Posted on 08/01/2004 5:39:30 AM PDT by TomDoniphon68
One of the secrets of conservative America is how often it has welcomed Republican defeats. In 1976, many conservatives saw the trouncing of the moderate Gerald Ford as a way of clearing the path for the ideologically pure Ronald Reagan in 1980. In November 1992, George H.W. Bush's defeat provoked celebrations not just in Little Rock, where the Clintonites danced around to Fleetwood Mac, but also in some corners of conservative America.
"Oh yeah, man, it was fabulous," recalled Tom DeLay, the hard-line congressman from Sugar Land, Texas, who had feared another "four years of misery" fighting the urge to cross his party's too-liberal leader. At the Heritage Foundation, a group of right-wingers called the Third Generation conducted a bizarre rite involving a plastic head of the deposed president on a platter decorated with blood-red crepe paper.
There is no chance that Republicans would welcome the son's defeat in the same way they rejoiced at the father's. George W. is much more conservative than George H.W., and he has gone out of his way to throw red meat to each faction of the right: tax cuts for the anti-government conservatives, opposition to gay marriage and abortion for the social conservatives and the invasion of Iraq for the neoconservatives. Still, there are five good reasons why, in a few years, some on the right might look on a John Kerry victory as a blessing in disguise.
First, President Bush hasn't been as conservative as some would like. Small-government types fume that he has increased discretionary government spending faster than Bill Clinton. Buchananite paleoconservatives, libertarians and Nelson Rockefeller-style internationalists are all furious -- for their very different reasons -- about Bush's "war of choice" in Iraq. Even some neocons are irritated by his conduct of that war -- particularly his failure to supply enough troops to make the whole enterprise work.
The second reason conservatives might cheer a Bush defeat is to achieve a foreign-policy victory. The Bush foreign-policy team hardly lacks experience, but its reputation has been tainted -- by infighting, by bungling in Iraq and by the rows with Europe. For better or worse, many conservatives may conclude that Kerry, who has accepted most of the main tenets of Bush's policy of pre-emption, stands a better chance than Bush of increasing international involvement in Iraq, of winning support for Washington's general war on terror and even of forcing reform at the United Nations. After all, could Jacques, Gerhard and the rest of those limp-wristed continentals say no to a man who speaks fluent French and German and has just rid the world of the Toxic Texan?
The third reason for the right to celebrate a Bush loss comes in one simple word: gridlock. Gridlock is a godsend to some conservatives -- it's a proven way to stop government spending. A Kerry administration is much more likely to be gridlocked than a second Bush administration because the Republicans look sure to hang on to the House and have a better-than-even chance of keeping control of the Senate.
The fourth reason has to do with regeneration. Some conservatives think the Republican Party -- and the wider conservative movement -- needs to rediscover its identity. Is it a "small government" party, or does "big government conservatism" make sense? Is it the party of big business or of free markets? Under Bush, Western anti-government conservatives have generally lost ground to Southern social conservatives, and pragmatic internationalists have been outmaneuvered by neoconservative idealists. A period of bloodletting might help, returning a stronger party to the fray.
And that is the fifth reason why a few conservatives might welcome a November Bush-bashing: the certain belief that they will be back, better than ever, in 2008. The conservative movement has an impressive record of snatching victory from the jaws of defeat. Ford's demise indeed helped to power the Reagan landslide; "Poppy" Bush's defeat set up the Gingrich revolution. In four years, many conservatives believe, President Kerry could limp to destruction at the hands of somebody like Colorado Gov. Bill Owens.
When the British electorate buried President Bush's hero, Winston Churchill, and his Conservative Party, Lady Churchill stoically suggested the "blessing in disguise" idea to her husband. He replied that the disguise seemed pretty effective. Yet the next few years vindicated Lady Churchill's judgment. The Labor Party, working with Harry S. Truman, put into practice the anti-communist containment policies that Churchill had championed. So in 1951, the Conservative Party could return to office with an important piece of its agenda already in place and in a far fitter state than it had been six years earlier. It held office for the next 13 years.
Regarding the personal firearms, from a practical point of view how would people realistically expect to get their guns back after a war ?
