[You Gotta Be Kidding Me]

Thank God SOMEBODY has the intestinal fortitude to write this, instead of just "cheering the Republican team on".

[Support Free Republic]

Book her, Dano.
>	Support the finest site on the web. Donate Here By Secure Server Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD- It is in the breaking news sidebar!

[Satadru]

Maybe about a third of the GOP is conservative. The problem is really with people on top, including President Bush, who sells out the conservative base for political expediency.

[Pyro7480]

I find the fact that this article is from the National Review interesting. Last night, I went to a discussion about how neoconservatism should be defined, and the editor of the American Conservative was accusing Ramesh Ponurru and the National Review of "selling-out."

[Sen Jack S. Fogbound]

Is the GOP conservative as compared to the Liberal Left? Is the Pope Catholic?

[laweeks]

The GOP is nothing more than the more pecuniary and less outraged auxiliary of the Dumb-ocratic party. Whatever the issue is that comes up, the GOP will be for LESS of it, but never against it. Financially (GOP never wants a tax eliminated, just lowered), morally (homosexual don't ask/don't tell policy is Ok, but outright moral condemnation will never happen), abortion (partial birth is bad and worthy of laws, but the other kind, saline, induced, etc., are kinda' ok), affirmative action (no condemnation, just mild outrage), fear of going after the Clinton duo to pay for their crimes, and the list goes on.

As much as I hate to admit it, the Dumbo-crats have fire in their belly and refuse to give an inch. The GOP will give them anything they want: witness G.W.'s cave in on all social issues. The NEA, EPA, etc., still exist and will always exist because the GOP leaders are dishrags.

[Sir Gawain]

Stop bashing the president! Oh wait, this is from NR, the neocon flagship. Well....it looks like NR has become....just another Bush hater! Yeah, that's it! NR was never any good! NR bad! Bush good!

[The Old Hoosier]

Oh, my! How dare they criticize the president! This is all part of a strategery!

Quick, call in the gang and get this zotted!

[Joe Bonforte]

Back during the election, I challenged Freepers to write down what they expected of Bush and then compare results to their expectations. As I anticipated, Bush does not measure up to any reasonable expectations of a true conservative.

His handling of the War on Terror (actually a War on Islamic Fundamentalism) has gone as well as could be expected, and I give him high marks for having the courage to do the right thing in that area, despite carping from liberal media, etc. Why, then, can he not show some backbone on the domestic front to restrain the federal government? Why must spending increase faster than it ever did under Democratic presidents and Congresses?

I said during the election and I say again - if you are expecting anything of importance about the federal government to change because of Bush or the Congressional leaders, you are in for an infinite wait. It will not happen.

Now you may nevertheless say, "Well, the Democrats would be worse". I'd say that, too, is a debatable point given recent history.

I'm not ambitious enough to ask you guys to vote for alternatives, even though you are not getting what you want out of the Republicans and probably never will. But the more vitriolic third-party-bashers (especially the libertarian-bashers) could at least be polite, given that those or us who can no longer support the Republican Party have some very solid, tangible reasons for the way feel.

[MEGoody]

The reality is, there are no hard lines. There are various brands of conservative, liberal and 'independent'.

[deport]

We have never been under any illusions about the extent of Bush's conservatism. He did not run in 2000 as a small-government conservative, or as someone who relished ideological combat on such issues as racial preferences and immigration.

---

An article that goes back to the campaign and seems to remember some of the things...

[Righty1]

Antwort, Nein!

[Jim Robinson]

"To get back on track will require effort from President Bush, congressional Republicans, and conservatives generally. Bush ought to bear down on spending; we suggest that an assault on corporate welfare, followed by a reform of the appropriations process, would be a fine start. Republicans need a strategy for dealing with the judicial usurpation of politics that goes beyond trying to make good appointments to the bench — a strategy that now has a two-generation track record of nearly unrelieved failure. On gay marriage, a constitutional amendment appears to be necessary to forestall the mischief of state and federal courts. But a mere statute can make the point that Congress controls the federal judiciary's purview. Congressman Todd Akin's bill to strip the federal judiciary of jurisdiction over the Pledge of Allegiance has the votes to pass the House, and has a powerful Senate sponsor in Judiciary Committee chairman Orrin Hatch. It should be high on the Republican agenda.

