Rumbling on the Hard-Right

The Washington Times ^ | December 30, 2003 | Stephen Dinan

[GunsareOK]

President Bush is beginning to anger certain hard-line conservatives, particularly over fiscal issues, the way his father did in the year before he lost to Bill Clinton in 1992.

It's not clear how deep the dissatisfaction goes, and whether it will translate to damage at the polls in November.

[hchutch]

Fine, but don't blame me for judging paleos in general by the company they keep. I've seen enough to convince me that at the very least they have no problem with racists and bigots.

I'm, pretty comfortable with the neo-conservatives on foreign policy and can support some of the mainstream conservative agenda. And I'm certainly not going to be quiet when I see a bunch of unappeasables put ideological purity over results.

[GunsareOK]

Ed Koch for sure. If those cousins become more conservative over the years, that will be a good thing also.

[politicalwit]

"Anyone not voting for Bush is helping the Dean/Dems win."

Using your methodology and somewhat skewed reasoning we can only conclude that "anyone voting for Bush is supporting larger government, CFR, AWB, the department of education, expanding medicare and the erosion of our Constitutional Rights".

[theFIRMbss]

>There will be two realistic candidates. Vote for the most conservative one of the two. Anything else is stupidity.

That's not really news.
And a lot of politics
is built on the point

that these days many
voters are really stupid.
We either face it,

or go down in flames
crying that nobody did
what they should have done.

In another thread,
I pointed out some plain math
that really scares me:

Look at the plain math
facing Republicans if
people do desert:

1) If people stay home,
then no Republicans get
the deserters' votes.

2) If people switch, then
no Republicans get votes,
and bad guys get votes.

Those are bad results,
and every day we have threads
where old timers say

they're so unhappy
with the status quo that they
will do one of them.

Now, desperate times
require desperate measures.
I put out my plan.

I see nobody
coming up with other plans,
just people whining,

and other people
telling them to shut up and
vote the party line.

We're Republicans,
not 'Rats. We don't like "orders,"
don't like sheep-herding,

and we don't like dumb,
simplistic, childish treatment
that involves hiding

our heads in the sand.
If things are bad, then damn it
why don't we hear more

ideas about
how to fix things instead of
"Whinings" and "Shut ups!"

[PGalt]

I seem to think that they will. I told several of them about freerepublic, and I know that 2 read it regularly. We discuss it.

[reformedliberal]

Only the FRinge right, angry, socialist misanthropes are unhappy with him. But they are statistically insignificant and need to be routed out of the GOP anyway.

---

I agree, but I am a despised neo-con, so none of the permanently disgruntled will care what I say, anyway.

I wager there enough of us who experienced the Left up close and personal and have come to adore GWB to totally make up for the hard right facists who seem to forget we do not have a monarchy.

I also agree with the poster who pointed out that we need to think beyond 2004 to 2008 and that a beloved two-term conservative Republican president will make another conservative Republican president possible. If we can achieve 2 back-to-back two term Republicans, we can look forward to a generation of young voters for whom liberal Democrat is an unacceptable choice.

I know exactly what the Left wants for this world and I will do anything necessary to make sure that doesn't ever happen.

No human is the Second Coming, nor should we expect them to so be. Bush is not perfect, but he is far and away ahead of whatever runs against him.

He has my vote.

[Who is John Galt?]

...the strategy of the liberals has been a death by a thousand cuts. Putting another liberal in charge of appointing judges and the heads of executive agencies will give them more razors and more time to keep cutting.

It doesn't matter if the cuts are administered by a Republican liberal or a D@mocrat liberal: the results will be precisely the same.

;>

The gun banners have been succesful because they have been patient, jumping at each opportunity either big or small. The longer we remain fixated on big, one shot snake oil cures instead of a progressive reclamation of our God given rights the longer it will take us to get them back.

Actually, the longer republicans vote for RINOs, "the longer it will take us to get them back."

I don't disagree with you in principle - RKBA means what it plainly reads in the 2nd amendment. THe problem is the reality within which we must work.

"Reality?" I deal in facts: in 1994, 1 out of every 5 voters was a gun owner voting Republican. If the frigging Republican Party refuses to recognize that almost 20% of the actual get-out-of-the-house-and-drive-to-the-polling-place-to-wait-in-line vote are gun owners, then the Party truly is the 'Stupid Party.'

For example, Bush signs AWB. Enough "gun rights" folks are pissed they write in the dali lama. Dean is elected. He places liberals in the courts and RKBA build precidents as a "collective right.

Review the current membership of the high court, and tell us how many of the 'justices' were appointed by Republican presidents...

Flip side, Bush veto's AWB, enough one issue wonders on the other side get a lib elected. AWB's gone right? No, it's a law that that can be passed again by congress.

Again, I deal in facts. Are you honestly suggesting that vetoing the AWB would "get a lib elected?" Upon what basis do you jump to that ridiculous conclusion? Even many D@mocrats are jumping off the 'gun control' band wagon. Why? Because it is a losing issue.

That's two terms - 8 years.

Another assumption on your part. Care to tell us how many D@mocrats since FDR have been reelected to the presidency?

What did the Revolution of '94 get us concerning RKBA? Notice AWB is up for renewal, and the "revolution" of 94 had it fully within their powers the entire time to pass legislation to get rid of it - but didn't.

Are you suggesting that a Republican President signing, rather than vetoing, an AWB extension is some how more desireable than a Republican Congress unable to override a D@mocrat veto on an AWB repeal? Feel free to explain your point in detail.

If you want to bet the farm on a long shot that is your choice, I'm just dissapointed that it could effect my rights in the long term.

