Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

So far, the GOP is not giving conservatives reasons to vote on November 5th
Enter Stage Right ^ | July 15, 2002 | Paul M. Weyrich

Posted on 07/15/2002 10:28:18 AM PDT by gordgekko

Maybe I am totally off base, and probably I should keep my views to myself, but I sense a Democratic victory in Congress in the making. It is true that President George W. Bush still has sky high ratings among the electorate. They see him as someone who thinks like they do. No matter what issues the Democrats throw at the President, nothing sticks to him. They used to call Ronald Reagan the Teflon President, but if Bush continues these ratings into 2004, he will do Reagan one better.

The Bush ratings do not apply to his party, however. In fact, several recent polls find that while the average voter believes that Bush is on the side of the average voter, Republicans in general are seen as being more interested in the welfare of corporate bigwigs. If Democrat strategists are able to take advantage of this voter perception they will hold on to the Senate, but will win control of the House as well. Republican strategists already concede gains in the gubernatorial realm. They are defending many more state houses than the Democrats.

One of the problems for Republicans in Congress is that grass roots conservatives don't feel that the party is willing to raise issues they care about. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision removing God from the pledge of allegiance and a New York federal judge's decision to release a terrorist are good arguments for confirming President Bush judicial nominees. It is unclear if the party is willing to make this a burning issue because the judge who wrote the pledge opinion was a Republican appointee. If the judiciary becomes a really credible issue, it does have the opportunity to arouse some voters.

One issue that would really stir the grass roots is immigration. Look at what has happened in Western Europe. Eleven of 14 Members of the European Economic Community now have right of center governments. And it is possible that total will be 12 this fall if German voters go the way the polls are now suggesting. Immigration was one of the key issues that brought those right of center governments to power. Even the Dutch government intends to curb the liberal lifestyle in that country. The problem is that President Bush has a fundamental disagreement with Representative Tom Tancredo (R-CO) whose views on immigration resonate well with the grass roots. So immigration will not be made an issue by the Republican Party or if it is it will be in the form of President Bush's outreach to the Hispanic community.

Another issue that stirs the grass roots is the Boy Scout issue. The Boy Scouts have lost millions and have also lost the right to use many public facilities because they refuse to permit homosexual scout masters. The grass roots are all with the Scouts. The party could win seats in the South, Midwest and even Southwest if the party made this an issue. But it is unlikely the party will raise this issue because the Bush Administration has made an outreach to the homosexual community. Just recently, the president signed a bill providing some benefits to same sex partners who were victims of the New York disaster on September 11th.

The Supreme Court's decision on vouchers thrilled most conservatives. This decision is very popular in minority communities where school children are trapped in failing education institutions. However vouchers are not popular in suburban communities. The issue has been defeated in Congress by suburban Republicans. Voters from the suburbs have defeated vouchers when they were on state ballots. So while the party might make this an issue and grass roots conservatives would like it, the suburban Republicans who are part of the Bush coalition might well revolt.

The voters and even some in the grass roots have turned on to the privacy issues. A year ago, in the wake of 9/11, they were willing to support intrusions into their privacy in the interest of safety. Attorney General John Ashcroft was once the darling of grass roots conservatives. He is now seen as the enemy of the Fourth Amendment and impatience with Big Brother security measures grows, especially among grass roots activists. But privacy will not be an issue with the voters at-large this fall.

That is why it is possible that the Democrats will make gains. The Republicans may not raise any issues that will get grass roots conservatives to the polls. In 1994 these conservatives constituted 37 percent of the vote. In 2000, they constituted only 31 percent of the vote. If they drop another percentage or two, Republicans will lose, and could lose big.

We shall see if Democrats are smart enough to turn voter perception about the Republican-Big Business connection into an issue that resonates with the average voter. Thus far they have proved remarkably inept in their efforts to develop issues against President Bush. It could be they will miss what for them is a golden opportunity. However, if they get their act together, President Bush will be dealing with a Democrat Congress for the two years before he has to face the voters. If what has happened in the Senate this past year is any guide, the president will get nothing conservative through the Congress. He will only win if he compromises with the liberals. Then the Democrats will say he is a do nothing president.

Paul M. Weyrich is president of the Free Congress Foundation.


TOPICS: Editorial; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: georgewbush; midtermelections; republicans
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260 ... 441-442 next last
To: Paul Ross
RR(Ronald Reagan) did not triangulate.

Really? Then why did he sign a gas and social security tax increase?

221 posted on 07/15/2002 3:44:44 PM PDT by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]

To: Dane
Shh. You're not supposed to use reason and logic with the unappeasables. Think of them as the Knights Who Say "NEE!" in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. If they get their shrubbery, they'll find something ELSE to kvetch about.
222 posted on 07/15/2002 3:47:12 PM PDT by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: Jhoffa_
I have no answer, I am just pointing out that just because the republicans control the senate, doesn't necessarily mean that we are going to get better judges. And it certainly doesn't mean that we will get more conservative judges. Bushs' conservative appointees are going to receive as much flack from the liberal republicans in the senate as from the democrats.
223 posted on 07/15/2002 3:47:53 PM PDT by gunshy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
You must place it a little higher, to get the two level effect..