Conservatives, finally, have to find ways to work with the Republicans — their fortunes are linked — while also working on them. The Pennsylvania Senate primary offers a choice between a candidate who is conservative on both economics and social issues, Pat Toomey, and one who is conservative on neither, the incumbent, Arlen Specter. The White House and the party establishment has rallied behind Specter. But President Bush's goals would be better served by a Senator Toomey. And as recent events underscore, this is not a bad time for conservatives to declare their independence from the GOP establishment."

Amen!

Notice that this does not mean throwing the bums out and turning government back to the Democrats. Work WITH them and ON them. Talk to them. Write to them. Tell them what you want done. Join associations that urge the Republicans to advance conservative causes. Strength in numbers make all the difference in the world. Splintering into tiny factions only helps the other side advance their agenda.

[Southern Federalist]

The editors of NR are a good bunch, and for all I know many of you Bush-bashers are good folks too. The NR editorial group has the additional excuse of being by and large very young, and they show by this editorial that they are not finished growing up yet.

But both the excited young NR "neocons" and you pure paleo souls have not yet really grasped the two pivotal facts about the present moment:

(1) There's a war on. The question before us is not the percentage of government growth, or the prescription drug benefits, or budget deficits. The issue is whether we will win or lose the war on terrorism. The most important fact about the Presidency for the 2004 election is that the President is Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces.

Losing the war, which could happen, which would already have happened under Al Gore, would change life in this country in ways impossible to measure, none of them good.

For one thing, the gut instinct of any liberal is going to be to pull back and try to protect the country by ever-expanding domestic security programs rather than military action abroad, but of course politically-correct domestic security, with lots of slush-money for favored constituencies. Those who think John Ashcroft is a threat to their liberties, should give a long slow thought to the opportunities 9-ll would have given Janet Reno. No detentions or deportations of foreign nationals, of course, but maximum extension of control over ordinary citizens.

Winning the war will take determination, and near-total indifference to "world opinion," and the capacity to think way out of the box strategically. If you can tell me where we can find an electable presidential candidate other than Bush who even comes close to exemplifying those qualities, I'll listen to you about all Bush's impurities as a conservative. Otherwise, I don't want to hear it. I would swallow a million bad drug benefit plans rather than see my daughter grow up to live in one big bleeding Ulster.

(2) The other pivotal fact is that it ain't Bill Clinton's Democratic Party any more. I know, we all hate Bubba, but his Administration was not really ideologically driven; it was leftish in its assumptions but poll-and-penis driven. However much control the Clintons still maintain over the machinery of the Democratic Party, the Democratic candidate this year is going to be a far more ideologically committed 1960's socialist than Big "I want you to want me" Bill.

In the Clinton years, it made some sense to say that the gap between the parties was miniscule. But can anyone say with a straight face that there will not be a dime's worth of difference between the Bush Administration and a Kerry Administration, or a Gephard administration, or -- Lord save us -- a Dean administration? The only possible exception to that is Edwards, who would be as poll-driven as Bubba (I don't know about the other thing) but he isn't going to make it. And doesn't the thought of that pretty boob as Commander in Chief warm your heart?

So let's grant for the sake of argument that Bush is no true conservative, and the Congressional Republicans are no better, blah, blah, blah. Let's compare what we're getting with Bush and what we would be likely to get if we had a Democratic President and Congress:

Bush: Determined to eradicate international terrorism | Democrats: We can only do so much and we may just have to come to terms with the fact that the world has changed.

Bush: Doesn't give a damn about world opinion | Democrats: Give the EU a veto on US foreign policy.

Bush: Refuses to erode US sovereignty by joining the ICC and other "international community" boondoggles | Democrats: Committed to "multi-nationalism" and the "international community"

Bush: Tax Cuts | Democrats: Tax Increases

Bush: Budget Deficits | Democrats: Budget Deficits

Bush: Bumbling domestic security programs that cost too much money, may have pinched some liberties that I can't see, and get howls from liberals because they haven't always been nice to Pakistani and Saudi illegals | Democrats: America becomes Renostan but is always nice to Yemeni "students" whose visas expired two years ago

Bush: Bad prescription drug benefits bill | Democrats: HillaryCare Mark II

Bush: All conservative judicial nominations so far (though I realize that in the alternative universe inhabited by some conservatives he has already appointed Souter's little brother to SCOTUS) | Democrats: Breyer and Ginsburg clones to all courts.

