Posted on 05/13/2002 9:03:27 AM PDT by Sir Gawain
|
|
||
|
|
The View from the Colonel's Saddle
Another One Term Bush in the Making By Colonel Dan
Published 05. 8. 02 at 12:00 Sierra Time
|
|
|
|
xxx
|
|
|
|
|
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. ~ Winston Churchill ~ If this administration continues riding the rail of political appeasement, ulterior motives, thinly veiled socialism, broken commitments and forsaken values, I think George 43 might well follow in the footsteps of George 41 and become another "one term Bush" and it won't be due to an outstanding Democrat opponent. The reason I see this coming is not because the Democrats have anything better to offer or that they have a slick game plan. Bush is bringing this on himself by doing his level best to appease the left while alienating a previously loyal conservative base and taking their support and votes for granted. He has turned his back on many long held conservative values such as free trade, the primacy of individual liberty over perceived security, smaller, less intrusive government, unfathomable coddling of the socialist agenda and liberal Democrats—including Bill Clinton. He even turned his back on the Constitution when he signed Campaign Finance Reform and seems unwilling to stand firm in defense of US sovereignty where our own borders are concerned! All this is simply very disturbing to many long time traditional conservatives and it will and should come back to haunt him in November. Don't let Bush's current high approval ratings fool you. High ratings are generally the case with wartime presidents. Bush the elder's approval was riding high during and immediately following the Gulf War of 1991 but look what happened in 1992. When the fundamental values of truth, sovereignty, conviction, freedom and independence are sacrificed for the sake of appeasement and referred to as a "new tone", sincere traditionalists get angry over such an insidious sell out. I think even semiconscious conservatives knew going in that Bush's "new tone" of pandering to the left was terminally dangerous for conservative values and would never win over liberals. Liberals are on an irreversible, ideological crusade to turn America completely socialist—even Marxist—and nothing will ever stop them from that "calling." The only thing this approach has done for Bush is to display a fatal weakness to the liberals and elicit feelings of anger, disappointment and disgust in previously loyal conservatives. If he thinks his followers will blindly and enthusiastically support the GOP over Democrats no matter what, he and the Republicans may be surprised. Even if this conservative base doesn't desert him en masse, they certainly won't work as fervently for him and the GOP during the campaign and it will be that lack of fire in the conservative soul that will ultimately sink him at the polls. The Democrats will jump on this and Bush will risk losing due to the double whammy of an unprincipled attack from the left and an unenthusiastic commitment from the right. Since his inauguration, Bush has straddled the political fence in favor of his "new tone" and for the umpteenth time, we've seen that approach just doesn't work with those truly committed to either the left or the right — which combined, makes up 80% of the total voting population -- so why continue to ride that fence? If Bush doesn't realize this already, he'll soon find out that when you straddle any fence long enough, the rail eventually crushes sensitive body parts—sometimes permanently. What then does this predict for America? It's simple; Hillary could become number 44 and Bush would be back on his ranch clearing brush while America suffers even more. Perhaps a President Hillary and her vindictively dictatorial ways is what it will finally take to awaken America from its lethargy—that appears to be the way history writes its saga anyway. It seems the human condition must first hit rock bottom before folks are sufficiently motivated to start clawing their way back to the top. A Hillary Clinton administration would certainly be just such a rock bottom event for America and even if I'm not on target about Bush's political future in 2004, I have no doubt whatsoever of the severe consequences were Hillary to become president—whatever the year. Just the view from my saddle…
|
The
Colonel
DON'T TREAD ON ME
I gotcha. Bush is a leftie,and it's the fault of conservatives. Makes perfect sense.
You DO have valid points about the loss of conservative political power since 94,though. Place the blame for this squarely where it belongs though,on the bible-thumping fundies who forced Newt out of office,and gave Carville and the DNC cover to claim "it's all about sex with these Republicans",and get away with it.
Without strong conservative and America first positions, why should he be elected again? (OK the other guy could be worse, anything else?)
