It's About The Republic, Not The Republican

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

[nofriendofbills]

Makes good sense but I doubt that the Republican True Believers will see it.

[DugwayDuke]

"Glenn R. Jackson is Chairman of the American Reformation Project, former State Chairman for Buchanan Reform and former state Chairman of the Georgia Freedom Party."

"Makes good sense but I doubt that the Republican True Believers will see it."

This only makes sense if one belives Buchanan is the fount of all wisdom. I find it mildly humurous when Buchananites attack Bush supporters for blindly supporting Bush while they swallow every word from Bucanan as if it were inscribed on stone tablets. I find it fascinating when Bucnananites attempt to grasp the banner of conservatism when they would impliment trade policies that would make a Frenchman proud. I suppose your milage varies.

[rdavis84]

You'll have ALL of the examples of the True Believers on this thread. It just doesn't register on them.

[Miss Marple]

Oh, it registers, all right. I prefer to let you talk amongst yourselves.

[J. L. Chamberlain]

Fear not, the BushBot® posting network will be along shortly to have this thread yanked.

J

[rdavis84]

So it's all Buchanan's fault. That one should be listed in this article, along with one "where your mileage varied" about it being Perot's fault.

But this article doesn't mention either one. So why are you bringing Buchanan into it?

[rdavis84]

They're a little late. Must have had a Pep Rally last night.

[JZoback]

Nice article. Too bad the general population thinks just because Bush is a decent, caring, human being, anything is better than Clinton. (I would agree anything is better than Clinton, my cat is better)

I wonder if the Bushbots realize they are slowly becoming the James Carville, Paul Begala's of the Republican party.

[J. L. Chamberlain]

Oh, they'll be here soon enough! The devoted will prostrate themselves before the altar of Bush, saying that he is the master of all creation, the sower of great seeds. It matters not to them that he is taking the party in the direction of liberalism.

J

[steve50]

I wonder if the Bushbots realize they are slowly becoming the James Carville, Paul Begala's of the Republican party.

They know but they don't care. Reminds me of the little groups my sons friends form in grade school, your either with us or against us. The republican party is not conservative anymore, it's neoconservative

[sam_paine]

Buchanan v. Bush was decided, wasn't it?

I'm no BushBot, but the distilled argument against him doesn't seem that strong. Just two points.

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.

Argument Two: The President is doing a masterful job of running the Terror War. Who would you rather have in the White House Al Gore or George Bush?

Well, we could be listening to daiy video cuts from Mullah Omar taunting the Great Satan, saying "Give us the evidence of Bin Laden's involvement." We could still have UBL training thousands of terrorists openly in Taliban camps bolstered by their apparent invincibility. We could still have utter chaos and fear.

We could still have Arafat as the recognized peace partner in Palestine.

We could still have even drier farmers in Klamath. We could be members of Kyoto. We could have California Air Resources Board decisions co-opted into federal law. I shudder to thinks what else.

[Jhoffa_]

The sports analogy was particularly good.

"Our Team" must win, at any cost.. Even if through "winning" we become virtually indistinguishable from the other team.

And, of course every team has their pom-pom clad cheerleaders..

[DugwayDuke]

"So why are you bringing Buchanan into it?"

My response pointed out that the article was written by "Glenn R. Jackson is Chairman of the American Reformation Project, former State Chairman for Buchanan Reform and former state Chairman of the Georgia Freedom Party."

Second, the article is an attack on Bush from the Buchananite perspective.

[NoControllingLegalAuthority]

The proper approach should be this: Support the president when he is right and fight him when he is wrong. We may love our parents and spouses but we don't always agree with them. In important matters of our government, we have a DUTY to criticize and argue for change when we believe change is needed. No man or woman is right all of the time. Our founders knew that and created a system of checks and balances to prevent one individual (no matter how "good" or well-intentioned ) from having complete control of public policy.

Al Gore, as president, would have been mercilessly attacked by conservatives for leaving our borders open after 9/11. Bush is wrong on open borders and conservatives should criticize him as they would have Gore.

Bush being a "nicer guy" has nothing to do with it.

[Jhoffa_]

Exactly.. You put that very well.

When dubya does something I feel is right from a Conservative point of view, I cheer him and vice versa.

I think the thing that turns most people off is the personality cult that demands total obedience and conformity with their views. The slightest dissention brings flocks of "bots" who then attempt to delphi every thing in sight.

Strangely enough their war cry is "You're being divisive"

[noRinoforme]

We could still have Arafat as the recognized peace partner in Palestine.

We don't?

[Jhoffa_]

PS: If you look at this from the perspective of a consumer with a vote to spend and a politician with a business designed to earn your vote, these attacks are allot like, say McDonalds employees chasing you into the street, yelling and calling you names because you don't like their menu.

[sam_paine]

I agree. Call him when he's wrong (such as backing down from the ICC fight, etc.) and cheer him when he's right.

I write letters, and get somewhat acknowleging form letters in return. But when I wrote Clinton/Gore in disagreement, you think I got any kind of response?

In other words, we have more of a chance to influence a liberal repulican in the conservative direction than to influence a "new" democrat in the conservative direction.

And again, should Buchanan or Keyes ever mount a viable candidacy, I'll be there. But they haven't and they won't in this climate.

[sam_paine]

You seen Arafat in the East Lawn lately?