And if you want to live in a fantasy land, where a Republican signing gun control legislation is somehow better than a D@mocrat signing IDENTICAL gun control legislation, then "that is your choice, I'm just dissapointed that it could effect my rights in the long term."

;>)

[sinkspur]

There are those here that one could call "the unappeaseables"

My favorite term for the hyenas.

Richard Vigurie sticks his head up, every four years, to piss and moan about how Republicans are letting down "true conservatives."

There seems to be a concerted effort, now that Bush seems to be a near lock next year, for so-called "conservatives" to try to take him down.

At_war_with_Liberals is the chief organ grinder for a band of monkeys who have an active campaign going against Bush from the right.

Here. Read what jimkress, a knuckle-dragger with gelatinous excrement for brains has to say about Bush:

From this point on I will publicly oppose your position as President. I will actively work against your re-election attempt - due primarily to your decision to impose an untouchable political aristocracy upon your constituents. I will do all in my power to assure that neither you nor your progeny will ever again subvert and corrupt the freedom given us by God and protected by the blood of our citizens.

You have earned the enmity of all who love liberty and resist tyranny. You have made it clear you represent the same evil that gave the world Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and Hitler. You have subverted liberty. You have imposed tyranny upon your constituents.

May God have mercy on your soul.

How's that for a so-called "conservative"? Kress is going to vote for Howard Phillips, a clown who's never held an elective office.

[MEG33]

I've had at some of his threads about Bush...he's never answered.

[At _War_With_Liberals]

"How miniscule? Care to provide facts for a change?"


Since you refute every single insightful contribution that I am making to this debate, why should I have to defend the fact that BUSH is the biggest spender of all time by every measure known to economics? Bush is fine with this level of spending, and has told all of those who express concern to deal with it, or be cast out as extremists. The whole GOP establishment is out to first marginalize, and then get rid of us. And you agree with that thinking.

I am stating the truth about the disaster that is Bush domestic philosophyy, and all you can do is say that I am a liar?

If you continue to absolutely ignore the dangers that we now face, all in the name of Bush, we have nothing to talk about.


We are 90% of the way down the road to a socialist state with totalitarian tendencies, and I am getting flamed for merely pointing it out.And ostracized by the admin. Even on FR... What the hell is going on in this country?

If this is not evidence that there are those that want to silence conservatives PERMANENTLY, I do not know what is. We will be a socialist nation soon... it is only a matter of when.

[At _War_With_Liberals]

"How miniscule? Care to provide facts for a change?"


Since you refute every single insightful contribution that I am making to this debate, why should I have to defend the fact that BUSH is the biggest spender of all time by every measure known to economics? Bush is fine with this level of spending, and has told all of those who express concern to deal with it, or be cast out as extremists. The whole GOP establishment is out to first marginalize, and then get rid of us. And you agree with that thinking.

I am stating the truth about the disaster that is Bush domestic philosophyy, and all you can do is say that I am a liar?

If you continue to absolutely ignore the dangers that we now face, all in the name of Bush, we have nothing to talk about.


We are 90% of the way down the road to a socialist state with totalitarian tendencies, and I am getting flamed for merely pointing it out.And ostracized by the admin. Even on FR... What the hell is going on in this country?

If this is not evidence that there are those that want to silence conservatives PERMANENTLY, I do not know what is. We will be a socialist nation soon... it is only a matter of when.

[sinkspur]

I've had at some of his threads about Bush...he's never answered.

Kress is gutless. He posts articles then never responds to comments on them. He's free to do that, of course, just as we are free to raise our legs on his previous posts.

[At _War_With_Liberals]

"Federal interest payments as a percentage of GDP on the National Debt is the lowest it's been since 1979. It's 1.7% of GDP.
"

Meaningless relativism- socialist tactic. Expected from a vichy Repub like you.

[leadpenny]

Guns, I know how you feel but think about this, I've voted for a Republican since my first vote for Barry Goldwater except in 92 when I helped put x42 in office by voting for H. Ross. We'll talk at the next FReep.

[Lael]

Website polls are meaningless. They're not scientific, and are indicative only of how many people happen to log on to vote. As we see on FR, polls can be rigged by pointing people to them, people who ALL feel the same way.

"What, me worry???

Well, we will find out in just over two weeks when VINCENTE Fox come a'calling.

Just don't cry in your beer November 3rd, when the Democrat inherits the Oval Office!

[jimkress]

The Constitution Party is the best alternative to the tryanny of the Republicans and Democrats. If you refuse to act, even in the face of the suppression of your liberties (e.g. CFR), then all I can do is share the wisdom of Sam Adams:

If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, - go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!

Samuel Adams, "American Independence," 1 August 1776 Occasion: Speech delivered at the State House in Philadelphia.

[Dane]

Maybe AWWL, can all give us a stock tip to make a million dollars tomorrow.

After all he/she is the all knowing clairvoyant sage of FR.

[LPM1888]

Federal interest payments as a percentage of GDP on the National Debt is the lowest it's been since 1979. It's 1.7% of GDP.

Kind of like making the minimum payment on your credit card bill while you keep increasing the amount borrowed. At this rate we should have the National Debt paid off in a thousand years or so. Our grandchildren are going to hate this generation.

[At _War_With_Liberals]

"have come to adore GWB to totally make up for the hard right facists who seem to forget we do not have a monarchy."

As a 'reformed liberal'. you will always embrace leftist ideology to a certain extent.

Do not call conservatives 'fasicts'. That is a socialist tactic.

As a professed one time socialist, you will never be more than a Poseur.