Go see Roger, he will hook you up.

224 posted on 07/15/2002 3:48:20 PM PDT by Jhoffa_
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 222 | View Replies]

To: College Repub
Wrongo. The liberal republicans played virtually no part in Ronald Reagans defeat of Jimmy Carter. He won in spite of them. They were voting en mass for John Anderson in 1980. And even with the split Reagan still won, preaching purely conservative, American values. Not big government liberalism. Not antithetical-to-freedom PC correctness. But God, Honor, Duty and Country.
225 posted on 07/15/2002 3:48:20 PM PDT by Paul Ross
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: Dane
Uh snipe you seemed to have gone off your own topic and that was how in your mind how the Reagan administration was not tainted by Ford and Nixon, when it was, according to your standards.(Cap Weinberger being named Secretary of Defense, even though he had a prominent role in the Nixon administration)

You set up your own purity standards and now are dying because of them, that's not my fault.

Maybe someday, I don't know when, you will look at facts and not rely on knee jerkism.

I said with a few exceptions. Cap Weinberger is indeed an exception. Cheney and Rummy? No just some has beens from PAST FAILED ADMINISTRATIONS. Good grief Rummy couldn't even make a reasonable troop morale decession of a poor policy from the Clintons. Remember the Berets? I do wonder if Rummy is still studying on that. If they can't do right with simple decessions how can we expect them to be great in bigger and much more critical ones.

226 posted on 07/15/2002 3:50:20 PM PDT by cva66snipe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]

To: gunshy

I know that and you're right..

But this late in the game it's the only shot we have.

Republican in November.. We can talk other options in 2004 maybe, but right now I just see no viable alternative.

If anyone has a suggestion to the contrary, I would certainly like to hear it..

227 posted on 07/15/2002 3:50:27 PM PDT by Jhoffa_
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: Jhoffa_
Lots of countries opted out (like Mexico and China). If the European countries wanna spend all their time trying each other's soldiers, let 'em. Bush kept us out and still allowed the UN to save face. Next year, I'll bet he gets us out permanently.

We're out of the ABM, Kyoto and only 47 advisers remain in Bosnia. Kosovo is next. Clinton wouldn't have done that.

228 posted on 07/15/2002 3:50:30 PM PDT by Deb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave
I'm going to end up sounding like a moderate (gag), but I understand both sides of the fence. I certainly would have preferred an actual conservative over Souter, but Ruth Ginsberg was Clinton's appointee, and about as conservative as you were going to get from the Clinton White House. However, whenever the pubbies go moderate, they lose votes. I have never understood the strategy of alienating your biggest core constituency to try and get voters that don't like you, anyway. Seems like we're stuck with a choice of M&M's (moderates or marxists)

The pubbies have never lost by going conservative (80,84,88 and 94), but with the exception of the two Reagan terms, as soon as they won they started moving left, and paid for it the next time around. I'm convinced that for most of the Republican heirarchy, they move to the left because that's where they want to be, not because they want to get more votes.

229 posted on 07/15/2002 3:50:55 PM PDT by Richard Kimball
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross
Anyone else catch the smirk on Brokaw's face a few minutes ago as he announced that President Bush's approval rating has dropped to 62% from 75% a few months back; according to Zogby? (yes, I know Zogby is hostile toward Bush.)



230 posted on 07/15/2002 3:52:14 PM PDT by who knows what evil?
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
The unappeaseables among conservatives will never be happy, as their "my-way-or-the-highway" mentality is politically unrealistic, though they continue to tell themselves otherwise.

This from the Bush-bot who wants Sununu Jr. in NH over Smith, a real Conservative...even AFTER he's shown the proof that SUNUNU Jr. is in the Cynthia McKinney Pali/Arab loving camp, and has taken Campaign $$$ from some of the SAME TERRORIST GROUPS as McKinney!

Tell you what... when the(R)'s start acting like (R)'s, and NOT DEMS PANDERING, and STOP EXPANDING GOV SPENDING and PICKING MY POCKETS and STEALING MY FREEDOMS... I'll consider myself appeased.

Do YOU consider supporting RINOS in the best interest of America and (R)'s in general...RINO'S that VOTE DEMONRAT at EVERY CHANCE?!?!?

Screw Party Unity...OPEN SEASON ON RINO'S...NO BAG LIMIT!!!

231 posted on 07/15/2002 3:53:13 PM PDT by Itzlzha
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe
We have exactally one shipyard now tooled and capable to build carriers. It would take at least 5 years to tool & train another one. The F-14 the ruler of the sky still as a fighter jet is not replacable because as of yet a comparable equal is yet to be developed. The Delta wing is considered the best. Why didn't Cheney put money into Avionics R&D rather than destroy the whole project?

