[quidnunc]

Tom Roeser's credentials as an undoubted conservative Republican simbly cannot be challanged without the challanger running the risk of sounding like a crackpot.

He is a politically-savvy commentator who is often Seen and heard on local radio and TV in the Chicago area and so is a known quantity.

[Don Myers]

The Bush Camp must be seeing trouble ahead. They have spin-doctors at work trying to whip the troops into line. I don't think it is going to work with those conservatives who have their eyes open.

[DoughtyOne]

Memo
 

To:        Bush Bo...  Bush Supporters

From:    RNC Central

Subject: More Bothersome Terminology
 

Just a reminder folks.  This is a...

That's right.  It's "a moderate turn signal."  Very good.
 

Thank you.
 

[whenigettime]

bump to meself

[Action-America]

The author of the above article is obviously living in a dream world, populated by wishes.

He ignores a most important point, in pursuit of his misguided attempt to get rank and file Republicans to compromise their principles, in favor of Duhbya's version of pseudo-conservatism.  That point he ignores is this:

If Republican candidates can't get elected or re-elected on solid Conservative principles, then we have already lost.

The reason that this country has been on downhill slide in recent years is not only because of the Liberal agenda.  The Liberals could not have done it all alone.  It was only possible, because so many Republicans have compromised on their Conservative principles.

I don't think that it's too late to reverse what's happening.  But, if Republicans can't get elected without compromising their principles, then it already is too late and the middle class better start making plans to follow the approximately 100,000 wealthy Americans that leave the US permanently every year.

But if, as I hope, it is not yet too late, then electing pseudo-conservatives like Duhbya, Sen. Charles Grassley and many others, could very well push us past that point.  We certainly don't have time to spare.  If Duhbya and the boys don't start standing up for Conservative principles soon, then we must replace them at the earliest possible moment with real Conservatives.  Otherwise, it will be too late.

 

[Demidog]

Tom Roeser's credentials as an undoubted conservative Republican simbly [sic] cannot be challanged [sic] without the challanger [sic] running the risk of sounding like a crackpot.

Depends on what the definition of the word "conservative" is.

[RamsNo1]

I would cut Bush some slack if he wasn't running the country.

[redrock]

"Conservatives, Cut Bush Slack"

Not only no...but HELL no!!!!

redrock

[gabby hayes]

Strange how amnesty for illegals hardly appears. That's the most outrageous pandering of all to this California native.

[potlatch]

This thread probibly explains my views better than any reply I could write.

[DoctorMichael]

Oops, sorry! I thought this was the FreeRepublic "Compliment Weekend" Thread.

My bad.

[MeekOneGOP]

Thanks for posting this article, FRiend!

[MeekOneGOP]

Below is the "missing" text from original article post.
Read it FIRST and then this second:

The task is to consider whether Bush has been faithful to the basic issues of conservatism and act accordingly. The U.S. Supreme Court will alter the campaign finance bill so that it will be satisfactory--indeed help conservatives. Trade is a malleable issue and can be refocused after re-election--if Bush has sufficient allies to assist him.

With respect to Attorney General John Ashcroft as a civil danger, recall that while we are engaged in a war every bit as serious as World War II when certain peacetime liberties had to be sacrificed, the FBI can attend the same meetings as any citizen.

Likewise, there are those conservatives who, facing the Illinois governorship, have determined either to stay away or vote for Democrat Rod Blagojevich in protest. That would be a mistake unless Blagojevich satisfies their philosophical needs on one issue or another. This is doubtful, given his extremely liberal voting record. Four years ago when I had a choice, I listened to two candidates, questioned them carefully and voted for social conservative Glenn Poshard, who was far more liberal than I on economic policy. Social policy meant more to me than any other. I have never regretted my vote. But we don't have that kind of choice this year, my friends.

What is there about some conservatives that makes them want to punish themselves with a Blagojevich governorship so they will--hopefully--''control'' their party in the future? Don't they realize that controlling their party is fruitless if they cannot elect anyone? In 1952, Robert A. Taft campaigned for Gen. Dwight Eisenhower and became his loyal majority leader in the Senate. In 1980, Ronald Reagan chose his moderate opponent, George Bush, a pro-choicer then but who loyally determined to agree with Reagan on social policy.

So in reaffirmation of a great phrase--used by Barry Goldwater in 1960 when the GOP convention defeated him in favor of Richard Nixon: ''Grow up, conservatives.'' The winning is at hand if you can determine when not to compromise--and when to do so. Believe me, when is now.

Please let me know if you want ON or OFF my ping list!. . .don't be shy.

[cgbg]

This commentator needs to do what conservatives hate to do--go "inside the beltway" in the Federal Agencies where government policy is really made.

