Posted on 07/11/2004 12:03:02 PM PDT by FairOpinion
Conservatives, the backbone of Bush's political base, are increasingly uneasy about the Iraq conflict and the steady drumbeat of violence in postwar Iraq, Halper and some of his fellow Republicans say. The conservatives' anxiety was fueled by the Abu Ghraib prisoner-abuse scandal and has not abated with the transfer of political power to the interim Iraqi government.
Some Republicans fear angry conservatives will stay home in November, undercutting Bush's re-election bid.
"I don't think there's any question that there is growing restiveness in the Republican base about this war," said Halper, the co-author of a new book, "America Alone: The Neoconservatives and the Global Order."
Another administration official involved in Bush's re-election effort has voiced concern that angry conservatives will sit out the election.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Me neither but that's what the article and others said. It's a little more complicated because there are black evangelical Christians, Hispanic evangelical Christians, white evangelical Christians. . . .
Rats usually get the first two by wide margins.
Nobody knew how close the election was going to be, in advance.
Splitting the conservative/Republican vote was very dangerous.
We lucked out in the end, but that doesn't excuse those who were willing to throw the election to Bustamante, and still call themselves conservatives.
Anyway, I don't want to re-argue the recall election, but that is just one example that the so-called conservatives are totally willing to implement their unrealistic notions, hurting elections.
And forget California, just think of 8 years of Clinton, courtesy of "so-called conservatives", who voted for Ross Perot.
With respect, I completely disagree with this alligation/insinuation. I hear it over and over here.
Freepers and most American's are passionate and have their own issues. It's my opinion, most of their issues and concerns are substantial, and justified issues. Today, there are few small pet-issues, comparded to the cultural, social bankrupt ending policies that are being suggested today.
Every time you get your butt whipped in a debate, you get angry and revert silly talk. The question was about California and why it went from being a Republican state to a Democrat state in 35 years. This had nothing to do with Kerry or Bush. Throwing out such juvenile rhetoric only makes you look like a bigger fool then you've already shown yourself to be. Your attempt to obfuscate the real issues that face California today, is a sign of your frustration and desperation with life.
My own off-the-cuff guess at the number of illegals who are living in the country now, including all the amnestied ones (whom I still count as illegals, because amnesty and parole don't expunge the original offense), was about 30,000,000. I see by the graphic that the Census Bureau thinks that, with their progeny, they number some 45,000,000. Guess I'm close enough for government work.
Changes in population makeup like this are the stuff that revolutions and civil wars are made of.
And FWIW, even the more business-oriented, work-oriented Mexicans we get in Texas from northern Mexico (nortenos) vote 70% for Democratic candidates when they vote -- a solid enough vote to qualify them for yellow-dog status. South Americans and Central Americans split more evenly, and Cubans still tilt Republican. But Chicanos are bad news.
And Bush keeps bending over backwards to get more Mexicans into the country. I don't get it, unless this is the business lobby's famous propensity in action, for trading away their future for a few good quarters in the near years.
Bill Buckley once gave Joseph Sobran a 10,000-word trial by essay before dismissing him from National Review's board. I don't think Bill would find fault with this essay. This isn't a Westbrook Pegler foam-at-the-mouth piece, and although I think I've detected some slick, snarky antisemitism in comments generally coming from the Left, I don't see any of that here. Buchanan seems to be fighting fair, and for a reasonable expression of differences.
I saw this article go by last year, and I didn't stop to read it because it was a demanding read and because I was afraid Buchanan would just embarrass himself and make some more "amen corner" cracks. It seems I was mistaken, and should have given him more credit.
Whether its 15 million, 30 million or 45 million illegals, that's far too many. Bush`s immigration reform policy didn't go over very well with the American people, who still oppose amnesty for illegal aliens in overwhelming numbers.
Maybe they need a little reminder from some of us who live in their districts or states. It's amazing how clear headed they become when they have to be accountable for their big mouth.
And .. everybody needs to ask them if THEY HAVE BEEN TO IRAQ. If not .. they have nothing to stand on.
Geeeeez .. You've only been here a month and you're already whining about Bush.
Go ahead and vote for Kerry then .. the terrorists will be here so fast your head will swim .. they will destroy this country and everything in it .. and lets hope they find your house before they find mine.
And it will be my pleasure one day, to introduce you to other patriots who believe the brutal reality is, it's our own country we should be concerned with.
When did any Republican say we would be greeted with flowers and candy? The libs have been saying this crap for a year.
He doesn't care what we think.
In an essay long ago, conservative (or neoconservative, according to Pat Buchanan's article above) political writer James Q. Wilson explained the difference between a constituency (us) and an audience. The latter are the people who contribute political money at the margins, who own the leveraged political dollars and budget dollars without which not. They are the indispensable men of politics.
A politician shines on and lies to his constituency. He obeys slavishly and performs for his audience. Thus Wilson.
Bush's audience is in Manhattan, on Fifth Avenue. They are the lords of money, and neither they nor he give a rat's ass about any of the rest of us.
Fact, dude.
And how would your preferred policy to date, since 1/01, have differed from GWB's?
He may be using the Neocons' enthusiasm and vigor for his own purposes, don't you think? Cheney isn't a Neocon, is he? Who's in command, Dubya or the undersecretaries? Are we heavily engaged in Ramallah, or in Ramadi?
Oh the irony.
Right back, gotta go get 100 lb bag o dog food.
It's pathetic that some (R)'s have so little confidence in their own candidate that they feel they must resort to employing lies such as your tagline.
Haven't convinced me, dude.
I don't agree with Bush on his immigration reform policy, but I don't think he sold out to anyone. Which is basically what you're saying.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.