Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

GOP ABANDONS PRINCIPLE, ENDANGERS FUTURE
boblonsberry.com ^ | 09/19/05 | Bob Lonsberry

Posted on 09/19/2005 5:53:37 AM PDT by shortstop

Hillary Clinton will win the White House because the Republicans have stopped being Republicans.

Not to diminish her significant abilities and political savvy, but she can campaign til the cows come home and never earn more than 49 percent of the vote on her own.

The margin of victory won’t come from Democrats, it will come from disaffected Republicans.

Not Republicans who are really Democrats, but Republicans who are really Republicans. There aren’t many of them anymore, but they are a swing vote, and they’ve always swung the GOP’s way.

And who knows, maybe there’s enough fear and hatred of Hillary Clinton still bumping around to make conservatives hold their noses and vote for Anybody But Clinton. It’s worked before, and it might work again.

But there’s precious little to recommend the Republican Party to conservatives. It has spurned them, adopting their rhetoric at election time but abandoning it in office.

And by conservatives I mean people who have read and understood the Constitution. People who know what the Founding Fathers were after and have seen those principles guide our nation successfully since. By conservatives I mean people who know what America is supposed to be about, who lean more toward Jefferson and Madison than Marx and Engells.

There is an ever-shrinking knot of people who remember and revere the American spirit and ethic. The freedom-loving, individualistic values which defined this country are increasingly forgotten and spurned.

Even by the Republican Party.

As evidenced by the president’s speech last week from New Orleans.

It would have been a good speech from a Democrat, but from a Republican it was a betrayal. It called for an unrestrained increase in federal spending and a massive increase of federal power while simultaneously sabotaging local control and individual responsibility.

In one fell swoop it saddled our children and grandchildren with additional hundreds of billions of dollars of suffocating debt.

We have a going-nowhere war that is hemorrhaging our federal treasury, a giant free-pills-for-gramma program that will do exactly the same, and now we have the federal government assuming every cost for cleaning up this hurricane, remedying past racial wrongs and providing big new welfare benefits to people who refused to follow an evacuation order.

It makes you wonder where all that money is supposed to come from.

The sad answer is that in the short term it will come from foreign lenders who will then hold the note on America’s future economic vitality. In the long term it will come from even higher taxes for us, our children and their children.

It will sap our liberty and vitality.

And all this came from a Republican president and a Republican Congress.

It was Tom DeLay, supposed conservative Republican leader of the House, who said that the bloated, immoral and fundamentally socialist federal budget had no more room for cuts. He said that everything that could be cut out of it had been cut out of it.

It was, of course, a preposterous statement, a sign of just how dead the Republican spirit has become. Being conservative has been reduced by manipulative party hacks to nothing more than the Pledge of Allegiance and the Ten Commandments. The principles of small government, free people, individual responsibility and balanced budgets have gone out the window, replaced by warmed over – and enslaving – European-style socialism.

There are no Democrats to blame for this one. As loathsome and wrong as they may be, this can’t be blamed on Pelosi, Reid, Kennedy or Clinton. This is our mess. This is a Republican mess.

And we’re supposed to forget that on election day? We’re supposed to drool like Pavlov’s dogs at the midterm election, to strengthen the GOP hold on Congress, and then line up to elect whoever the party puts up for president?

How dumb do they think we are?

How desperate do they think we are?

Unfortunately, the fact may remain that we will find ourselves so desperate that, like a beaten wife returning to her abuser, we will take the devil we know over the devil we don’t know.

But there will be a loss of enthusiasm, a reluctant vigor, a lack of zeal and commitment.

And that could give Hillary her two or three percent.

And she will have won the White House because the Republicans stopped being Republicans.

Mark my word.


TOPICS: Government
KEYWORDS: election; gop; hillary; republicans
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041 next last
To: Shalom Israel
Clinton spent less than Bush. "The alternative is worse" is not true anymore.

If spending is the only issue we're talking about.

21 posted on 09/19/2005 7:17:10 AM PDT by prion (Yes, as a matter of fact, I AM the spelling police)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: prion
If spending is the only issue we're talking about.