There he will find that political correctness still rules the language of the bureaucracy, that domestic spending continues unabated on a wild variety of bizarre and almost uniformly unconstitional activities, and that each new domestic policy "initiative" in the daily press briefings are straight from the socialist's playbook.

It is time Bush cut us some slack!

We are watching very closely and do not like what we see.

[The Mayor]

Conservatives who do not understand the nature of politics ought to stay in their air-conditioned ivory towers and refrain from political activity altogether.

Blanket statement , I hate them...

I just so happen to be a Contractor that works out in the heat and cold year round..

[Free Vulcan]

'We must have a Republican in office.'

'Why?'

'Because we don't want a Democrat in office.'

'Why don't we want a Democrat in office?'

'Because then a Republican wouldn't be in office.'

'Why is that bad?'

'Because there would be a Democrat in office.'

'Why is that bad?'

'Because then there would be no Republican in office.'

How do you compromise with someone who doesn't compromise? Do you ever see the left moving right in order to move the country left? How do you move someone in the direction of your principles by always sacrificing them?

It never ceases to amaze me the logic of some conservatives, that we can somehow move people in the direction of our principles by abandoning them at the drop of a hat, that somehow we will create conservatives by adopting liberal ideology.

It's the typical political naivety of the Republican party. We move left, which becomes the center. Then the socialists come back and say the center is now the right, and we compromise again to the left, to create a new center, which quickly becomes the right again, and so on.

There is another term for it, it's called LOSER. People who don't have the will to win are the one's who compromise their principles. Those who give up their principles LOSE. Those who will do anything as long as they can keep the 'R' in front of the current officeholders name have LOST. They have LOST because they are incapable of winning the public debate and articulate their position to win people to their cause, so they water down and make 'R' a meaningless shell.

Of course, they argue that this is what we must do to win people to our side. Funny, I don't recall Rush Limbaugh gaining national noteriety by compromising his position. I thought he did it by Winning Hearts And Minds. Gee, I guess Limbaugh isn't a true conservative. He couldn't be anyway, he's been bashing Bush to much lately.

PRINCIPLE is what decides where the country is going, and what our daily lives will be like. It is PRINCIPLE that creates the reality we live in. The reason we so much taxation and regulation is because someone or someones have steadily been pushing their PRINCIPLES into law. They have done this by winning the public debate and getting their people elected to office.

Of course none of that addresses the Constitution. Because compromising Republicans conveniently get around that by saying that as long as the Supreme Court says it's constitutional, then the Constitution hasn't been violated. So, when the entire country is nationalized and we are sitting in concentration camps, the Constitutionhasn't been shredded, because the Supreme Court hasn't ruled concentration camps unconstitutional. Of course, they eliminated that possibility when they compromised for a more liberal bench, in order of course to promote conservative govt.

So what does the article mean? Nothing really. The rantings of a LOSER, someone who can't get the job done because they don't have the will to fight in the public arena. Someone who cares only that their group is in power, not that they stand for anything good. I myself want no part of it, I don't hang with LOSERS. I'll keep company with those who have the spine to keep their principles.

[Righty1]

If Bush gave up on open borders, fired the clintoon holdovers, and forgot about his soon to be disastrous housing subsidies, (how do you think the houses will look in 5 years and what effect on neighbors lives and home values?) I would forgive him for the farm bill, midnight amnesties, and arab coddling.

[doryfunk]

quidnunc, What has Bush done to make you happy with his war on terrorism? Is it his refusal to allow pilots(let alone anyone else) to exercise their God given and constitutionally protected right to self defense? Is it his utter lack of concern for controlling our borders and his contemplation of amnesty for millions of law breaking, aliens? Is it his attacks on the rights of the people of the States by using the government to spy on them on the internet, on telephones, and in churches or by throwing them in jail without any intention of bringing them to trial in the near future after declaring them 'enemy combatants'? For that matter, what has he done that is good at all in the 'war on terror'?

Perhaps the most telling statement in the article posted is "He must make compromises to get re-elected."

Reelection should not be his goal. I know that it is for most politicians. That is why we need to reform the system by insisting on strict adherence to the constitution. The constitution provides for the election of the president by the electoral college for a reason. The reason is so that he wont have to base his actions to pander for votes. We should have no 'presidential election' for the masses in this country. Senators should be appointed. Most federal programs(like social security, welfare, medicare, medicaid, the department of education, etc.) should be ignored by the State as unconstitutional and if the federal government continued in its law breaking ways, the States should quit giving them tax funds.

[potlatch]

rawe, this article explains how many of us feel.

[Lady In Blue]

Thanks for the post! Bumping for a read tomorrow.

[dixie sass]

Ping-a-ling