"THAT which you believe"---"An open letter to Republicans"

6/23/02 | redrock

[redrock]

"This is free ground. All the way from here to the Pacific Ocean. No man has to bow. No man born to royalty. Here we judge you by what you do, not by who your father was. Here you can be something. Here's a place to build a home. It isn't the land--there's always more land. It's the idea that we all have value, you and me, we're worth something more than the dirt. I never saw dirt I'd die for, but I'm not asking you to come join us and fight for dirt. What we're all fighting for, in the end, is each other."

What is it that you believe???

A real question....since so many times on this forum, and others, the Republican 'mantra' has become a simple one.

Defeat the Democrats..whatever the cost..the Democrats are the enemy...(sort of Orwellian in it's simplicity)..repeated time after time...and anyone who dares to ask questions of George Bush's policies and actions is loudly shouted down.

But here's a 'news flash' for ya.......It may be that the Democratic Senators...Representitives.....leaders ARE the enemy of maintaining a Constitutional Republic.

But...the average member of the Democratic Party...is not.

The average member of the Democratic Party is just brainwashed..(for want of a better word)...

Just like the average member of the Republican Party is in danger of becoming.

"This is a party, this Republican Party, a Party for free men, not for blind followers, and not for conformists. "

So..I'll ask my very simple questions once again......

And Republicans who wish to rant and rave about 'third party' this or that...go right ahead.

But George W. Bush barely won the last election.....

You NEED staunch conservatives ( nowadays I guess we would be considered 'radical'.....) to help re-elect him....and others of the party..

CONVINCE us.........that at a certain point you will be willing to fight for 'old time values'.....

CONVINCE us ...that you have not become slavish followers of GWB...in much the same way as some did with Clinton....that you will ask the 'hard questions' (and demand the answers).

CONVINCE us.......and you will not do so by the constant dismissal of our very real concerns.

CONVINCE us.......

-----------------

So where do we 'draw the line'????

Should we elect rapists or murderers...if they are members of the Republican Party..and could 'help retake the Senate'???

At what point do you say 'this far and no further'???

Must every single American 'prostitute' themselves in order for one political party (one which on CLOSE examination is no different than the other one) to 'control' government???

I have certain values and beliefs...based upon my Belief in God.

Should I just throw those Beliefs and Values away...and close my eyes....just so the Republicans can win???

The basis of this Nation is a hardcore belief that the values and ideals (sorry to use that word..ideals...seems that word anymore has the same effect on Republicans as a Cross does to evil) that founded this Nation are important....

[ImpBill]

Well it seems as if you and others must have an itch in your jeans.

Did I suggest you leave the party? Nope. I think it is just peachy keen that you have made the choice to stay with the GOP and be one of the "NEW BASE" of pragmatists.

I don't have any suggestions for you nor the GOP. I am not a member, these days. Gave them 32 years of loyal support and when I decided I could no longer loyally support the pragmatic approach to governance that leaves principles in the gutter, I left. That was my solution, and of course the door didn't hit me on the butt on the way out. And my friend you are absolutely able to make those decisions for yourself without my thoughts. The party while being the only party in viable opposition to the liberal wing of the other party keeps fielding candidates that don't support the same conservative (fidelity to the Constitution) agenda I happen to believe in and support. I sure hope you are not saying anyone has to belong to a "party", regardless on how they feel about principle to take part in our system of governance. If so then the re-education of the American electorate has deteriorated further than even I had suspected.

I still vote, as I have in every election since 1968. I would say that GOP candidates would still get my vote in the future as I am not a supporter of the Third Party way, but I could be convinced to change my view on that if the GOP continues to field candidates that talk the talk, but once elected somehow forget how to walk the walk.

Let me ask you a question, if I may. Why is it that so many still loyal to the "party" get so exercised with those of us who left? Other than the volunteer work I have done in the past and the small financial contributions I gave to the "party" from time to time, the party isn't suffering at all by my departure, is it? And given that I still vote primarily for GOP candidates on election day, why is it that I and others are somehow painted to be disloyal to the conservative cause by stating we don't believe the GOP any longer cares or acts on the defining conservative issues?