There are other problems as well; I only mentioned one. The prescription drug handout was as bad as a significant chunk of Hillary Care(tm). Failure ever to veto anything, including McCain Feingold and some other unconstitutional doozies, is also quite bad. The decision to rebuild NO is a bigger unconstitutional federal project than anything Bill Clinton did. The PATRIOT Act contains more threats to our liberties than anything Clinton signed.

This guy is worse than the alternative, and that's saying a lot. The only area in which he's better than his liberal counterparts is personal integrity.

22 posted on 09/19/2005 7:21:52 AM PDT by Shalom Israel (Pray for the peace of Jerusalem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: clee1
"...I'm starting to like Mike Pence R-IN, and would happily vote for him; or someone like him - a REAL conservative."

Not to worry, in the coming 3-way race in '08, you'll have your opportunity to vote for a conservative or a Republican. It's the only way Hillary will be able to win with 40% or less of the vote.

23 posted on 09/19/2005 7:56:34 AM PDT by penowa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Shalom Israel
The PATRIOT Act contains more threats to our liberties than anything Clinton signed.

Name one threat to our liberty in the Patriot Act.

24 posted on 09/19/2005 7:56:44 AM PDT by prion (Yes, as a matter of fact, I AM the spelling police)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: prion
Name one threat to our liberty in the Patriot Act.

Weakening the fourth amendment is an attack on my liberty, even if, for the next 50 years, it is only ever used against actual guilty terrorists. Our freedom is compromised in the name of safety.

25 posted on 09/19/2005 8:31:08 AM PDT by Shalom Israel (Pray for the peace of Jerusalem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Shalom Israel
Weakening the fourth amendment is an attack on my liberty, even if, for the next 50 years, it is only ever used against actual guilty terrorists. Our freedom is compromised in the name of safety.

The Patriot Act doesn't give the government any power contra terrorists that it hasn't always had versus, say, mafia dons. If you consider a court-ordered wiretap an intolerable intrusion on your rights, you need to take your anger several decades before the Patriot Act.

26 posted on 09/19/2005 8:55:53 AM PDT by prion (Yes, as a matter of fact, I AM the spelling police)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: prion
If you consider a court-ordered wiretap an intolerable intrusion on your rights....

BZZZZZZZZZT! Sorry, the correct answer was, "The ability to seize records held by third parties without warrant, notification, subpeona or probable cause does violate the fourth Amendment." But thank you for playing!

you need to take your anger several decades before the Patriot Act.

Oh, I never said the Patriot Act was the beginning of the police state. That's hard to trace exactly--Washington's provocation of the Whiskey Rebellion was a step over the line, as was the Louisiana Purchase... and of course Lincoln killed and buried federalism...

27 posted on 09/19/2005 9:02:23 AM PDT by Shalom Israel (Pray for the peace of Jerusalem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Shalom Israel
BZZZZZZZZZT! Sorry, the correct answer was, "The ability to seize records held by third parties without warrant, notification, subpeona or probable cause does violate the fourth Amendment." But thank you for playing!

Where does that appear in the Patriot Act? The most controversial section that I'm aware of is the one that allows law enforcement to delay notification that a search has been performed, with permission from a judge. The idea being to prevent tipping off co-conspirators. This has apparently been used in practice in law enforcement for years; the Act just codifies it. They have to get a court order first, and they have to 'fess up eventually.

Again, we might argue whether this goes too far, but it's not new.

28 posted on 09/19/2005 9:08:51 AM PDT by prion (Yes, as a matter of fact, I AM the spelling police)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Shalom Israel
Clinton spent less than Bush.

And what did we get? A gutted military and 9/11.

29 posted on 09/19/2005 9:14:07 AM PDT by sinkspur (It is time for those of us who have much to share with those who have nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
And what did we get? A gutted military and 9/11.

You're right about that--but the conclusion isn't that we should "shoot for the moon" and try to hit $3 trillion in 2008. Almost all of the spending Bush authorized is completely unconstitutional, much of it pork. He could have cut the budget to half a trillion and still beefed up the military.

30 posted on 09/19/2005 9:16:31 AM PDT by Shalom Israel (Pray for the peace of Jerusalem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
There really isn't a whole lot of difference between the Dems and GOP at this point.