You raise a valid point, but your implied conclusion is that Bush will appoint (and see through the appointment process) conservative justices.
As much as I would like to believe that would be the case, I do not share your confidence.
What he said.
They will not be done by a long-shot when they lose the '04 campaign. They will just be starting.
I made up a joke a few nights ago (the night after Obama gave his speech), and told it to my wife. (Note: I did not abbreviate the two words abbreviated below.)
I said, "How does the DNC say 'F/U' to Harold Ford?"
The answer was "Barack Obama."
She didn't get it. :(
I think your scenario is probably pretty close to 100% accurate, BTW.
 "Sure, there's a contradiction in our Worker's Paradise oppressing the workers. But the very existence of these contradictions ensures that the Great Dialectical Materialist Leap to our stateless utopia will eventually take place! The ends justify the means!" |
| "Sure, there's a contradiction in our Worker's Paradise oppressing the workers. But the very existence of these contradictions ensures that the Great Dialectical Materialist Leap to our stateless utopia will eventually take place! The ends justify the means!" |
Bull-crap; all of it.
As has been pointed out in this thread, it may be very unlikely that Bush will succeed in appointing any conservative justices.
No conservative would want Pres. Bush to lose for any reason.
The perplexity is that while your statement is undoubtedly accurate, it is not mutually exclusive with the belief that there isn't much to hope for should he win.
I believe that this situation will keep a lot of people home on election day. I have noticed plenty of commentary (NOT from leftists, so don't even go there) in print that has noticed the same phenomenon.
PS: [OT] I was wondering what part of da bronx you're from.
I'd give anything (nearly;) for a slice of real bronx pizza. I remember buying it for for 15 cents a slice on Allerton Ave. back in the mid-'60s. You just can't get anything like it here in the midwest. The concept seems alien to the far-west-of-the-hudson palate.
Please don't talk like that!
Boy, am I glad you are in a very small minority group. Your stuff is not going to sell. We know the importance of re-electing our President over the fraudulant John Kerry.
Um, keeping track of names of owners and model/serial numbers?
It wouldn't have been that hard.
The thing is, rather than even make an attempt at that, there was a concerted effort to get them out of the hands of their civilians, and then destroyed, and our gov't was just fine with that.
I know that most people would say that in the grand sceme of things this is small potatoes, but I think that history has borne out the fact that it was indicative of "things to come", specifically a disarmed citizenry, an overbearing socialist government, and on both sies of the pond, a "who cares" arrogance on the part of government.
After that, it has been a slow march back to business as usual until we're here with a $2.2 trillion budget, pork flowing in every direction, and Ted Kennedy writing education bills for the White House. All we need are the return of Bush I disasters like Lynn Martin, Dick Darman and Brent Scowcroft.
Regarding the "Home Guard" firearms (and their destruction), some links:
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/650257/posts?page=24#24
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/650257/posts?page=31#31
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/822976/posts?page=25#25
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/classic/A907490
(There is lots more info available, that's some of what a hasty google query turned up.)
Your reply bore precisely zero relevance to my post.
1. What "small minority group" would that be that you categorize me in?
2. I'm not selling anything.
3. I don't claim to know everything, but I'm not holding out much hope for this country regardless of who wins. At this stage of the world "chessboard", if Ronald Reagan rose from the dead and won election a third time on a technicality, I still have my doubts as to how much even he would be able to accomplish.
Let's at least be honest, shall we?
In this very thread, we have people insisting that "We're at war. This isn't the time to split hairs over GW's conservative credentials."
That statement is troubling on so many levels.
Apart from the problem of the continual war we're "currently" in, which, by the poster's logic, means we should never question any Republican's "conservative credentials", there's the implicit concession that said "credentials" are somewhat lacking.
I think that most of us would not argue that last point, save for the most hardcore partisan hacks.
So, that leaves us with a neorealpolitick that asserts that we are always going to have Republican candidates with less than sterling conservative credentials, and, we are to always be prohibited from making this an issue in the political process.
The conclusion, of course, is that we will experience an ever-increasing slide to the left, as the other side imposes no such restrictions on their politicians or constituency. In fact, they go to the other extreme, insisting on dogmatic purity -- to the left.