You may call me a Bush-Bot or whatever, but in this situation, with these alternatives, I do not think that it would be responsible for conservatives to engage in political brinkmanship in 2004 to threaten or punish the Republican Party or the President. I believe that the survival of this nation, even in the imperfect form in which it now exists, may well depend on the re-election of George Bush, not because I worship at some shrine with his picture surrounded by candles, but because of the way in which I see the real-world alternatives.

The best thing conservatives can practically do for their country and for conservatism is to do everything possible to increase the Republican grip on the Senate in '04. Then we might actually get the beginnings of Social Security privatization, conservative judges, drastic reduction of the power of the public employee's unions by hiring out more federal jobs to private firms, deeper tax cuts, and the abolition of the death tax -- all things which any honest observer knows that George Bush would have done already if he had had real control of the Senate. That seems to me as much as I could expect from one president who was also fighting a war.

[goodseedhomeschool]

I am learning more and more every day. I am starting to wonder how "conservative" the GOP is.

[x]

The appeal to rally conservatives is a worthy one, but I don't trust where it comes from. National Review wants to be free to a) form a governing slightly right of center coalition and b) speak up for core conservative values. Either is possible. I suppose one can even mix the two to some degree. It may even be unavoidable. But one ought to be more careful than they have been.

It's a commonplace for journalists to attack government administrations as ships without rudders or captains. But one could say the same thing about conservatism's flagship publication. If one calls for radical change around the world, and for a more powerful federal government in some contexts, one will inevitably have to deal with the consequences that government and change inevitably create. If one gets lax about the budget, there's no point in blaming others for following your lead. Before one boasts about being fully at home in the modern world one really ought to examine where that world is headed.

One response to the growing neo-conservative role in the conservative movement during the 1980s was about the reformed woman of lax morals being welcome in church but not asked to lead the choir. I think it applies to National Review today. You can't be a Bush cheerleader for three years and an admonishing conservative pope all of a sudden. Those who were setting up to conduct purges a few months ago aren't the best conservative spokesmen today. They are slippery political operatives and should be read with much skepticism, rather than trusted and taken at their word.

The news about stripping the Court's jurisdiction on some issues is important and should be followed and discussed, though.

[Xenalyte]

Is the GOP conservative?

Not anymore. That's why I'm a Libertarian.

[ExSoldier]

"At this point it takes real blindness to deny that the Court rules us and, on emotionally charged policy issues, rules us in accord with liberal sensibilities."

Okay...I'm not going to read every post to see if this has already been raised, so I apologize in advance if this raises that which has already been raised....IF ANYBODY thinks NOW is the time to bring a 2nd Amendment case upon which rests the very fabric of the republic...they're NUTS!

We have just one shot to clarify the true and original meaning of the Amendment which frames all the rest...and suddenly there are what? THREE potential 2nd Amendment cases to be brought before the High Court? NOW? When this court and the Justices have clearly signalled a definite tip to the hardcore left? Insanity. Justice Breyer has come out and said that the Constitution does not fit with his vision of "world government."

There are four members of the Council on Foreign relations on the USSC already...one more and we can kiss our liberty and our soverignty goodbye. We need at least 2 more "Scalias" before we decide a 2nd Amendment case.

[ApesForEvolution]

I don't bother with the Republican label anymore.

We live in a day when the Democrats have adopted the World Communist mantra and manifesto and the Republicans have adopted our great grandfather's Democrat ideals.

Which truly leaves only contemporary conservatives as the torch bearers for restoring America to a pre-deconstructionist, Constitutional form of government.

Which is why most of the GOP despises conservatives (yet throws us a few bones to keep us on the plantation - because the GOP still can't win anything without us).

I have worked the grassroots for conservatives at a very high level for many, many years. All national campaigns that I supported and all but a handful of local campaigns were GOP candidates.

And yet I can honestly say that battling the RNC at every turn to try and improve America is becoming more and more hard to rationalize.

I'm all for winning, yet what have we really won by compromising the Constitution and republic-an ideals for the last many decades - to the point where I can't tell where the RAT party stops and where the GOP starts?

[jmc813]

Interesting thread here.