You're almost correct. But the Rat party has moved so far to the left in recent years. But the GOP and the Rat Party of 10 years ago, I would say, yes there isn't much difference.

31 posted on 09/19/2005 9:17:20 AM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

In fact, the GOP is mostly run today by what we used to call "Scoop Jackson Democrats." Hawkish in international affairs, but liberal fiscally.


32 posted on 09/19/2005 9:19:54 AM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: penowa
Not to worry, in the coming 3-way race in '08, you'll have your opportunity to vote for a conservative or a Republican.




It wouldn't come to that if the GOP would wake up and stop serving up Democratic lite proposals.
33 posted on 09/19/2005 9:27:40 AM PDT by rob777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Tatze
The GOP has certainly moved to the left and look a lot like the Dems. But the Dems have also moved to the left and are more and more becoming socialists. So there is a difference. One is far left. The other is only left.





The end result is that the whole political debate moves to the left. This is a victory for liberalism, if not for the Democratic Party. Likewise,, it is a defeat for conservatism, if not for the GOP. The two major parties offer a choice between big government and bigger government. The conservative option of smaller government is becoming politically obsolete and will continue to do so as long as we continue to excuse the GOP's slide to the left just because the Dems are even farther to the left.

What is needed is a Goldwater type revolt within the GOP. I've got my eye on Mike Pence.
34 posted on 09/19/2005 9:37:52 AM PDT by rob777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: shortstop

And she will have won the White House because the Republicans stopped being Republicans.

Mark my word.



Many of us have been saying this for 5 years. It's only gotten worse not better. This stunt of putting Roberts as CJ is the last straw or the last hope. Time will tell. And time will tell us very soon, this fall even. What I mean by this is thus: If he turns out to be less than Conservative, then we have been betrayed on all fronts: Economic and Social. If he turns out to be as Conservative as some hope, and if Bush stays true to his next nomination as well, and thus if we end up with a real constitutional court who undoes the last 40 years of socialism, it will be worth whatever price economically we have to pay. It will be worth it, in the same way that the spending on starwars was worth seeing "that wall torn down". Bush is right on one thing so far: Taking the war to the terrorists. If he is right on the SC then, by default he will be right on fiscal policy and will have supremely bought us our freedom and liberty back at what history may yet call a bargin price. Time alone will tell.


35 posted on 09/19/2005 10:51:23 AM PDT by Waywardson (Carry on! Nothing equals the splendor!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shortstop

Except, of course, that we are simply too dumb to ever wise up. We'll keep pulling the 'R' lever like a battered wife returning to her husband, who promises he'll stop drinking so much and won't beat her anymore. Deep down we know the abuse won't really stop, but even deeper we secretly think we deserve it.

Conservatives are to Republicans as blacks are to Democrats.


36 posted on 09/19/2005 11:25:10 AM PDT by Sloth (We cannot defeat foreign enemies of the Constitution if we yield to the domestic ones.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sloth
Republicans that are not socially conservative can not be trusted because there whole view of the world is economic. They do not seem to have a higher source for truth, so they can turn on a dime what they stand for, there is no real convictions.
37 posted on 09/19/2005 11:33:18 AM PDT by qandablogger (Reason for Blasting...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: WhiteGuy

I think, they meant, that, both may have some deep flaws, better vote for the lesser of 2 evils.


38 posted on 09/19/2005 5:02:29 PM PDT by Prophet in the wilderness (PSALM 53 : 1 The FOOL hath said in his heart , There is no GOD .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Prophet in the wilderness
I think, they meant, that, both may have some deep flaws, better vote for the lesser of 2 evils.

Your interpratation of their meaning is correct.

However, I will never, ever compromise my values and "vote" for the lesser of two evils again.

ever

39 posted on 09/19/2005 5:15:35 PM PDT by WhiteGuy (Vote for gridlock)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: WhiteGuy
I guess your right, but, either I won't vote at all if I don't see anyone who is running who holds the values you and I believe in.
Or ? , I think many people are going to vote Republican to make sure Hillary don't become President.........
40 posted on 09/19/2005 5:19:52 PM PDT by Prophet in the wilderness (PSALM 53 : 1 The FOOL hath said in his heart , There is no GOD .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041 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
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

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