When one side insists on push, push, pushing to the left, and the other side insists on a don't-make-waves/go-with-the-flow avoidance of "the right", it's not really difficult to plot the course that the nation will follow.
These observations are of course academic, as they're based on a closed system, and in reality, we are operating in a system in which there are many external forces insistent on changing everything there is about us -- and about the world in general.
The world is in a similar situation to the runup to World War One, but this time the players are armed with weapons of incredibly greater potency, and for that matter, some of the key players are endowed with tragically monumental instability and irrationality.
In short, I am of the opinion that much of our "debate" is at best pathetically recreational, because nothing that happens in this coming election will be of very much effect regarding the turn the world as a whole is taking.
I see a dark age descending on this world, the likes of which it has never seen before.
You (in the "collective") may call me cynical, but I would appreciate it if you would keep the personal attacks to a minimum. That means no accusations of my being a democrat, a leftist, or any such BS. If you don't like my opinions and beliefs and analysis that forms the basis for my opinions and beliefs, then attack them, and not ME.
Thanks in advance.
Well now. I've said much more than I intended to say. Your "shot from the lip" at me -- your thinly veiled accusation/attack offended me greatly, and I said what I needed to get off my chest.
I remember when GWB bent over forward for Teddie. I couldn't believe my eyes.
Well, as they say, this is the thanks he gets for it. Teddie ripping him a new one every chance he gets.
When I listened to Teddie tearing into GWB during his raging rant at the Democrat convention, I could not get my mind off of the stupid hand-off that GWB made to Teddie shortly after he first rolled into town.
At the time, I was pretty much in shock, but I got over it when I realized that the guy is an inveterate countryclubber.
The GOP is afflicted with a disorder that manifests itself in "conservattives" bending over forwards to "prove" to leftists that "no, honestly, we ARE nice guys, really!"
The left isn't looking for "nice guys". The left is looking for easy targets. And it doesn't get much easier than the common chump.
And frankly when you see a conservative with a job that makes him the most powerful human being in the universe, take that power, and hand it over to one of the most vile, despicable creatures of the left, in an effort to prove his personal niceness, well, "chump" is a fairly accurate term, IMO.
So, we've got the left either making, or blocking policy every turn of the way, and an executive that is congenitally opposed to taking serious action against anyone other than his own side, if they get out of line.
When Slick wanted something done, he did it. Slick knew the meaning of the concept embodied by the phrase, "let the chips fall where they may."
Contrast Dubya, who seems obsessed by a concept diametrically opposed to that, i.e., "what would the neighbors say?"
It's so sad. It is such a disappointment. And yet I am still hoping for some sign of... change. For the better.
I can understand the feeling of disappointment with Pres. Bush-I wish he would be more conservative and spend less money, but the choice is not between Bush and Reagan. The choice is between Bush and Kerry. Kerry would be much worse. The last time conservatives punished a Repub president, we got Clinton and ultimately 9-11. I will not stay home nor would I consider voting for Kerry. I have hope for Pres. Bush...if congress will got off their butts and stand up to the Dems and act like a majority!
That is Just not true!!!!
The Senate sitting in the trial of William Jefferson Clinton voted 100 to zip not to hear the evidence against Clinton. It was Unanimous. Every Republican and every Democrat Senator ... all 100 of them.... voted NOT to hear any evidence against Clinton before they voted on his guilt or innocence.
It did not matter how Spector voted. Bubba Stayed. Spector had zero to do with cutting the deal that had Gingrich and Livingston resign and let Clinton remain in office. The problem was Gingrich was banging his secretary in the Speakers office. And Livingston had a sex scandal too. We had too Republican leaders doing what Clinton was doing. If Gingrich could have kept his pants zippered Clinton would have been gone.
But the prime reason he stayed is that a large majority of American Voters wanted him to stay. Our REpublican house leadres could not attack Clinton. They were as guilty as he was. So the only force left to attackg Clinton was the media. But the voting public sid no care who clinton screwed as long as the economy was good. Your argument is with the American People not the elected officials who did what the voters wanted.
If Clinton's approval rating had dropped to the 36 percent as Nixon's did, Bubba would have been as gone as Nixon.
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.