Conservatives Need to Get Real

The Intellectual Conservative ^ | 02 February 2004 | Scott Shore

[Howlin]

Don't try to make it look so noble.

Amen!

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

If I have one hair left on my head by November, it will be a miracle.

[Howlin]

They act like they're going to get another candidate.

They're not.

Why don't they go somewhere and bother another party?

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

Because they're complaint junkies. Addicts. Complaining has its place, but at some point it becomes destructive and unhealthy. I would just tune it out if it didn't have major implications for the rest of us.

[DManA]

Speaking of duped, you really think Bush has given us tax cuts?

This brings us to the most important chapter in President Bush's budget, the one entitled "Stewardship." Buried in an appendix volume where reporters are unlikely to notice it, the chapter paints a chilling picture of long-term budgetary trends. It shows federal spending rising from about 20 percent of gross domestic product this year to 53 percent in 2080. Much of this comes from interest on the debt, which rises by 20 percent of GDP. But this is because the budget assumes that taxes will not rise to finance rising entitlement spending. In all likelihood, taxes will rise sharply at some point. It is completely unrealistic to think that federal taxes will remain close to 20 percent of GDP for the next 75 years....The budget itself admits that these trends are "unsustainable." Since Congress will never reduce benefits to retirees, the only way to make the trends sustainable is by raising taxes significantly.

www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett200402090843.asp

[Bogey]

"Words are cheap. If they want conservative votes, they'd better do something conservative to earn them. Because they've worked hard to alienate us so far."

---

I think he felt banning partial birth abortion would appease the conserves. It has finally dawned on him that it's not working. The medicare care bill has not impressed the elderly, and everyone is furious about the immigration
issue.
If he is going to make his base this mad in his first term going for re-election, I'm a little concerned how bad we get it in the rear when he's a lame duck.

[Howlin]

I just cannot figure out why they're complaining about OUR candidate. If they don't like him, fine; but the RNC IS going to run George W. Bush this year, come hell or highwater.

They need to spend as much time finding a new party for themselves as they do backbiting on FR.

[reformedliberal]

Just look at the percentages of votes for Buchanan, Keyes, Browne and that non-entity heading the less-than-visible Constitution Party. All together these voters are less than 5% of the electorate.

They will never elect anyone, not even their mythical generic conservative.

They adore being begged and pleaded with. It makes them feel important. They want a party w/o any former Democrats, gays, Hispanics or blacks. I have read exactly that sentiment on many of posts claiming *principles*.

What is important is the vastly larger constituency for pragmatic & compassioante conservatism. Once, some of us were on the Left. No longer. I think the reason we are not seeing much if any *undecideds* in the polls, is that the former undecideds have decided...........for Bush and the Republicans.

I am heartened by the articles being written that explicate the pragmatics of this election. Most of us get it. Those who don't will bitch, regardless and throw their vote away to non-entities w/out a chance or a clue. It is much more important to appeal to rational voters who have voted Democrat based on having been lied to and accepting it.

GWB is a moderate Republican w/some conservative beliefs. He isn't Barry Goldwater. Heck, today, I wonder if Goldwater would be the Goldwater of 1964. I seem to recall he changed to the left as he aged.

Like Supreme Court Justices, Presidents are changed by their office. Any of the conservatives touted by the unappeasables would have to become a moderate if a miracle happened and they were elected. Otherwise, it is impossible to govern.

GWB has done more to move us toward a pragmatic conservatism than any President in my 61 years. He will not move us towards a dogmatic conservatism and neither would anyone else who, once elected, suddenly had to deal with the domestic and foreign realities of the world as it is.

So, let's just recognize the principles of the unappeasables and move on. We have a President and a Congress to elect and we can do it w/o the 5%.

[Darlin']

What exactly did Gov George W Bush promise you during his campaign that he hasn't done, tried to do or has in the works ? Be specific do not resort to emotions, assumptions and generalities. Why did you vote for him ? You did vote for him in 2000, right ?

[kitkat]

They pretend to be conservatives, but they work to get a democrat elected.

They try to tell us they're more conservative than the rest of us because they want "smaller" government. They pretend to be insulted when we tell them they're throwing the election to the democrats/socialists.

But, for all their talk about being conservative, they will still keep on working to elect a democrat.

