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.
Okay, I'll bite. Who is this great Reagan figure that you see on the horizon for 2008? I dont see any.
On Nov. 3 at about 7:00 a.m. EST, Democrats and liberals will begin the Hillary/Obama multi-cultural-celebrity campaign. They will campaign with all their energy every single moment for the next four years. They will not die away, it will not even be the beginning of the end for them -- it will be the start of the campaign they have longed for ever since HillaryCare went down in flames. They will want revenge for the past eight years...but mostly they will want to place the Great Bitch on the throne to exact retribution from the hated conservatives.
They will not be done by a long-shot when they lose the '04 campaign. They will just be starting.
6th reason:
foil hillary
6th reason:
foil hillary
Don't bite--there wasn't anything offered you. I took no stand one way or another on the main question, now or later. I deliberately confined my statement to your sneer at the idea with the nonsensical use of 1996 to buttress your argument.
Don't miss next week's "Blessing in Disguise":
5 Reasons It's Smart to Keep Your Head Up Your A$$!
Absolutely, The fact that the next president will almost certainly pick supreme court justices...up to four... make this article totally ridiculous. No conservative would want Pres. Bush to lose for any reason.
Reagan made mistakes (who doesn't?), despite his greatness. For 24 years I have thought one of his biggest was the selection of Bush I for VP, a man of "voodoo economics" fame, etc. To his credit, despite huge and numerous flaws, Bush I DID give us Quayle, Thomas, and Cheney, but his election seems to me to have made it easy in the Presidential stakes for Reaganesque figures to be eclipsed. Ahhh, if only Owens had not had the messy divorce . . .
I don't think this is necessarily the forum to debate it, and I will surely be roundly criticized for saying it, but it is my deeply held belief that since Reagan we have not had a nominee for President, Republican or Democrat, who was driven by a passion for anything besides holding office. Not ideology, not serious national problems to be addressed, not a vision for an American future, except as lip service. Simply for the raw exercise of power and the addition of a resume entry.
It's from the Houston Chronkite. Enough said.
No, I don’t want four years of having a do nothing, lying, backstabbing seditious traitor as President in hopes of getting an even more right wing President than W. in 2008. The damage would be done.
Ouch! ;) Let's help you avoid that !
Yeah right, we all want Kerry cause we're really....SUICIDAL!!
We're at war. This isn't the time to split hairs over GW's conservative credentials.
Not me.
An awful lot of American civilians sent their personal firearms to England in good faith, for use by other civilians.
After the war, the British government, afraid of allowing its subjects to be armed, confiscated them and destroyed them.
The Americans were TSOL.
I don't consider a visiting RADAR pioneer to have anything to do with it whatsoever. If I steal your wallet and write myself a few checks, I can't tell the court that it's OK, because I planted some bushes in front of your house and painted your garage.
You have the title correct. It can be downloaded here.
Douglass was a truly remarkable man.
Yup, that's it.
Apart from what he says, there's something about how he says it. You are right there with him, feeling the tension (and other emotions) every step of the way.
There are only 2 kind of people who post this trash.
(1) Extreme rightwingers who are raring to get exiled to LP.
(2) DU trolls.
A look at your posting history shows that you are on the liberal side of things.
Therefore, I must conclude that you are a DU troll.
Well, I'll go you one better.
I would rather eat your toenails, then pick my teeth with your rusty pliars, than watch/listen/read about a Kerry presidency.
FRegards,
Nice dream (mine too!), but realistically, it just ain't gonna happen.
The GOP is afflicted from the top with the countryclub set. There's really no polite way to put it (well, no way "politer" than that). These guys are in a world of their own, and they see no reason to relinquish the reigns to those who have been given various condescending titles such as "social conservatives", "paleos", and so forth.
Frankly I think that some of the most influential "Republicans" would be just as much "at home" in any party (and I literally mean any party) that gave them the power and influence they currently hold in the Republican party.
And it was RINO Arlen "Scottish Law" Specter that kept Willard in the Oral Office.
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.