Posted on 06/03/2002 6:33:14 PM PDT by Texasforever
There has been a very loud and nasty argument gong on around here for months about how the GOP and George W. Bush have deserted Conservatives to pander to moderates and liberals and that they would stay home to show their discontent.. I say argument and not debate because there has been no debate just charge and counter-charge. I have issued the challenge to several disaffected former GOP and Bush supporters to start a thread that would focus on viable alternatives to both the GOP in 2002 and a replacement for Bush in 2004. None have taken up that challenge so I will start the thread myself.
This thread is not to continue the argument pro and con for either the GOP OR G.W. Bush.. Assume that conservatives have decided that Republicans are a lost cause and that the task is to put into place a viable alternative and candidate that will not result in conceding the elections to the democrats because that is neither smart OR rational. With that in mind I hope some of you that have given up and are very vocal in that stance will make your case for how conservatives should vote in the mid-term elections and who should be the conservative choice for POTUS, regardless of party, in 2004. If there is a candidate out there that you know about that could be groomed for national office in 2 years then please tell us why you think so and as much about the record on conservative issues as possible.
Once again, please refrain from just airing the same reasons for not supporting Bush, the GOP or both. That is already documented. The purpose for this thread are viable alternatives or solutions.
...who is spending money like there is no tomorrow, increasing the central government stranglehold over education, wants to increase medicare entitlement and take more money from burger flippers so that Ma and Pa RV can get a few gallons more gas to cruise the interstate instead of paying for their medications, etc. etc. Bush never heard of a conservative principle he didn't want to sell out.
I think Monica's kneepads are probably still somewhere in the White House for all those interested in getting down on their knees for Bush.
Precisely. The grassroots Republicans show up, donate their money, elect the candidates, and the National Committee takes their money and ignores them. Look at Bob Dole (and others) when the invented controversy broke out over the pro-life plank in the 1996 Party Platform. Bob Dole, the presidential nominee, said that he was not limited by the platform and didn't have to abide by it. Others in leadership positions and high-profile campaigns said or implied the same thing. I believe the party still has conservatives at the grassroots level, but the leadership is infested with liberal RINOs who are interested in only one thing - power. I just wish that more of the grassroots would wake up and realize this and throw the RINOs out of the RNC and other party leadership positions. Then we would all see the changes we want.
You go girl! You're not alone.
After that...I'm sure that a candidate can be agreed upon.
redrock
A laudable goal, seriously.
But doesn't debating the merits presume those merits will be enacted upon coming into office?
What does it matter what merit anyone has, if after election, it all changes?
Looking at the country as a whole it's obvious that the voting public favor socialism. And in order to be reelected Bush needs to pander to that notion. He can lie and cajole to get in for his next term but will he turn the tables and do the right thing? Probably not.
At that level they are all politicians. The drift to the left is the current this country is following. Unless the people decide to pursue freedom (however defined) we will have more and more watered down politicians to vote for.
No?
Who said anything about Bush lacking traits. I'm sure he has a full complement of genes. Under most likely scenarios, I will be a supporter of Bush, as I was in 2000. (I still think the best decision he has made to date is the selection of Cheney as his VP. And I never expected to agree with him more than about 50% of the time.) But let me ask you: Is there any thing President Bush could do, or policy position he could take that would cause you to oppose him in 2004 in either the primary or general election?
You and all the others threatening to quit/sit out know darn well how devastating returning the liberals to power would be, how there is the possibility that we might not even survive the results.
I certainly understand(and in many ways share) your anger and frustration, and support effective ways of expressing that. But isn't running to a judge for a divorce when one's husband or wife makes a mistake usually overreacting?
I nominate P.J. O'Roarke. At least he would be entertaining
Sorry to butt in here, but Texasforever makes the point of debating the merits of Bush v ?, and I ask in light of the above, what "merit" is there to debate?
Sure, when it happens I will oppose him. So far I have supported or understood the reasons for his every action. Some I did not agree with but his judgement was sound and that is why I hired him in the first palce.
I strongly disagree with your interpretation.
Political armchair quarterbacks are a dime a dozen, but only a few athletes can engineer a winning drive.
What happens beyond that depends on the 1994 sunset of the gun ban. If Bush resigns it, if the dem is pro-gun, I defect. If not, I don't know what I'll do.
And you have made that "point" about 5 times now. I get it.
I second that.
Name some... that's what this thread is looking for!
Why can't Bush?
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.