Hope they like Hitlery medical care.

Hope they don't come back here whining when they can't get to see a doctor in an emergency.

[onyx]

You have eloquently stated our case. Thank you.

*ping* to a fabulous post #188.

[Fawnn]

...they will still keep on working to elect a democrat.
Hope they like Hitlery medical care.
Hope they don't come back here whining when they can't get to see a doctor in an emergency.

I pray they don't succeed at the former so that the latter never happens!

[Columbine]

I just cannot figure out why they're complaining about OUR candidate. If they don't like him, fine; but the RNC IS going to run George W. Bush this year, come hell or highwater.

Exactly! The next president will be either George Bush or a Democrat, probably Kerry. Maybe they should go rag on the Dems for awhile. Would do just about as much good.

They need to spend as much time finding a new party for themselves as they do backbiting on FR.

Now that isn't going to happen. It's too much work to build something. It's easier to tear something down.

[reformedliberal]

GWB learned politics from Lee Atwater and has been a political worker all his adult life...and maybe before, as he grew up in campaigns.

No one who worked w/Atwater is a pawn of any operative/strategist. At the most, Rove is W's partner and is responsible for the down-ticket elections: House, Senate, Governors.

GWB does his own strategy. I am convinced of that. He honestly laid out his platform when he campaigned and he has delivered it all, so far, even w/all the dirty tricks, the less than perfect paper majorities and the betrayal of those who perhaps projected too much on to him and didn't pay attention to his platform.

I may not agree w/everything he has done, but I don't agree w/my husband all the time, either.

I am tired of these blame games. Rove. RINOs. NeoCons. GWB is who he is. He has never pretended to be anything else. He is the most consistent politician I have ever observed.

Because of all of that, he is going to win this election. And the unappeaseables can happily go back to their fantasy of a *real conservative*. No one is going to listen to y'all because you are kooks. Only you, yourselves, the media and the Dem operatives think you represent GWBs base. You don't. You didn't. You won't. And these brilliant people in the WH are fully aware of it.

Neither is your default to fringe staus going to 1) elect an internationalist or 2) cause a backlash resulting in your true conservative Messiah being ever elected. It is not going to happen. Not in the real world. Not anywhere. Ever. Get used to it.

[Howlin]

Prescisely.

[billbears]

Oh yes, you admitted exactly that. I'll not waste time going back to prove it to you, but only because we both post a lot

Ah, yes unsubstantiated attacks that with a reasonable excuse can't (or won't) be backed up. Well let me make it clear then. Except for a very few issues (our worthless current Republican Senatorial representation being one of them) I hold the values of Senator Helms in high regard. I did disagree with him from time to time however I agreed with him about 80-85% of the time.

Eddycate yourself, then get back to me.

Eddycate? What's wrong? Your statement in post #62 clearly stated the dangers of 'the democrats' allegiance to the UN.' I point out that it's not just the Democrats and you can't refute that. Now you're in the position that you have to defend President Bush's decision to do exactly what you rail against the Democratic Party for, which is 'allegiance to the UN'. Contrary to standard RNC talking points, it's not important who did it, it's that it was done in the first place. Unless you could convince me that joining UNESCO is somehow a conservative action

It would make it much easier if you will merely list the things you approve of in the entire world. I can't think of a thang you're happy about.

Conservative issues. Not just those that pander to us with nice speeches only to give over portions of our national and states' sovereignty in the next breath, but actual conservatives. Know of any?

[reformedliberal]

You have to be a member to have a voice. It was decided that it was better to remain w/in the UN and have influence, than to take our marbles and go home, leaving the UN to its own, unchecked devices, which include colluding against us at every turn.

That is why we have grown-ups in charge.

[Howlin]

How absolutely horrible of you to actually have the nerve to post a REASONABLE, RATIONAL reason for the United States to remain active in the U.N.

[onyx]

YOU HOO!

Anybody home?

President Bush forcefully stated WE (under his leadership) will never need a permission slip to protect our country.

[Bogey]

It has not stopped amazing me how morally superior these "real" conservatives are.

And condescending.


Sounds like 4-5 million of those condescending conservatives will be staying home. Keep making them mad,
so a few more stay home. G.W. will have a tough time without them.
The Dems are fighting to win. Bush is trying like hell not to lose.
Big difference.