I used to think that Bush would turn more conservative after winning, instead he has unquestionably turned the other way. His appeasements and how he has "nuanced" around the terroist issue is making me sick!!
And I think we've made quite a bit of conservative progress since Bush took office
Such as? And I mean actual accomplishments, not just lip service (as for example has occurred with gun control--there has been much talk but things are really just the same as when the rapist-in-chief was in office).
And the 50/50 came about because Ashcroft allowed a dead man to win election to the Senate, as unconstitutional a move as ever there was one. Lott failed to follow the Constitution's written authority, each House seats its members. He acquiesced to Bush's offering Ashcroft the AG if they would just go along, let the Dems have the seat. THAT cost them the majority, not Jeffords, for had they followed the USCon, the GOP would still have the majority in the Senate.
However, it should be noted that even among the "supporters" of the Revolution there was an awful lot of cynical pragmatism that had nothing to do with ideals.
A few years ago I read the "real" story of Vermont's two Revolutionary War heroes -- Nathanial Greene and Ethan Allen. It turns out these guys had no interest in creating a free nation separate from Britain. Their plan was to overthrow the British government in northern New England, establish their own little fiefdoms in the wooded hills, then turn around and sell it off to the highest bidder. France was a likely "customer," but it was just as likely that Britain would have bought the land back from them and joined it with one of their two remaining colonies in North America (Upper and Lower Canada).
You're right about conservatives not delivering on election day 2000. Rove says the numbers show that millions of conservatives, particularly evengelicals, stayed home.
I wonder, how much of the discontent about Dubya is really about his father? Are we putting Dubya under a microscope like we never put Reagan because we're afraid he might be a closet moderate like his father?
My two cents is I think Dubya is a real conservative. Unlike his dad, he was raised in Texas and is an authentic evangelical. I believe his pro-life and anti-tax views are genuine.
All this talk about "appeasement" and "compromise" comes from a refusal to look at reality. For six years Reagan had a Senate majority and with the Boll Weavils a working majority in the House. Because conservatives stayed home on election night 2000, the Democrats have a working majority in the Senate and are very close in the House. Bush has gotten a lot of his agenda through considering the weakness of his position. Talking tough and preaching confrontation is fine, but it won't produce votes that aren't there. And if conservatives stay home in 2002, the Senate will stay with the dems.
Nothing is unconstitutional until it is challenged in court and ruled to be so. Ashcroft refused to challenge it, so it's (sadly) completely legal.
Reagan was focused on two things: Tax cuts and beating the Soviets
Bush is focused on 3 things: Tax cuts, The WOT, and ABM defense.
A president can only get so much done.
HRC, however is a flaming Marxist.
Not so sure I totally agree with this. Americans have proven that they will almost always elect a Democrat over a "moderate Republican" (see Bush Sr., Bob Dole, etc.) Contrast this with 1984: Ronald Reagan 525 - Walter Mondale 13.
I can already hear some people saying "this isn't the same country that it was in 1984". That may be true in part, yet I simply refuse to believe that America won't elect a truly principled conservative.
It is A greater good. Being merely marginally better isn't THAT great, but it is at least preferable. However, I do believe Bush has pushed through more of the conservative agenda than most people are giving him credit for.
"And I think we've made quite a bit of conservative progress since Bush took office." Such as? And I mean actual accomplishments, not just lip service (as for example has occurred with gun control--there has been much talk but things are really just the same as when the rapist-in-chief was in office).
Well, here are three threads:
The Official Bush Accomplishment List: 427 posts as I write this
George W. Bush's First Year in Office (77 Accomplishments): Actually a sarcastic loony left list of things he's done that were supposedly bad. Of course, we love them.
Need help countering LW Anti-Bush propaganda list(Vanity): Another thread celebrating the sarcastic RAT 77 list.
The USCon specifically states that one must be a resident of the state from which he is elected. The dead do not reside in any of the 50 states, they are Constitutionally-unqualifed for office, therefore, it is unconstitutional for a dead man to be elected to office, his widow (or whomever) then being given the seat.
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.