Eeew! I get the point, but that was a nasty visual.
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.
I'm from Gun Hill Road. My favorite pizza place was Gino's. I would give anything for some real pizza. I am living in Georiga now with my wife-also a freeper (nyconse). Georgia is great, but the pizza and Chinese stinks..so far. I just signed up today.
Well, capping spending is important when our ecomony is destroyed and our cities are smoking ruins....
What congress is this?
Mogadishu didn't hurt us at all in your eyes, I assume?
Do you recall the vote that put in Ginsberg? Did all the Republicans vote against her?
Re: "This is the tripe they are spewing"
I thought Cajuns liked tripe?
:-)
Hold up now.... you're talking about the principled GOP congress that will fight President Kerry tooth and nail!
How dare you remind people of the truth?
That will definitely peg your Trolldar.
Oh not this one, blech.
HA, that is a most excellent analogy.
No. They all voted FOR her. Just like they did for Souter.
You are correct.
This is total BS.
The fact so many on this forum forget is that every single day that passes means that there are now more democrats than republicans tomorrow than there were today.
I heard a brief mention of this today on TV where a commentator said that if Bush gets exactly the same percentage of minority and women's votes as he did in 2000, he would lose by 3,000,000 popular votes compared to 500,000 in 2000. Even though his percent stays the same, demographics has caused minority and women voter eligibles to grow far faster than men and caucasian voter eligibles.
Demographics, aging of the population, illegal aliens voting, the birth rate of the inner city welfare queens, etc. means that there will be fewer and fewer republicans and more and more socialists.
Anybody who believes this philosophy as sated in thgis article is a moron lacking knowledge about demographic trends.
There is no tomorrow--there are no future elections. There is only one election of importance and that is this one in 2004.
After that, the voting booth is a lost cause. Demographics dictate this will be the last election where a "R" has a shot at the White House.
Bump
Eeew! I get the point, but that was a nasty visual.
Don Joe: Your reply bore precisely zero relevance to my post.
While what you said, DJ, is true (it wasn't germane to any particular post), there is truth in what COEXERJ145 said. We have more than our fair share of my-way-or-the-highway types.
One would think there would be more important things to complain about...
But I figgered....about as nasty as a KerryHeinzEdwards love fest would be.
Both are bad visuals, IMO.
Thanks, you're right of course, UK gov wouldn't have dreamt of giving out weapons to individuals, then or now. Only as part of a militia type organisation with the weapons kept in armouries. Exception might have been if a German invasion had actually taken place.
Do you really always believe what the media tells you???
The reflection of what is taking place in the USA is what is happening in the house and senate and state houses.
The 2000 census moved more electoral votes into strongly Republican states. The minority population growth is in such states as California, and New York.... Increasing support in Democratic stronghold states is valueless to the left.
The Democrats are trading the Spanish vote for the gay and lesbian vote. It is about moral issues. The Democrats are on the wrong side. Thee democrats Did it to them selves in the 1960s. They traded the Southern whites for black votes. It was a bad trade.
The voting population is not static. Immigration will not be stopped now any more than William Jennings Bryan could get it stopped in the 1890s. What Bryan did was make the Republicans the dominate party for 36 years.
Blacks vote 90 percent for democrats. But Hispanics voted thirty five percent Republican in 2000. That will go up to over 50 percent unless the Republicans drive them away.
What you fail to understand is that more and more lower middle class whites are moving into middle and upper middle class. The Democrats are losing support among the upwardly mobile groups. The Republicans are increasing their numbers, the Democrats are trading East European third generation ethnics for the new emigrants.
I am not at all confident that Bush would nominate conservative Justices or that, if he does, the Democrats in the Senate would ever allow them to come to the floor for a vote.
I am absolutely confident, however, that Kerry would nominate far left wing Justices. I am also confident that the Republicans in the Senate would not block far left wing nominees by Kerry any more than they blocked Clinton's far left wing nominees Ginsburg and Breyer.
Our only choices are to have the next 3 or 4 Justices nominated by Kerry or Bush. I pick Bush.
I am aware of what you stated, but you are avoiding the real long term danger.
The birth rate of inner city poor, the illegal alien invasion, the astounding fact that the MAJORITY of births in this nation are from first generation immigrants or the lower class/nontaxpayers, the aging of the population, etc. . . .
and the fact that growing socialism breeds more growing socialism and that Republicans have been relunctant to fight the socialists means that we are in a shrinking minority as the scum of society and the socialists become the majority.
You are basing your hopes on your desires. Reality is what Pat Buchannon stated in his factual data in his book "Death of the West".
We are in a far more grave situation than you want to believe.
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.