[Japedo]

In this point in my life, I still abhor communism, but I will fight to the death for an American's right to chose communism.

I'm not really sure I understand your post Luis.Even if the "mob" wants Communism there are still us pesky Individuals that stand in their way, and have the Constitution on our side. Communism takes away individuality to take that away is to kill America and all she stands for. This is not a Mob rule country. (It's not suppose to be) However Just to prove my case further.. Things where the "mob rule" didn't get their way.

End of slavery

Women's right to vote

even today with the homosexual agenda as sick as that makes me.

Minority's Matter, Individuals matter. A Republic gives Each man say. So in order to fight for the death for those that want communism.. You will have to surrender the Constitution and all of the God given rights that go with it.

Had saying that, I will not surrender to that, no matter how loud they scream!

Live Free or Die Trying

[DoughtyOne]

Vin, are you aware that the Republicans not only decided not to go for impeachment, but basicly cast overboard my congressman in the process? Rogan was basicly a man without a party after the impeachment. How does that bode for the party?

By placing Clinton on a trial in the Senate, we would have been able to showcase his criminality for the nation. Instead we pulled our tail between our legs and yelped all the way back home.

Embarassing to the max. It made it look like it was all a witch hunt from the beginning. Lott gave the Democrat a free pass. When I get the chance, I'll give him one. Home!

[carenot]

I think that was Trent Lot talking to Henry Hyde, wasn't it?

[MozarkDawg]

So I've got a question for you, when are you going to work to make the party better by either running for election or helping to elect those whithin the party who support your beliefs.

I did that, since 1979 I gave something more valuable to me than my money, I gave the GOP my time. I volunteered countless hours in campaign offices to help elect men and women I thought had principle, I thought truly believed in the precepts of this nation and the words they spoke during their campaigns. In 1994, I worked in three different campaigns, my time and effort paying off with the first GOP House Speaker in decades.

All for nought, it turns out, for the GOP House was no more willing to lose that power, control and money any more than the Dems. I had no great illusions about the Senate, for I had Bob Dole's number long ago, but those revolutionaries in the House, I really believed the mantra, I breathed a huge "finally" when Gingrich assumed the gavel.

I believed those cries of "Just give us control and you'll see what we will accomplish." Unfortunately, what they accomplished was not quite what they advertised.

No more. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me year after year after year ....

[section9]

"I had my bout with spite. I had it in 1992..."

The legacy of those "principled conservatives" who broke from the GOP in 1992 to stand by their convictions, will forever be known as the Clinton presidency.

Most are not as willing to admit it as you have...it takes a big man.

Perot appealed to two great weaknesses in the American electorate in those times, gullibility and a temptation to follow the Man on the White Horse that the Framers foresaw in all democracies.

People had allowed themselves to be convinced that they were in the second Great Depression. Carville's strategy worked like a charm. Unfortunately, it gave an open to Perot's brand of crypto-fascist politics.

Perot asked us to "let him put his head under the hood" for a while and fix things. He understood that the "electronic" town hall was a way to bring direct democracy into our representative system. Direct democracy must, of needs be, lead to fascism, as the whole idea is untrammeled majority rule.

The Framers understood this, which is why they strove for a representative Republic with limited powers.

Bush ain't the sharpest knife in the drawer, but he has a good strategic sense and a sound knack for tactics. In addition, he has learned to put his ego in place in a way that McCain and Prince Albert never could have.

What many conservatives don't understand is that the pursuit of a strategic aim requires tactical adjustments to benefit one's position on the political battlefield. Think in terms of terrain. Sometimes you want to give territory to an enemy so that he will move into a position where you want him to be. Napoleon achieved this at Austerlitz against the Russo-Austrian forces. He retreated a small force in the face of the advance of the Russians, iirc. When they had advanced onto the low ground, Bonaparte brought up his reserves, including the Guard, and defeated both armies in detail. Austerlitz was a slaughter.

If you attempt a static defense (think of Adolph Hitler's "no withdrawl" rule on the Eastern Front in 1942-44, or better yet, the Maginot Line) in politics, you leave the strategic initiative with the enemy.

