now. Hamilton Standard went from 15,000 in the 70's to 1,500 now.

We had several democrat governors in a row, from Ella Grasso in the 70's, then O'Niel, who ran the budget into the ground, then Lowell Wieker, who told us that having an income tax in 1990 would be like throwing gasoline on a fire, for Ct was deep into recession because of the loss of jobs defense related fromthe Berlin Wall coming down.

You guessed it: Wieker threw gasoline on a fire, Rowland said nothing about recinding it in 94, Scott entered the race, promised to eliminate the tax, stimulate growth, and get the economy moving again, but Rowland won.

That is when I learned what a RINO is. Our income tax is 1/2 of 1% less than when it started, down to 3.5%. Our Gas tax is about $.50 a gallon, I forgot the amount, but it is the second highest in the nation.

We are top heavy with CEO's, and that is the only reason our average salaries are considered the highest. I was in Engineering until a year ago when all the telecom companies went under, since then I am now running a tool crib for a supply company!

Knowing how our main industrial base left not only our state, but our country, I have no support for politicians who talk of GATT or NAFTA or Free Trade, because it translates into unemployment for us up here, and recession.

I am seriously considering moving to somewhere else, but I have no idea where.

[Abundy]

We elected a RINO governor, John Rowland, a former congressman who voted for the first Brady Bill and is pro-Abortion instead.

It was saddening, several times, during the debates, we went to support outside the places, and the Rowland supporters told us we were splitting the vote. We explained how Rowland was a liar who could not be trusted,

Don't move to Maryland - there's only one party in this state and it's infested with Socialists.

Your experiences should be a thread all it's own, putting Conservatives on notice what will happen nationally (hell, it already is) if we keep giving individuals a pass just because they have an "R" after their names...

[wku man]

"The republican party is not conservative anymore, it's neoconservative."

You're right that the Pubbie Party isn't conservative anymore, but I bristle every time I hear the words "neoconservative" and "paleoconservative". Let's call the way it is...either someone is conservative or they're not conservative. The more modifiers we attach to the word only serves to dilute it's true meaning.

That said, the Pubbies are no longer conservatives, they are political opportunists, licking a finger and sticking it in the air to see which way the wind is blowing on each and every issue that comes their way, afraid of the press and their own shadows, no longer willing to take a stand and do what's right for fear of losing votes or not getting invited to the next cocktail party. Perhaps this is what folks mean when they say "neoconservative", but cretins with no spine or sense of right and wrong shouldn't be rewarded by attaching any form of the word "conservative" to them.

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

[x]

It's been over twenty years since Ronald Reagan was elected, and almost ten since the "Republican Revolution" of Newt Gingrich. The old issues don't have the same power and appeal now. The situations that led unideological people to vote heavily for Republicans or conservatives -- we could sum those conditions up by "Carter" and "Clinton" -- don't exist now. And the issues that make the press now -- internal security and corporate corruption -- tend to promote more government, rather than less. The conclusion that I draw is that the votes aren't there for a more conservative agenda. The Republicans of 1994 and 1980 were relatively inactive on immigration issues, anyway.

Perhaps a more dynamic and imaginative leader could create the conditions for a more conservative agenda. I doubt it would make very much difference just now, but Bush isn't that leader. He's not without talents, but they are more those of a national, rather than a party or factional, leader. In this, he's more in the mold of his father or Eisenhower or Washington, than of Reagan or the Roosevelts, who were as skilled at partisan and ideological command, as at national leadership.

[Kip Lange]

I highly disagree. I just think that the moderates (read: liberals) once again have decided that conservatives are too controversial to handle. Remember, when Reagan ran, most of the the Reps. at the time thought he was far too conservative a candidate to win.

The issues that make the press? Don't you mean, the issues the press decides should make the press? The mainstream media is always going to run stories that benefit their liberal agenda.

The issues that conservatives win on are (mostly) the very same issues that Bush won the election on (and, again, I'm counting Bush as a conservative -- although *not* the weaklings in Congress). Tax cuts, limited but effective government, personal accountability, increased military spending, school vouchers, a ban on partial-birth abortion...those are conservative issues. And they still resonate with most of the country. The danger is when the moderates/RINOs start tapdancing around with social security, or education spending, or ANYTHING that has to do with spending -- liberals will always be willing to outspend conservatives. As for immigration issues, even within the conservatives, there's a great deal of disagreement on it. Isolationism and conservatism do NOT go hand in hand (for instance, I'm livid over the steel tariffs).

That being said, I will readily admit that Bush doesn't have the bully-pulpit oratory power that Reagan had; however, he's far more conservative than his father ever was (good god, we lost so many damn seats -- *overnight* -- when he broke his "no new taxes" pledge -- it ain't even funny). Bush is more of a Truman or maybe even a Coolidge; not particularly fond or great at over-arching oratory but a very effective "manager" of power. All I care about with Bush is that he gets the majority of the issues I care about as a conservative taken care of -- which he has. Tax cuts -- done. Increased military spending -- done. Partial birth abortion ban -- on the way.

And let's not forget the single most important reason to have a conservative president -- appointments to the courts. Now, don't get me wrong, we've had some real f'ing idiots put on the courts by Republicans -- David Sou...I can't even say his name :p -- but, on the par, Bush's nominees are conservative. Which is why it drives me absolutely bats**t when a basically liberal RINO like McLame comes along and sides with the Dems on blocking his nominees. We've got to get those nominees appointed.

Okay, this thing is rambling all over the place, but er, you get some of my points. I don't think conservatism is dead. I think it's feared by the Republicans in Congress as again, being too "dangerous" to pursue -- but then again, even if they lost control of the congress, it was a conservative who gave them that control in the first place -- Newt.

--KL

[Kip Lange]

Manufacturing in this state is also dying. We were one of the central hubs for aviation, both for defense and civil, but with the overseas development in China and Indonesia, Pratt & Whitney, General Electric and Rolls Royce all moved overseas to go for the cheap labor. That means Pratt went from 65,000 employed in the state in the 70's, to 5000 now. Hamilton Standard went from 15,000 in the 70's to 1,500 now.

Well, unfortunately, the conservative answer to that is -- let it die. You know the Adam Smith line -- or at least, you should. The fact that these companies are moving overseas is basic free-market economics -- it's *cheaper* for them over there. The cheaper labor translates into cheaper goods for the consumer. Cheaper goods for the consumer mean more money to spend on other sectors of the economy, which the displaced workforce eventually rotates into.

Buchananism ain't conservatism. It's populist isolationism.

--KL

[Keyes For President]

When it comes to this nation it is NOT about the victory of Republicans over the opposing team of Democrats, but about the victory of the people, the citizens of the United States, over government’s invasive nature.

Bump!

[Gadsen]

Argument One: The President is either hamstrung by lack of control of the Senate and/or is exerting a masterful strategy to regain control of both Houses of Congress AND then will enact a conservative agenda.

The alternative would seem to be gridlock playing into Dashole's hand? No compromise, and hence shutdown the government. Not likely a good way to win in 2002.

Any President who could acheive gridlock in congress and shut down that particular branch of government would get my vote. Congress does it's best work when it does nothing at all

[Twodees]

President Bush is the most popular and powerful conservative in the country

Nope, sorry. He would have to convert to conservatism before he could ever hope to become the most popular or powerful conservative in the country. Liberals aren't popular conservatives, Ned. I urge you to seek professional help before you snap and kill us all.