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.

[Dane]

And by the way, PBA was NOT his doing. Mr. Never-Veto had nothing to do with the first 3 PBA bills that went to Clinton to get vetoed. That was in the works for years. He does not get extra credit simply for not vetoing it a foutrh time.

Simply amazing how delusional rationalization has affcted the unappeasable crowd.

[princess leah]

You cannot change the swing of the pendulum quickly...we are however, better off now than we were under Hillbilly's reign and it will take more conservatives IN THE SENATE to UNDO the damage his presidency did especially in JUDGES! Be smart, look at the BIG picture!

[gitmo]

Bush is an odd mixture. Thank God he was in the White House on 9/11. If algore had been there, we would have blown up another aspirin factory and made a speech. The democRat approach gave us 9/11. We cannot put these maniacs in charge of the nation's security again.

I admire Bush's character. He is a man who says what he means and means what he says. He is plain-spoken and straight forward. Bush doesn't have to be the limelight. He let his military commanders announce the capture of Hussein, and then let Tony Blair make the announcement next. Finally, Bush gave a low-key speech. This is classic W.

The tax cuts were a good start. I hope he goes back for seconds.

However, the leftist legislation that has gone through his administration is alarming. CFR lead to SCOTUS declaring the Constitution less important than the 'interests' of the government. The Farm Bill, the Education Bill, and the Medicare Bill were enormous handouts that my kids are going to have to pay for. And their kids.

And when is he going to support the 2nd amendment?

And when is he going to protect the borders of the US?

Bush gathered the best cabinet this country has had in a long time. Probably the best ever. Their execution of this war has been history-making. Brilliant to say the least.

But the security of this nation trumps everything else. We are in a life-or-death struggle, and the Rats will hand us the latter. We tend to forget the magnitude of what we are fighting. This really and truly is a world war, and must be approached with the same single-mindedness as the last world war. The affluence of our nation and our superpower status makes it look like a minor skirmish. But superpowers have toppled before, and terrorism is the perfect weapon to destroy this one.

Bush is fighting it with the right approach. You cannot fight terrorists directly, but you must go against the nations that are funding it. If you try to fight the terrorists themselves, they disappear. But if you cut off their supply lines, their sanctuary bases, and their training support they can be eliminated. Because really, it is those nations that are attacking us, using al Qaeda as a proxy.

Gaddafi's plea to remove WMDs from Libya shows this approach works. And now Iran is wanting to talk. W is the man for the job.

[tbpiper]

REAL conservatives

I suppose you consider yourself a real conservative? From your erroneous opinion of the Republican party, I would assume you're not one. Erstwise you'd be calling yourself a pile of @@@@ (oops, no spell check)****.

Conservatism is much more than just being tight with money. Republicans who would abandon the president in an election year, considering what's at stake are shortsighted and selfish. The more important issue is survival and, in case you've missed the news, we're in a war. Nice as it would be for the congress to actually quit spending so damn much, it is a small inconvenience compared to the possibility of terrorist appearing in a neighborhood near you.

The democrats would let it happen. Not intentionally, but out of shear incompetence, proven by the last democrat administration. Bush needs to stay.

You said that I was correct. I'm glad that you agree with me that a 'conservative' vote for anyone other than George Bush is a wasted vote.

[sinkspur]

The Constitooshimalist Party. The party of pure, rock-ribbed conservatism, or so they say.

The party that has nutjobs like you in it, who compare Bush to Pol Pot and Stalin.

Spouting nonsense like "tyranny" and "suppression of liberties" reminds of Demidog, a clownish Ron Paul supporter, who blamed America for 9/11 and who wore out his welcome with Jim Robinson.

[nutmeg]

bookmark bump

Dubya will get my vote, BTW!

[Teacher317]

I guess you could call me "unappeasable" when the discussion is "which Constitution-ignorer shall we elect this time?" I have to continue to jump up and down and wave my tiny little arms and squeak: There are more important things that just getting your favorite person elected!! A million Americans have fought and died for those Founding principles, and it is sad that we must push so fervently for a President who allows them to be ignored for simple political expediency (CFR, the drug entitlement, and AWB being the most glaring examples of unnecessary and blatantly anti-Constitutional positions held/supported by President Bush).

