Posted on 06/22/2002 11:04:36 AM PDT by codebreaker
America's choice. A self worshiping terrorist aiding thugs, or Bush.... America's jurisdiction vs. worship of people's feelings and needs.... Man, we are that close to the abyss. And that Clinton bets it will work goes a long way to tell that indeed, we are even closer than that.
I won't say I hope Clinton is successfull, but I will say I don't really care if he is. It's a democrat or a republican.
Whatever. Taxes still suck, our rights continue to be eroded away (i.e. the patriot act, et. al.), the drug war marches on, social programs expand. WTF is the difference?
I think perhaps the best strategy is to vote out the incumbant party, untill a viable 3rd party becomes available or the revolution begins.
I will say, one thing I do like about the Bush administration: aside from just pissing off arogant liberals, which I certainly do get much joy from, is that Ashcroft reaffirmed that the government's position on the second amendmant is an individual right.
We'll see if this means anything when the assault weapons ban comes up for review.
I don't believe that for an instant. Absent hard, consistent, irrefutable data to support that notion, I absolutely refuse to believe it. It seems impossible. Unless by "properly presented" you mean fool them.
Why do you think that Reagan won handily, after Gerald Ford lost? Why did Nixon lose in 1960, skin his teeth in 1968, but win handily when McGovern took the Democrats so far left, that even Nixon looked like a true Conservative? Why was the only really clear cut Republican advance since Reagan, when they launched the Conservative "Contract With America" in 1994? The evidence is compelling, if you will but look.
But forget the politicians for the moment. Much of the public simply distrust politicians--and who can blame them! Why do you think so many Conservative talk show hosts thrive on radio? It is because they--not the leftist news departments--reflect the real opinions of the public.
The thing which defeats Conservatives is waffling on principle. What hurts our chances is being inconsistent, in retreating from strong ground into the marshes of indecision. Our present perceived weakness is not because the public did not like the Contract With America's assault on the Welfare State. The public loved it. But they lost faith in our side, when Gingrich began to waffle under media fire. (I wouldn't be too hard on Newt, he was also being smeared big time on a book deal that was infinitely more ethical than Hillary's recent coup. But the difference was that he went on the defensive, whereas Mrs. Clinton just blithely ignored the comments.)
You cannot name any sizeable identifiable population group, where I cannot demonstrate a better approach than that which the Republican moderates are presently employing. We are going to lose to the Clintonistas, unless we look at what is as obvious as the noses on our faces, and start hitting the bastards where they are vulnerable, rather than engage in a bidding war with them over the quickest way to purgatory.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
I don't see any evidence here. First, I don't believe even as many as one out of four Americans would recognize a Constitutional principle if they tripped over one. Second, the polling data that we see week after week and month after month absolutely refutes the notion that "constitutional principles" are even a secondary concern to the majority--or even to a noticable minority--of Americans.
As for those elections you mentioned, I don't have any detailed analysis of those elections. The "conventional wisdom" is that Nixon lost in 1960 due to his performance on TV against Kennedy. He lost in '68 because LBJ promised to stop the war. McGovern lost because he was out of step with America. He was too far to the left, and he ran a very poor campaign. Maybe you don't agree with those assessments. That's fine.
But forget the politicians for the moment. Much of the public simply distrust politicians--and who can blame them!
I don't blame them for distrust. But I believe blanket distrust is the lazy person's way out of paying attention and staying informed. Most Americans, I believe, are basically ignorant about government.
Why do you think so many Conservative talk show hosts thrive on radio? It is because they--not the leftist news departments--reflect the real opinions of the public.
I disagree. I believe that Limbaugh, and some of his devotees, like Hannity, thrive because they are motivated to make money and have executed a solid business plan. If the "real opinions of the public" were in step with Limbaugh, we would see that reflected electorally. We don't. What they do well is target a market, they fulfill a market need--conservative views expressed in the media--and they are probably extremely disciplined and good to their sponsors. It's a good business. That's why they do well, IMO.
We are going to lose to the Clintonistas, unless we look at what is as obvious as the noses on our faces, and start hitting the bastards where they are vulnerable, rather than engage in a bidding war with them over the quickest way to purgatory.
Too late.
Hey old buddy. Long time no see. Listen, the revolution is at least 100 years off. At least! There is no viable rd party either. Don't blame the messenger, but them's the facts.
I will say, one thing I do like about the Bush administration: aside from just pissing off arogant liberals, which I certainly do get much joy from, is that Ashcroft reaffirmed that the government's position on the second amendmant is an individual right.
That is a positive step.
We'll see if this means anything when the assault weapons ban comes up for review.
You are right. The proof is in the pudding.
Think it might have something to do with him being already in the bag and eating BLTs in a secret jail cell somewhere in Area 51, ready to be shown to the world on Sept 8th or so?
I think JR has been up front about it. I don't have the thread links handy, but I think he made it clear that his wartime policy would be stricter than his Clinton-era policy. I remember him saying so. As for clear rules, I think he has basically said something to the effect that he doesn't feel like writing an ornate and meticulous policy. He makes judgement calls. Actually, now he has delegated that authority, and he was up front about that. I don't mean to speak for JR; hopefully I am not misrepresenting anything. My point is just this: I ain't too bright. I am fairly average. Not only that, I question a lot of orthodoxy myself. I incite debate. Yet I have found it relatively easy to discern the intent of the host, and to exist peacefully within that constraint, as it were. If I can do it, it can't be that hard to do.
But what I do enjoy about LF, is I feel I can be myself there and speak my mind, which is against the policy here.
There are tradeoffs. I like it here.
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.