In this case, our enemy is the kombinat of Democratic Party legislators, beaureaucrats, K-Street lobbyists and political hitmen, and of course, our friends in the nonpartisan media .

Even if the DWI story hadn't broke at the end of the last campaign and George W. had captured all the idiot voters, thus gaining the popular vote, we would still be in the same position that we are, with the other side screaming "No Mandate!". We would still have obstruction in the Judiciary Committee because Jeffords still would have jumped. The Usual Suspects (such as P.A.W or NARAL) would still be there.

Despite his poll numbers, George W. Bush operates in a terrain in which the nation still has not made up its mind. Oh, they've made up their mind about him. They like him. They have figured out that George W. and his unassuming wife, Laura, are much like them. People tend to reelect presidents who are much like them. They have seen him act with a decisiveness that they did not know was there, and saw him rise to a terrible occasion.

But they have not made up their minds about the domestic issues of the day, be it Right to Life, affirmative action, or Health Care. So Bush has to make tactical adjustments, using the other side's issues to throw them off balance and maintain his position on the High Ground.

Understand that something extraordinary has occured. Tom Daschle has searched feverishly for something with which he could drive Bush into the ground. He thought he had the magic bullet with Enron. He didn't. Then, in a fit of madness, he bought into the Konspiracy Theorists and the Blak Helikopterz Krowd and appeared to second Hillary Clinton's implication that "Bush Knew".

Bush was playing a positional game, like Wellington in June of 1815. Daschle was charging like the French at Waterloo, thrown back each time they assaulted the British squares.

Had Bush come straight out with Our agenda here at FR, across the board, he would have been easily flanked by the political and media apparatus of the Kombinat. But he didn't, because he knew that he had to play Give and Take in a atmosphere of political stalemate.

Take Gun control. A year ago, out of the blue, Bush has Ashcroft state how the Justice Department is going to argue Second Amendment cases. This p'o's the liberals, and all the Usual Suspects come out against Ashcroft's letter to the NRA.

Bush did this because he had already detected that his stance against the gun grabbers won him West Virginia, Tennessee, and the Presidency. Don't ever let anyone tell you that Florida was where we won that thing. It was the gunner vote that took us over the top in all three states. He also understood that rural Democrats were abandoning the position of the Washington Kombinat because they had districts they had to run in. Districts filled with gun owners.

The Democrats played static defense on gun control. Bush played maneuver. A politician like Al Gore, who stated that he supported gun ownership by "hunters and sportsmen" obviously left the question open whether non-hunters and non-sportsmen should have their rights abridged. Gore had to come out and say that in a desperate attempt to hold on to Gun owners and keep his base and the moneyed elite who run the Kombinat happy at the same time.

Gun owners picked up on that ruse quick time. The Democrats counted on us being too stupid to pick up on their little half-truth. They were deadly wrong. That is why we have won the day. The return of gun ownership to respectability was merely capped off by civil reaction to Islamic terrorism on September 11th. The joke went, "When a liberal hears about terrorism, he buys a book about Islam. When a conservative hears about terrorism, he buys a gun."

We cannot win the day on our issues by playing All Attack, All the Time. When we attack everything, we end up attacking nothing, because we do not concentrate our forces on what the Germans called the Schwerpunkt, or "breakthrough" point. We have breached such a Schwerpunkt in the gun control debate. The wailings of the Brady Center remind me of the old Trotskyist chantings back at the University of Chicago. In the atmosphere that Bush, his people, and conservative gun owners across America helped to create, not even Chuckie Schumer is screaming gun control anymore.

All of you must of had a bit of a chuckle, btw, when the Hildebeast came out and said she owned a shotgun in her youth.

It was all positioning, and it took time. While we were "caving in" on Education or steel tariffs, we basically put the gun grabbers to bed. And by "caving in" on Education or steel tariffs, we just may retake the Senate, keep the House, and reelect the President in '04.

Remember Welfare Reform? People remember that Clinton signed it. They don't remembert that Republicans proposed it. The same thing is true with education or steel tariffs. It's what soccer mommies and steelworkers want. We gave them what they wanted. We'll get lots of their votes. It's that simple. Don't believe me? Bush already has Jimmy Hoffa virtually in his pocket. The USWA could be next. That makes it much harder for Democrats.

