So far, the GOP is not giving conservatives reasons to vote on November 5th

Enter Stage Right ^ | July 15, 2002 | Paul M. Weyrich

[Zack Nguyen]

Yes! See my last post.

[Hardy Harhar]

It is my long-held opinion that people do not vote FOR anyone or anything. They vote AGAINST people and ideas they don't like. Lots of conservatives voted only to vote AGAINST Clinton, or against liberal ideas. Lots of liberals go to the polls to vote against conservatives just because they don't like conservatives or conservative ideas.

That's why any conservative fall-off in support is a problem for the GOP this year. Too many hardline conservatives are disappointed with Bush, so they aren't as likely to bother campaigning, supporting, or even showing up to vote for him.

Add to that the fact that the 2000 election made the liberals mad as hell. They can't wait for a chance to vote AGAINST the GOP cause they're vengeful. Result: lower conservative turnout; higher liberal turnout.

And as for Bush's approval rating being the party's life-preserver, I doubt it. In fact, I actually doubt the poll numbers themselves. Here's why: There are no more loyal and passionate Republicans anywhere than there are here at FR. But today I bet it would be hard to get even 75% of Freepers to say they think Bush is really doing a good job. If Bush doesn't have 95% approval by Freepers, how can he have even 60% approval by the rest of the country?

[Moby Grape]

If having the Senate controlled by democrats is not enough to vote GOP, then some people will NEVER be convinced. I am NOT happy with the GOP, but I want to see the democrat party crushed for the sake of the country.

[sandydipper]

Seems to me that BOTH parties are full of crooks and self servers - the Dems just have bigger crooks - that is why I'm a registered independant and will vote for the lesser of two evils.

[Moby Grape]

Tom Dashle, Richard Gephardt, and Jesse Jackson are REASON ENOUGH to vote GOP.

[Richard Kimball]

If we conservatives hadn't supported Bush the Elder we wouldn't have that great conservative jurist David Souter on the bench now.

We also wouldn't have Clarence Thomas.

[Consort]

[Coop]

And what office is President Bush running for in November?

Hmmmm. I believe it's none, though I could be wrong. But considering I was replying directly to Post #8, as outlined in italics, and making no mention of Dubya running for office...

[SoothingDave]

If they governed in that conservative way they would lose an equal amount of swing voters and liberal republicans so that the net effect would be closer to 0. It's a safer bet to just assume that many of those conservatives will still vote for the R's.

Why do you want Republicans to rule? Is it to acheive anything?

SD

[Richard Kimball]

I understand what you're saying, but the argument, "You don't want Snowball back, do you?" is starting to wear thin.

[SoothingDave]

We also wouldn't have Clarence Thomas.

Please see #57. Is batting .500 good enough for you?

SD

[Coop]

Whoops. Forgot to address your second question.

If hardliners don't vote GOP, and Bush's strategy fails to take the Senate or even loses the House this year... whose responsibility would that be?

Ultimately it would fall to the GOP leaders, including President Bush. But that goes back to what I was saying (and Torie on another post) - there is no evidence to support hardliners staying home right now. Quite the contrary, they appear energized by his Presidency. Such energy might explain the incredibly successful fundraising season the GOP is enjoying.

[SoothingDave]

I want to see the democrat party crushed for the sake of the country.

I would rather see the Republican party crushed for the sake of the country. Then, perhaps, a true party could arise from ths ashes.

SD

[College Repub]

Yes. Among other things, it's to keep the democrats from succeeding with their agenda.

[Coop]

Add to that the fact that the 2000 election made the liberals mad as hell. They can't wait for a chance to vote AGAINST the GOP cause they're vengeful. Result: lower conservative turnout; higher liberal turnout.

Oh, I see. So that explains why Janet Reno is crushing Jeb in the polls and in fundraising. That's Ground Zero for the big Dem payback.

Yes, it all makes sense now. :-)

[rintense]

Sorry, but anyone who needs to have a reason to vote is just completely lost in my book.

[Coop]

Is batting .500 good enough for you?

Considering even Ted Williams fell about 94 points short - yeah, .500 is good enough for me.

[Consort]

And just what is this True Party (TP) called?

[JonH]

How about control of the Senate, responsible judges and taxes. That should give conservatives plenty of reason to vote.

Do we have to buy off each Republican constituant or do some of them have principals?

[SoothingDave]

Yes. Among other things, it's to keep the democrats from succeeding with their agenda.

So you define the Reupblican party philosophy primarily in a negative fashion? That they stop the democrats from implementing their agenda?

Explain how the Republican president and congress enacted the dem agenda of campaign finance reform.

Explain how a GOP president and congress enacted the dem education agenda.

For starters.

SD