for our president we will need a real leader who will do exactly as hes told. Lets form a real right wing conspiracy.
Posted on 06/18/2002 9:57:13 AM PDT by jimkress
Edited on 07/12/2004 3:54:48 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Conservative lawmakers and activists disappointed with President Bush's first 18 months in office are calling into question his tactics and strategy in advancing the conservative agenda.
"The president for the most part has been our guy," said House Majority Leader Dick Armey, Texas Republican and a prominent conservative on Capitol Hill. "A few times we disagree."
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
And neither is making sure people have jobs, with minimum wages, and giving them and government cheese that they can keep and own. If you take away money from A and give it to B, it's not really socialism, it's for the "common good". A nice DU euphemism might be something like "rightsizing of wealth".
That's the real world, baby, and it's groovy, yeah.
He has good advisors for the most part, people who came up with a decent strategy that worked (Bush won) despite the fact that 4 million evangelical Christians stayed home AND the DUI smear that occured in the last week of the 2000 election.
I'm going to trust them, because these folks will pick the fights and win them much more often than not. I think we can win, but it's going to require PATIENCE, and a gradual rollback here and there.
We should only initiate or accept a political battle if it will likely cause one of two results: The enactment of legislation reflecting conservative principles or the election of conservative politicians to office. That's how I view it. Some call it cowardice, I call it common sense.
I don't know if it can be considered a "socialist giveaway" or not, but the tax credits part of it is largely an attempt to manipulate the market. If there was a market for low income housing, the developers would be building it. Since they aren't, I have to assume it's either a low profit or no profit venture. The tax credits are an attempt to artificially inflate the profit potential in building low income housing to inflate the supply. If the developer's aren't careful they'll lose their butts, because tax credits don't do you any good if you didn't make any money to owe taxes on. Government attempts at market manipulation seem to have a history of unintended consequences as bad as, or worse, than what they were trying to solve.
Your argument crumbles under scrutiny. I did not vote for Bill Clinton, and felt quite justified in griping loud and long for 8 years.
Who are you and who do you work for?
"In attempting to authenticate this figure, I scrolled through your responses on this forum for the last few days. I cannot find where you sourced this figure. Do you mind authenticating this figure for me?"
Was this figure ever authenticated? If so, please direct me accordingly as it buttresses a theory of mine...MUD
Right.
After all, it was indeed Bush Sr's policy of cramming the cnservative agenda down the public's throat that led to his defeat at the hands of William Clinton.
You also need to take into account the number of 3rd party people who voted for Bush, like myself.
No, what we get is people like McCain & Jeffords. If the conservative "base" is guaranteed by people who will mindlessly vote for anyone with an 'R' by his name, why shouldn't the party go as hard left as they can to pick up the moderates?
I offer other options: 1) Doing less of the former.
People who own their own homes won't be living in public housing, so that there will be "less of the former."
2) Doing neither outright.
And how do you propose to get that through Congress? By shouting "socialism"?
What exactly is winning smaller than a 500K-popular-vote loss? A 1M-popular-vote loss? Thanks, Tom, great strategery! The whole reason Bush acts this way is because Gore won the popular vote.
Hell, Reagan won the popular vote in two huge landslides and still did things like not abolish Cabinet offices, appoint Sandra Day O'Connor to the SCOTUS when he had a favorable senate Judiciary Committee when Robert Bork was available (having served as a Professor at Yale Law School from 1962-1975 and 1977-1981; Solicitor general for the U.S. Department of Justice from 1972-1977; and Acting attorney general of the United States from 1973-1974), among others.
As you know, the particulars of this "study" are in dispute.
I seriously doubt it contains such information, as that would not forward the apparent agenda of making it seem that conservatives stayed home in 2000.
I ask you, should a politican do 'wrong' just to keep his job?
for our president we will need a real leader who will do exactly as hes told. Lets form a real right wing conspiracy.
Then why aren't we profiling?
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.