Liberator of Dixie
Posted on 12/01/2002 1:23:55 PM PST by BraveMan
"When I began entering into the give and take of legislative bargaining in Sacramento, a lot of the most radical conservatives who had supported me during the election didn't like it. "Compromise" was a dirty word to them and they wouldn't face the fact that we couldn't get all of what we wanted today. They wanted all or nothing and they wanted it all at once. If you don't get it all, some said, don't take anything. "I'd learned while negotiating union contracts that you seldom got everything you asked for. And I agreed with FDR, who said in 1933: 'I have no expectations of making a hit every time I come to bat. What I seek is the highest possible batting average.'"If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, and that's what I told these radical conservatives who never got used to it.
~~ Ronald Reagan, in his autobiography, An American Life
Here is something that I said on another thread but much of it is appropriate to some of this discussion. Rather than edit it, I'm going to post it in its entirety because I think the basic thought is relevant to your point, D1.
I get quite upset at the people who expected Bush to suddenly turn the clock back 50 years on his Inauguration Day ..... and I fear that those people will be even worse come January now that we control both houses of Congress.
What they just refuse to see is that the people of this country have become accustomed to so many things that they would toss out a politician in a hurry who tried to make radical changes ...... we've got to move back just like we got here ..... incrementally. I don't think it will take 50 years, though ..... I think so much of this stuff (such as abortion) is so fundamentally wrong that once the debate gets started the citizenry will return to sanity much more quickly than they lost it. IMO, it took quite a bit of doing to get so many people to accept abortion as ok. I don't think it will take as much time or effort to move their thinking back the other way ...... I hope.
But it's not going to happen in the next year or so. And that's why the Republican Senate was so crucial ..... judges will have a huge impact on that issue if nothing else ..... and we've got to get some conservative judges on the bench. It wouldn't happen with the 'rats in charge of the Senate. That to me is the true significance of this past election. I think we will begin to turn some things gradually in the right direction but the judges who are appointed will influence things far longer than any single session of Congress .... for decades rather than for years.
There are many things that I want to see changed ..... but I know that they won't .... can't ..... be changed instantly. They must be done in bits and pieces to make them acceptable to the average idiot on the street. We sometimes forget that most of America gets its news as spouted by Tom, Dan, and Peter. And those people vote. If Bush were to suddenly propose, and the new Congress enact, all the legislation we would like to see, they would be thrown out of office in the next election and we'd see more of the little Tommies and the Pelosis and the likes of Leahy, Hillary, and Harkin. That certainly won't advance our cause at all.
An interesting take.
rintense bares her posterior, and another woman is there. Am I at the right website?!
Also, as near as I can tell, much of this controversy has been stirred up by writers from the liberal papers who deliberately portray the White House as anti-social conservatives, or by certain social conservatives who stand to gain in money and/or clout for their organizations if they can attract disaffected Republicans who are evangelicals.
I will criticize a POLICY. However, President Bush deserves my loyalty, so even if I disagree on a policy I am not going to go down the path of losing my temper, going ballistic, and hurling insults about him on the internet. It is counterproductive.
The majority of the folks you're talking about never did support this President or his positions. They aren't being left behind, they went off in their own direction and can't understand why they aren't appreciated.
I see that apparently you are not satisfied with him.
In some ways I am. In some way's I am not.
So, what is it with this WE stuff? You are not a Bush supporter, never were, and the phrasing of that statement is misleading.
This is why I gave you background, because I realized your one dimensional thinking would require more data. I like Bush. I like some of the actions he has taken. In other areas he leaves a lot to be desired. For that reason I could't simply say yes or no to your question.
I didn't say I was a Bush supporter. I said that we have the President, House and Senate we want at this time.
In my response to you I mentioned that I helped organized protests in support of Bush in 2000. You conveniently overlooked that comment. Anotherwords I was glad Bush won over Gore. And I thought it appearant that you would understand that I was glad the House and Senater are now in Republican hands. Thus the word "we" was very appropriate. I'm sorry it doesn't fit into your neat little cookie-cutter mold of how you think I should think.
I really don't care what your motivation was for dumping the Republicans (although I would point out to you that President Bush was the ONLY Republican who asked
Pat to stay in the party rather than jumping, and he was not party to the odious Hitler comments of that weasel Roger Stone), but I do care that you not lead people to
think that you are a Bush supporter "holding his feet to the fire." To leave that impression is a bit dicey, don't you think?
First of all, if you're going to address a political question to me, don't expect me to truncate my answer so you can tee off on it. I provided plenty of information for you to understand my motives and my actions. That you couldn't comprehend or accept them, isn't my problem.
I don't know where you got Roger Stone from, but I witnessed Jim Nicholson, Bill Bennet and Bob Dole make charges then waffle on the subject of Buchanan being the next Hitler. Nicholson made the first definitive statement. Then Bill stated that he wasn't going to confirm or deny anything, but that Buchanan was known to have stepped right up to the line of being a racist. Bod Dole was next to state that he wouldn't confirm or deny racist charges or the title of Hitler being applied to Buchanan.
As for you not wanting me to mislead people, I've made my comments openly and completely on this forum. I'm not misleading anyone. And I'm not making truncated comments so that you can cast them in any light other than what they were intended to reflect.
As long as I am a citizen of the United States and I don't offend the owner of this site, I have a right to voice my opinion here. If you don't like that, I suggest you avoid my posts.
535 posted on 12/01/2002 8:04 PM PST by Miss Marple
Who are you saying that is being left behind that was onboard to begin with? Do you think they left the party since Nov. 5th? Or were they gone then when the democrats lost a lot of seats nationwide.....
Actually, I find it quite flattering that all these sites devote so much time to bashing us. Means we must be doing something right. If we were really all that irrelevant I'm sure they could all find more important things to talk about. Over at the DU, the worse thing you can call somebody is a FReeper, but there are a couple or more threads going at any given time over there talking about FR. I have never been to Liberty Forum but the same is true at Liberty Post from what I've seen.
So I became a Saints fan until they actually had a winning season (got knocked out by Minnesota of course) so I looked for the absolute worst team I could find...a team that would never disappoint me. Go Tampa Bay.
I think Fred and some of these other folks have made similar decisions but on the political side. I ask you, how could pat buchanan ever disappoint you politically? Man, when you ain't got nothing to win life is so much easier and you can sit on the sidelines and yell insults at the real teams.
I don't suppose you could be persuaded to drop the blue font, could you?
DO, the entire point was that in your ORIGINAL statement, you didn't explain that!! I don't suppose you see that without the background that you provided in two subsequent posts, the impression is far different.
That is all I have to say. You needn't get so prickly...I have had a LOT worse things said to me! Ha!
He, of course, is trying to make himself relevant and us not.
John Ross is one of the only dems I'd vote for. He's more gutsy than 99% of the people on the planet for writing that book. Great book too.
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.