Re the A-12, Cheney had little choice. The debate still rages in the pages of Proceedings as you're surely aware, but Cheney's termination of the program was not borne of some gleeful anti-military bent, but realization of a multi-billion-dollar lie growing without hope of success.

The Air Force may have signed the letter of agreement re its stealth data cooperation but produced zip, and many other problems lay beyond Cheney's control.

My dad served on the Saratoga (CV-3) and my son-in-law is a 1994 graduate of the Naval Academy. I have the Ronald Reagan on the refigerator, and it's W with Nancy as she christens it.

Why does the obese nation choose drugs for aging boomers, instead of fighting the decommissioning of four perfectly good boomers?

I fault Clinton most of all for the destruction of the military, cutting funding 40%, increasing depolyments 300%. To garden spots like Bosnia--now Bush says we'll leave. Three cheers.

The former chief scientist of the Air Force here was involved in the F-22 development. It's enraging to see billions going to HUD and Medicare fraud, and farm welfare that could be going to insure us against the Orange China Flu.

As Marcus Aurelius advised, we do that which is within our power.

And if it means keeping Armand Hammer's commie godson out of the White House, and the Leahyites out of toga-and-dagger-ville, so be it.

As for damage to the Navy, the Cole comes to mind, as does the character assassination of Jeremy Boorda--a dark era from which to distance ourselves.

232 posted on 07/15/2002 3:53:39 PM PDT by PhilDragoo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies]

To: Temple Owl
Okay then, I assume you will vote for Al Gore, if he is the Democratic candidate. You're allowed. It's still a free country, under God.

You assume wrong. I know Gore politics well probably much better than you seeing as I lived under both him and his dads terms representing my state. I likely will vote against Bush in the primaries that is if a canidate is allowed to challange the throne which I doubt as well. Then I will likely vote Independent based on Bush's record.

233 posted on 07/15/2002 3:54:25 PM PDT by cva66snipe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe
Rumsfeld was appointed during the Reagan administration to advise him on strategic counterforce modernization which was begun under his administration of the DOD. Rumsfeld is clearly the best of the bunch of GWB's appointments...and probably the least appreciated by GWB's inner-circle who fear him because of his forthrightness and commitment to that which they are not: Principle. He is clearly a far better SecDef than Cheney. And there have been grumblings over his war popularity from Rove, Card and to a lesser extent, Cheney. Hence the fear of Donald Rumsfeld by GWB's circle may be deeper than we know. Cheney is an utter mystery to me. He made so many bad decisions when he was in the SecDef office, but it appeared at the time to be at the express orders of GHWB. Now I wonder.
234 posted on 07/15/2002 3:57:11 PM PDT by Paul Ross
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
Shh. You're not supposed to use reason and logic with the unappeasables. Think of them as the Knights Who Say "NEE!" in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. If they get their shrubbery, they'll find something ELSE to kvetch about.

Well since we are on the subject we might as well go down the unappeasables list.

#1 The Bush twins
#2 Laura Bush
#3 The Bush's dogs

235 posted on 07/15/2002 3:57:12 PM PDT by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 222 | View Replies]

To: Deb
I certainly hope so, I am very concerned about the precedent this may set.

I mean, nothing scares me more than a world court, sitting bored and packed with BS countries trying to win on the floor what they could never dream of achieving on the battlefield.

Also, besides us, Russia, China, Mexico (as you stated) India and some others I forgot now have their own problems with this court.

That being the case I really would have liked to have seen a "coalition" of countries collectively laugh them off right out of the box, in the hopes it would have damaged their credibility badly enough to cause their collapse.. Or at least taint their "judgements" to a large degree.

I am very concerned about treating them as a legitimate world body.

236 posted on 07/15/2002 3:57:15 PM PDT by Jhoffa_
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: Temple Owl
No, but I would be happier if the republican party displayed any conservative tendencies. At the rate we are going, Hillary might just be a breath of stenchified but more conservative air. At least under Clinton, they only went after our gun rights, under Bush, they are going after all of our rights.
237 posted on 07/15/2002 4:00:14 PM PDT by gunshy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross; cva66snipe; Poohbah
Rumsfeld was appointed during the Reagan administration to advise him on strategic counterforce modernization which was begun under his administration of the DOD.

Well well, dissention in the anti-Bush camp.

Oh my, it looks the "NEE" camp is saying "NEE" amongst themselves.

238 posted on 07/15/2002 4:01:21 PM PDT by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 234 | View Replies]

To: Jhoffa_
And a rusty one at that!
239 posted on 07/15/2002 4:01:30 PM PDT by rdb3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
"I only expect that where we can't advance our position, we hold the line."

Herein lies the GOP's exposed soft underbelly...

Even though they hold the so-called bully pulpit of the Presidency, AND the House, they are both unwilling to "advance" their position OR "hold the line." In otherwords, The Republican Party IS IMPOTENT. Period.

240 posted on 07/15/2002 4:01:51 PM PDT by F16Fighter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260 ... 441-442 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson