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.
So I guess the GOP IS good enough for you. The former leader of the Republican party in my state is a criminal who is being asked to resign because of all his scandals. (They gave him a pass on the largest tax increase in state history and continued lying to the public) The new leader of the GOP in my state is pro-choice. Cool huh?
Gripe? LOL, any time someone tries to hold your swine to their rhetoric it's called griping or whining by the lemmings and bootlickers of anyone with an "R" behind their name.
I'm not saying you are one of them, only that you risk sounding like them.
The alternative is to work to change the hearts and minds of the people who vote for and nominate these socialist slugs.
Your challenge about a VIABLE third party is a non starter designed to eliminate all choices except Republicrats. Nice try.
Question;
If I said I was committed to your party but the first step in saving it was to remove all those who are currently in power there, would you endorse that? No, you would talk about "big tents" and "Reagan's law" and control of the senate and other such nonsense.
Do what you will, I'll do what I will, but remember, if you continue to let them take you for granted because "they ain't Clinton", you will get "Democrat lite" forever. Because they aren't interested in doing what is right, they are interested in being in power.
"If you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always gotten."
Then, please, share some jack about yourself. Do you vote Republican?
"You lament the fact that the GOP knows how to win elections. But isn't that the point? What good is your pious 'principle(s)' sans power?"
What good is power sans principle? Here's an equation for you: Power - Principle = ZERO. (Well, zero will at least buy you a Republican administration.)
"So, since you obviously don't have an answer nor an alternative, you must be content to be resigned to the moaning choir."
The answer is to return to constitutional principles. However, how we achieve that is the subject of debate. My point is that the GOP is no longer the party of the Constitution. Virtually every Republican that gets elected promises--in his or her own way--to grow government. That being the case, where is the victory in winning an election? Concerned voters have turned to the GOP for conservative leadership since 1865, and what do we have to show for it? Bigger, more expensive, more intrusive government.
As far as having an "answer" to all of this, I can't say that I have one you would accept. Fighting for a return to the Constitution should be our ultimate goal, no matter what political party you choose to support. I just know for a fact that the GOP, as a whole, does not have the Constitution as its focus. It focuses on getting elected. Period. Yeah, that looks great on paper, but what advances in true conservatism have we seen?
Likewise, so-called conservatives will vote the party line and never apologize for giving the White House to somebody like George W. Bush.
That much? I don't hate him at all. I oppose those who further ideas that I find repugnant, politically and morally. He is one of them.
I along with most Americans think he is doing a real good job,
Goody, it feels good to be in a big group I guess, even if the group is misguided or wants things that you don't want. Or maybe you do want what he represents. Larger, more intrusive government. Centralized in most cases. New programs, more laws, less freedom and "go along to get along" politics. I think the job he is doing is mediocre even at what he is trying to do. Which I oppose. BUT, HE AIN"T CLINTON, SO HE CAN DO THINGS DEMOCRATS WOULD BE EXCORIATED FOR.
despite efforts from guys like Daschle, Gephardt, Jeffords and you to stick it to him.
It follows that people who want power will try to take it from those who currently have it. Always have, always will.
To include me with those swine you mentioned is a veiled insult. So speaking of sticking it, why don't you?
What do you think about last night's revelation that GW is calling for even more expanded powers to give government an even greater amount of control over the lives of Americans and events within the country?
I am more than a bit shocked! Everytime I turn around, there are new power grabs coming out of DC by someone, or the admin, or Bush himself.
I don't want to see Bush booted come the next election, but man oh man! How far is his admin going to push us before people start freaking out and running to the polls to vote for anyone besides Bush? His poll numbers are down according to Matt Drudge, and Id bet a lot of people are afraid of heavy handed government as a result of the Patriot Act, and the many other power grabs that have come down since 9/11.
Am I just hypersensitive, or are you concerned too about this issue?
When was the last time you helmed the free world? Can you imagine the multitude of issues Bush is hit with, each demanding solving? You cannot possibly be so naive as to think he could get everything fixed IF ONLY HE WOULD.
As a VIABLE avenue (read: path), yes it is.
The former leader of the Republican party in my state is a criminal who is being asked to resign because of all his scandals. (They gave him a pass on the largest tax increase in state history and continued lying to the public)
Since when did GOP equate with being holy? How about Democrat? Is that holy? Libertarian? Green? The point is that men are men, no matter what label they may be under.
The new leader of the GOP in my state is pro-choice. Cool huh?
Not to me, but it may be to you since you are a libertarian. When it comes down to the pro-life/pro-abort argument, you have your own work to do amongst your political kinsmen.
Gripe? LOL, any time someone tries to hold your swine to their rhetoric it's called griping or whining by the lemmings and bootlickers of anyone with an "R" behind their name.
This is a matter of perspective. I've accepted the fact that no one gets all that he or she wants in this life. Hell, Bill "Blue Screen" Gates can't with all his chedda. I have also come to grips with the fact that this nation didn't slide leftward overnight. It won't slide rightward overnight, either. Undoing 70+ years of leftward sliding is going to take some time.
The alternative is to work to change the hearts and minds of the people who vote for and nominate these socialist slugs.
Now we've come to a point of agreement! Although we are still ions apart in methodology. To me, we must uproot the RATS FIRST. My AR-15 is focussed squarely on them because they are the most dangerous party in this nation. The GOP just lacks political skills, but those skills can be attained.
Your challenge about a VIABLE third party is a non starter designed to eliminate all choices except Republicrats. Nice try.
How so? You still haven't named one. So the question still stands: What is a VIABLE alternative? That question is extremely important and I for one expect an answer to it. Libertarians? Ha! Greens? Puh-leeze. Constitution? Nope. Reform? Riiiight... So tell me, what other choices are there that has a chance to win?
If I said I was committed to your party but the first step in saving it was to remove all those who are currently in power there, would you endorse that? No, you would talk about "big tents" and "Reagan's law" and control of the senate and other such nonsense.
Oh, so asking AND answering for me, huh? I'm not worried about a "party." I'm registered as an Independent. So party labels mean little. However, since I am definitely a post-conservative, the GOP gets my nod since it is the closest VIABLE choice I have. Can't place a bet on the Browns to win the Super Bowl if they aren't playing in it, right?
Do what you will, I'll do what I will...
Kewl! Love, peace, and Afro-Sheen, baby! It's all good like a two-piece, biscuit, and a pepper, ya heard?
...but remember, if you continue to let them take you for granted because "they ain't Clinton", you will get "Democrat lite" forever.
They can't take me for granted, my man. That's not possible. The reasons why they can't take me for granted are 1.) I don't belong to that party, and 2.) My vote will change if, and only if, there is truly a viable alternative.
"If you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always gotten."
True dat. And, doing the exact same thing multiple times while expecting a different result is insanity. I'm so glad you lead me here. It's a perfect segue into what I have to say next on this thread. I'm just not finished with it yet.
So, stay tuned! Same Bat-time! Same Bat-channel!
Ouch! I see that we hit a sore spot. The truth hurts.
Yep. And I've already given my reasons why.
What good is power sans principle? Here's an equation for you: Power - Principle = ZERO. (Well, zero will at least buy you a Republican administration.)
That was good! I like that, and I can dig it. But this is not a "chicken/egg" argument. You can have all the light bulbs (principle(s)) in the world, but without electricy (power), you're still in the dark.
The answer is to return to constitutional principles.
Amen to that. But you're arguing at a disadvantage here. I'll get to that later on today. Keep your eyes open.
As far as having an "answer" to all of this, I can't say that I have one you would accept.
Sure I'll accept it, as long as its viable.
Fighting for a return to the Constitution should be our ultimate goal, no matter what political party you choose to support.
Ya damn skippie.
I just know for a fact that the GOP, as a whole, does not have the Constitution as its focus.
Perfect honesty here! You admitted it, and this is what I've been looking for: "as a whole." You're absolutely right. But this leads me back to my point. The GOP is the most VIABLE choice in looking to the Constitution. Far too many of them don't, but we know that the RATS AS A WHOLE don't look to it at all unless they can use it to their advantage.
Stay tuned, my man. I'll get the party started a little later.
I don't believe in government in the first place, but if I did, I wouldn't look to it as a problem-fixing entity. On the other hand, Dubyah has proved to be exactly the man I thought he would be. He has many faults [as do we all], but I'll highlight a few:
1) He lied to us about being pro-life. Like his mother, his father, and his wife, Dubyah is pro-abortion. I knew this two years ago [scratch a Bush, get an abortionist], but now I can say, "I told you so."Granted, the guy hasn't turned the White House into a Motel 6 for cocaine traffickers, and maybe he doesn't accept sexual favors from the unpaid interns, but if that's all we can ask from our government officials, then I must return to my original point: Why bother to have a government in the first place?2) Like Bill Clinton, Dubyah uses a facile pseudo-Christianity on the campaign trail that is truly abominable. [Slick - off to church on Easter Sunday, bible in hand, only to come home to blow jobs from Monica that very afternoon. Dubyah - Christ was the philosopher that most influenced me, and, oh, by the way, I'm gonna violate my campaign pledge on ESCR.]
3) 15 of the 19 September Eleventh assassins were carrying Saudi Arabian passports. Rather than convene Congress to demand a declaration of war on Saudi Arabia, we get a war on what's left of our own federal constitution: endless lines at airports with little old ladies from Des Moines being strip-searched as though they were Islamists, expanded wiretap and email filtering powers granted to the FBI, a new Homeland Security bureaucracy [as though the existing Department of Defense bureaucracy didn't house enough bureaucrats for the next millennium], and now a nationwide legion of informers that will dwarf the network created by the Stasi in the old DDR.
3) As much as I want to like the guy, his business history has Good Ol' Boy Network written all over it. Granted, he's not as bad as Terry McAuliffe, or even Hillary!, with her cattle futures, but I really cringe when I read some of the stories about his behavior at Harken. As far as I can tell, there's not a dime's worth of difference between him and Martha Stewart [and that includes the gray matter department]. Oh, and the reason we can't declare war on the Saudi Arabians who attacked us is because a large part of that Good Ol' Bush Network consists of big, fat, polygamous, pagan murderers from - you guessed it - the kingdom of one Fahd bin Abd al-Aziz Al Saud.
4) He's abandoned just about every other campaign promise he made. Even his tax cut, the only domestic accomplishment he can properly tout, is fazed in over A TEN YEAR PERIOD!!! If John Edwards or Hillary Clinton becomes president in 2004, or 2008, then either the tax cut will remain the fiction that it is now, or it will proceed, and a Democrat will take credit for the resulting economic expansion. Granted, most of this domestic failure is due to the betrayal by Jeffords of VT, but, then again, Dubyah betrayed us on ESCR just one month before 9-11.
Tell me what is wrong with gridlock. I might have overlooked 1 or 2 pieces of good legislation in the last 30 years, so name me 3 pieces of good legislation. Every time a law is passed it costs taxpayer money to implement and either limits or eliminates our freedom. So tell me what is wrong with gridlock.
What is a VIABLE alternative?
the GOP gets my nod since it is the closest VIABLE choice I have.
My vote will change if, and only if, there is truly a viable alternative.
It seems to me that your overriding principle is "viability," which I take to mean "possibility of winning."
Some of us have other principles which we hold higher.
Let me ask you if there is anything, any point in our leftward drift, beyond which you will not go? Or as long as the GOP stays a smidgen to the right of the Dems, and is "competitive" electorally, will you continue to vote for them?
Our vote is our voice. Picking a "viable" candidate is not always the most useful message we can send.
SD
Nothing, if you want things to remain as they are now. But if you want to try to move towards Constitutional rule, gridlock isn't your friend.
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.