Posted on 12/13/2001 7:50:35 AM PST by 11th Earl of Mar
So, do you get it?OK, let me see if I get it. Bush is either unwilling or unable to be an anti-abortion crusader in office. There are a lot of other things wrong with the federal government that he either can't or won't fix. Or at least, he didn't do as much of that in his first year as many convervatives would have liked. Granted.
So the best thing to do is to make sure candidates like Al Gore are elected instead, so that rather than at least slowing down liberal trends and nibbling at the fringes, we put the pedal to the metal and accelerate the leftward shift of government? That'll sure show 'em!
Until now, most Americans have been forced to watch our country and its culture drift further and further to the left. Not knowing the true reasons for this degeneration, we have felt helpless to stop it. We have wasted our time and our money supporting political candidates who have cynically sold us false promises about their ability to restore true American values. Now, after years of investigation and with precious little time to spare, DAVID HOROWITZ has finally found the ACTUAL SOURCE of this foul tide. Armed with irrefutable proof, he has exposed the CONSERVATIVE HOLOCAUST that has until now been secreted behind the tall, ivy-covered walls of academia.
Christian Americans, I personally urge you to support Mr. Horowitz's campaign in every way possible. Forget the politicians. Instead, speak to your neighbors. Form committees. Demand to see what is actually written in the textbooks given to our kids. Write letters demanding protection for conservative students and faculty. Show up at David's campaign stops. Finally, and most importantly, I urge you to immediately send David as much money as you possibly can to save our conservative values from extinction. And please, FReepers, DIG DEEP because this is no time for half measures.
With David's leadership, we can and we will DEFEAT INTELLECTUAL TERRORISM and save our country from the evils of FULL BLOWN SOCIALISM.
Thank you, America, LET'S ROLL!
I'm sure Algore would have done all the things you wanted. (Barf)
You've got to be more informed. The bill banning partial birth abortion was passed. Clinton vetoed it. If Bush had been President he would have signed it. There's another bill but Daschle won't let it be voted on.
You stated that "When the Republicans had the power to change the law, they tried."
The power that you are referring to is when Republicans had everything but the White House. I am referrring to the time when Republicans had the White House, and both sides of Congress. The Republicans tried ONLY when the didn't have the White House.
Total BS! Abortion is a secret democrat policy - because it helps republicans lose. The more abortion is emphasized in an election the better the democrat chances of winning.
What makes it so bad, is that normally half of all conservative Christians don't vote anyway. And a third of those that do vote liberal. The 19 million votes that Rove was expecting is just a tiny fraction of the Christian vote. And we couldn't even deliever that.
You: You've got to be more informed. The bill banning partial birth abortion was passed. Clinton vetoed it.
Thank you for informing me that the Republicans had control over the White House when Klinton was President. You are right, I do need to be more informed.
The issue of abortion is controlled by the courts. There's nothing Bush can do except sign a partial birth abortion ban that Clinton vetoed, but it's not going to be passed with the Senate controlled by the Dem's. So whoever gets to appoint the SC justices controls the future of this issue.
If a SC vacancy were to occur now, Bush would have to appoint another Souter type or Daschle, Leahy, Kennedy and Co. would block it. Even with the Senate controlled by the GOP by 1 or 2 votes, he'd still have to do that. RINO's like Chafee and Specter would vote with the Dems. That's why it's so critical to get the GOP solidly in control of the Senate. Even Bush I appointed Clarence Thomas. He got through only because he talked about a "high tech lynching" which scared some southern Dem's into voting for him.
Prayer in the schools -"wouldn't be prudent." More federal control of the shools -"a smashing idea."
I don't know what you're talking about there. Bush isn't in control of the schools. This issue is also controlled by the courts. Why are you making up quotes?
Laws that represent the will of the people get passed. If you elect someone who is slightly to one side of the center of that "will", you can get laws passed that are slightly to the side of that center. That's the way politics works, by building consensus.
If you elect a leader too far to one side or the other, a backlash will result and the political center will shift in the opposite direction. Isn't this a fundamental theorem of politics?
So basically, the act of ramming legislation through that is unsupported by the majority of Americans will result in a loss of power for the "rammers".
I think it's clear that GW Bush is not a rammer, and that he's further to the right in his beliefs than he practices in his politics. He's also further right in his beliefs than is the average American. This should make him an ideal candidate for furthering conservative causes.
Finally, any failure to move the public mindset towards YOUR positions should be viewed as a failure of YOUR leaders of YOUR political niche. Something about their approach, the message, or the way you carry forth that message is failing. We are a GOOD nation and if you can't get GOOD laws passed there is a reason. Find it by sticking to the fundamental laws of politics.
PS. Those of you who denigrate Muslims and their religion out of hand are disgusting, and not much better in principle of thought than the Taliban.
You've got to be more informed. The GOP control of the Senate was tenuous to say the least in those six months. It was split 50-50. Lott and Daschle were co-majority leaders, with the committees also split 50-50. It was a titanic struggle to get the tax bill passed, and only after it was watered down. You don't have to thank me for informing you again. I'm happy to perform this public service.
Scalia was a good pick, and moving Rhenquist to Chief Justice was also a good move.
Kennedy has been solid, he gets mushy, but he's voted right more often than not.
Bush Sr. nominated Souter, and that was a mistake. But Bush also gave us Clarence Thomas.
So, we have Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, O'Connor, and Souter. There's only one real disaster in the mix (Souter), O'Connor and Kennedy are not reliable on a number of the issues (abortion being the biggie, although Kennedy did vote right on the PBA decision), but they're with us at least 70% of the time. Both came through on affirmative action (Adarand v. Pena), guns (Printz v. U.S. and U.S. v. Lopez), and the 200 election (Bush v. Gore).
We've gone 4-for-5, which is a good day for Ichiro Suzuki. If we can replace Stevens with Garza, and also get Luttig from the 4th Circuit to replace Ginsburg, we'd have a better court. Incidentally, Garza and Luttig are among those on the short list for the Supreme Court.
You're the one who is making sure that candidates like Al Gore are elected. The candidate in question is named Bush, and if he implements liberal policies and they fail (as liberal policies do), guess which party will be held to blame?
Let's go back to Bush Sr.'s mentor, Richard Nixon. He became President running as a conservative Republican. However, he implemented liberal policies. He sold subsidized wheat to the Soviet Union. He got China into the UN. He pulled us out of Vietnam and paved the way for the Communist takeover. He appointed liberal Supreme Court justices, enabling the court to rule Roe v. Wade. He imposed affirmative action. He submitted unbalanced budgets which led to double-digit inflation and a severe recession, and then, at the height of folly, he even imposed wage and price controls, creating national shortages and precipitating the energy crisis.
These were all liberal policies, and they led to an explosion in Communist expansionism and a near collapse of the US economy. And who got blamed? Conservative Republicans, that's who.
Thus we got hammered in the 1974 and 1976 elections. But then a funny thing happened. Jimmy Carter became President, and the electorate plainly saw that here was a liberal implementing liberal polices which were disasterous. And then Ronald Reagan was able to become President.
If Reagan had won the Republican nomination in '76, he probably would have lost worst than Goldwater. That's because, after Nixon and Ford, the American public associated Republicans and conservatives with the results of liberal policies.
But by 1980, the public knew to associate liberal policy failures with a liberal Democrat. And so Reagan got elected by a healthy majority.
Honest defeat will lead to honest victory. Victories in name only are not really victories, and sooner or later they will lead to real defeat.
religious extremists don't do much but bring on their own disasters... as a direct result of their judgemental attitudes... we get more of what we hate, while we refuse to compromise on "principle". Isn't that "special"? to quote church lady, dana carvey, SNL.
pretty dumb... we do it all the time.
Once again, I failed to be as informed as you are. I did not know that Dick Cheney was completely neutered as the President of the Senate, and I didn't know that Dashole and Trent Cave-a-Lott were co-majority leaders. I must not let facts cloud my sense of reality again. Thank you.
Looks like I have at LEAST a couple of hours of reading to do to make certain I don't answer any questions or comments that have already had plenty of response!
I can start, however, by stating that Karl Rove's reputation exceeds him...as does that of many other members of the current Administration.
:-P~~~
This Christian most certainly DID go to the polls.
No doubt, however, there are many who are attempting a redefinition of "Christian" as someone who ONLY votes straight-line (R) with no questions asked.
And for the love of mercy, don't hold anyone's feet to the fire.
Why, calling politicians to righteous action and to deliver as promised is as heretical as...as...voting for someone WITHOUT the (R)! **shudder**
You've got to be more informed. Cheney only counts if a vote on a bill is tied. He has nothing to do with procedural matters like getting a bill out of a committee. And part of the 50 GOP Senators were people like Jeffords, Chafee, Specter and the two liberals from Maine. But you knew that.
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.