Until we find a Presidential candidate that won't support such unimportant (would ANY of those EVER save lives or be needed in response to a national emergency?), useless (counter-productive, really), and (amazingly clearly) anti-Constitutional positions, I simply have to leave that spot blank on my ballot. I pray that his foreign policy genius finally comes back home to guide his domestic agenda. Until I see that it has, I can only hope, if the Dems take it in 2004 or 2008, that the GOP in the House and Senate stand strong. We've certainly given them the numbers to do it!!!

[At _War_With_Liberals]

"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."

Gimme a break. Since July I have supported Bush totally. The last couple of months I have come to an understanding that we are moving in the wrong direction domestically.

Talk about an organ grinder? You defend every Bush policy 10 hours a day. How many GOP employees post under Sinkspur?

I'm 'all over the place' on issues! Hardly an activist or ideologue.

[sinkspur]

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

I'll be drinking beer and celebrating Bush's victory, buster, on November 3.

Care to put some coin on your contention, that a Democrat will be elected? I'll bet one large ($1,000), here and now, that Bush will be handily re-elected.

Send me your e-mail address, I'll send you mine, and we'll have a bet.

Or are you all mouth?

[!1776!]

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. Only if you can turely believe the cuts will be as numerous or as deep. If you believe the libs will do less, vote for them.

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

Check where the RINO's are TURBO. Congress is your problem, not the President. Did you hear the President call for renewal of the AWB? No. When COngress brought it up he said if they pass it he'll sign sign it. TIme for Congress to do their freaking job for once.

"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.' Which party held the Presidency - according to you it's the most important part of the Government. That one in 4 sure helped there didn't it?

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

So you would rather just hand the nominations over to libs?

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.

No, I don't, necesarily. But if every one issue voter gets their way then the chances go up. Actually, both examples were given as just that. THis is law - the problem is how that law is being interpreted as constitutional in the courts.

The point I was trying (in vain I guess) to make was that AWB is not the end all be all of issues, just a symptom of the larger problem you would rather ignore.

Another assumption on your part. Care to tell us how many D@mocrats since FDR have been reelected to the presidency? Clinton was enough for me. If another 8 years of Clinton is what you want, just say so.

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. No, remember what I said about the salt in the wounds. Certainly not fun, but better than more cuts.

Why didn't the glorious revolution at least make a symbolic attempt to restore our God given rights? Huh? Why not at least make a point out of it, why not at a minimum get it on the news, why not motivate us gun owners to beat Clinton in 1998. Because Congress failed us and you put too much stock in a revolution that never figured out what really needed to be done to win.

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."

If you think you'll get a better deal out the RATS, go ahead, you'll be wrong, but go ahead. I'd much rather try to fix the problems within the party of greatest opportunity than fight from the outside against a party in power that wants to crush my rights.

The winner of this election will be a reblican or a democrat. If you don't vote for a republican - your giving the democrat a free vote.

Congratufreakinglations on your choice.

I'm sure RKBA will be much better off under a party with banning as part of it's freaking platform.

[Lael]

Four years of Dean and NYC will get nuked

And some in 'Flyover' country will not notice.

[Little Ray]

Hey, folks, its supposed to the Democrat Party that is crackin' up!

[Dane]

Until we find a Presidential candidate that won't support such unimportant (would ANY of those EVER save lives or be needed in response to a national emergency?), useless (counter-productive, really), and (amazingly clearly) anti-Constitutional positions, I simply have to leave that spot blank on my ballot.

I guess you live out in the street then, since you can't find your perfect house either.

Psst, teach, nothing in life is going to be perfect and constantly whining that life isn't perfect ain't going to solve anything.

Face it you know that Bush is better than Dean, but you would rather whine.

[theFIRMbss]

>I simply have to leave that spot blank on my ballot

"Hold your friends close, but
hold your enemies closer."
Conservatives should

give that some thought when
they feel their only option
is to just not vote.

[At _War_With_Liberals]

I agree with you. A Dean presidency means immediate activist appointments.

[MEG33]

Calling America Soviet Union lite tells me not to take you seriously.

[Dane]

Hey, folks, its supposed to the Democrat Party that is crackin' up!

Nah it's just the very small but very loud band of malcontents on FR who would make a thread about GW Bush having a hangnail into a thousand reply thread about how he has betrayed them.

Same thing happened in 99, and IMO, it was much worse.