So, my fellow conservatives, take the Gun Control battle as a template for how to win. We won by using the techniques of the Democratic Party against them (especially agitation, propaganda, and salami tactics). Only, unlike the Democrats, we had the truth and the Constitution on our side.

Our victories will be all the sweeter if we recognize that no, George W. Bush is not some liberal in sheep's clothing. He has conservative aims; some not as conservative as we would like, many all right by most of us.

But as I have said in other debates, you can't win the day if you don't elect conservative Presidents who will appoint conservative Justices.

And you don't get conservative Justices by voting for guys like Perot. Or Buchanan, for that matter.

Indeed, history will record that all that was achieved by the "Let's show that liar; let's vote for Perot!" Crowd was a stain on a dress, a serial liar, and two justices named Ginsberg and Breyer.

Think on that fellow conservatives, before some of you are so quick to send George W. Bush to the showers.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[Eagle Eye]

The legacy of those "principled conservatives" who broke from the GOP in 1992 to stand by their convictions, will forever be known as the Clinton presidency.

Wrong-o.

First of all, look at the candidate. A chump. Then look at the campaign. A joke. Yeah, I held my nose and voted against clinton.And look at what happened.

Don't blame Perot. He didn't ruin Bush's campaign, Bush did. Perot didn't "take" votes from anyone. If Bush was a real candidate with real issues and ran a real campaign he would have earned votes instead of simply relying on brand-name loyalty to win.

When are some of you going to quit making lame excuses and realize that the 92 campaign was either one of the most lame efforts ever and quit blaming others or realize that Bush took a dive to let clinton get elected. That Mena cocaine connection isn't all tin-foil stuff, you know.

[VinnyTex]

They didn't throw Rogan overboard. He's a hero inside the party. Rank and file and the establishment.

[MozarkDawg]

and Scott Johnson in the Marina area against Jane Harman, just to name a few here in Southern California.

Harman sits in the House TODAY, along with Sanchez, thanks in part to a GOP-majority who paid lip-service to the fraud that went on in both those campaigns in 98. The GOP seated those women, even though the illegalities were numerous and obvious.

More of that "we want to look like good guys, get along" stuff that has lost my vote, my money and my time.

[broomhilda]

Please believe me. We are not a like-minded party. IN MY OPINION this is what has happened. There used to be a socialist party, a communist party, a democrat party, and a republican party. There is no longer a socialist party and a communist party. They have taken over the democrat party. The "moderate" or non-left liberal democrats had no place to go so they moved into the Republican party and have made attempts to take it over. They gain power, by labeling us as Conservative right wing Republicans, and using the fear factor that intimidates the conservative Republicans they gain more power. That is why we have to take the Republican party back or lose it completely. That is why we need NEW Republicans in Congress and that is why we need to elect NEW Senators. Only then can George W. Bush become the president we all want him to be. Right now he has no power to do anything. Anymore than our California Republican legislature has the power to represent us in Sacramento. They are overruled and overridden. REMEMBER, I said this was my opinion.

[tricky_k_1972]

The reason we get upset is because we need people like you in the party. Your thoughts and ideas are important to the rank and file members, belive it or not. I'm a young Republican and I know I'm pretty head strong so I need the elder republicans around who remember what the Party used to be and Stood for. I and others like me need you to be there when we fall by the wayside. It's like a family in that way and when the parents leave there are no substitutes for that lost knowledge. I hat sounding like that makes me feel like Mr. Ponytail guy who asked Clinton to treat as if we were his children and how could he help us poor slobs. The truth is though if people like you leave the Republican Party there is a great loss of leadership and that hurts. This is a grass roots party and you do make a difference.

[broomhilda]

Please believe me. We are not a like-minded party. IN MY OPINION this is what has happened. There used to be a socialist party, a communist party, a
democrat party, and a republican party. There is no longer a socialist party and a communist party. They have taken over the democrat party. The
"moderate" or non-left liberal democrats had no place to go so they moved into the Republican party and have made attempts to take it over. They gain
power, by labeling us as Conservative right wing Republicans, and using the fear factor that intimidates the conservative Republicans they gain more
power. That is why we have to take the Republican party back or lose it completely. That is why we need NEW Republicans in Congress and that is why
we need to elect NEW Senators. Only then can George W. Bush become the president we all want him to be. Right now he has no power to do anything.
Anymore than our California Republican legislature has the power to represent us in Sacramento. They are overruled and overridden. REMEMBER, I
said this was my opinion.

[humblegunner]

You are very welcome.

[MozarkDawg]

Let me ask you a question, if I may. Why is it that so many still loyal to the "party" get so exercised with those of us who left? Other than the volunteer work I have done in the past and the small financial contributions I gave to the "party" from time to time, the party isn't suffering at all by my departure, is it?

Though the question wasn't directed to me, I appreciate you asking it. You are correct, the GOP has proved they don't need me, my vote, my time or my money, so why all the guff when I write on a public board that I'm through being made to feel the fool?

[ImpBill]

I think we are in absolute agreement on the fact that we would rather see Republicans in charge than DemocRATs, in both the Senate and House.

Having said that, however, I am not really sure it will make much difference to President Bush.

I support him. Voted for him. Gave money to his campaign.

I can not imagine not voting for him, if he is the candidate of the GOP against anyone the DemocRATs can field in 2004. He was not my first choice in 2000 in the primary contest, but the obvious choice once the general election was upon us. He will be the obvious choice in '004, but I will not have the same zeal in voting for him as I did last time around. Not that many "men" have met all or even many of my expectations, but GW, based upon what I have seen so far has been a bit of a disappointment on a number of my key concerns. I am beginning to learn that when we hyphenate any idea that it really waters down the concept.

Compassionate - Conservatism isn't Conservatism at all. It is "pragmatic" governance. Conservatism is compassionate at it's core and doesn't need to be further described.

GW seems to have learned the Clinton method of triangulation and is really put an improved look to it, in that he has been able to keep so many of "his" pragmatic base on the reservation and seems to be gaining ground with some of the folks that normally vote DemocRAT.

Let's get together and have an exchange of views after the GOP retakes the Senate and gains seats in the House. I will be anxious to see how GW acts when he has both the bully pulpit and control over the houses. But shucks then the '004 election cycle will be upon us and he will be talking conservative but walking moderate still.

My friend, I think Conservatism (fidelity to the Constitution as originally written) as a force is finished in the country. In fact I think it has been dead for quite some time and those that still cling to the conservative label while willing to look the other way when their "leaders" vote otherwise are whistling past the grave.

[thrcanbonly1]

Re:#86 Yes I have read the Constitution lately. I have a framed copy hanging on my wall in my office.(mainly to piss off my boss, who is a rabid RAT), along with the Declaration of Independence, and the Bill of Rights.

The states did not "give" any rights to the Federal Gov. The Fed Gov. has obligations not rights, only individuals have rights. These are providing for the common defence of the USA(the Military), protecting the rights of Individuals(the Judiciary), and strangely enough maintaining Postal Roads to deliver the mail. That is about the only legitimate function of the Fed Gov.

But my question was in referal to the Republican Party specificaly, not governments in general.

[Dane]

Indeed, history will record that all that was achieved by the "Let's show that liar; let's vote for Perot!" Crowd was a stain on a dress, a serial liar, and two justices named Ginsberg and Breyer.

You forgot a meglomaniac First lady.

[rintense]

I am curious. Just what freedoms have you lost? What has been taken from you? How is your life different today than it was 10 years ago?

[MozarkDawg]

When are some of you going to quit making lame excuses and realize that the 92 campaign was either one of the most lame efforts ever ....

Not to quibble, but that Dole '96 campaign was no great shakes either. We conservatives got stuck with "Hey, It's My Turn" when there actually was a shot at getting rid of Clinton for a second term. A different man running might have stood a better chance at defeating the crook.

[section9]

You forgot a meglomaniac First lady.

Nope, unfortunately, she is still there for all of us to remember her by.

Be Seeing You,

Chris