The Paradox of Unified Control–How Conservatives Can Win Without Bush

Vanity | 1/31/2004 | Self

[Kevin Curry]

Bush could lose. Steel yourself for that possibility. You get nowhere by hyperventilating emotionally.

A Bush loss is not the end of the road. It could--and I believe would--actually be beneficial over the long haul.

But that requires a strong Republican Congress, which I am working very hard to bring about.

[Kevin Curry]

They're so busy fighting one another they can't spend our money

It should be obvious to any conservative willing to apply some intelligence to the matter that it is preferable to have a government sitting dead in the water than to have one drifting or steaming full throttle to the left--regardless of whether a Repubican or Democrat is at the helm.

[Dane]

A Bush loss is not the end of the road. It could--and I believe would--actually be beneficial over the long haul

The same was said by you purists back in 92. But you all go ahead and go for those third degree burns, but I am not joining your self immobilation party.

Call George Soros, I have no doubt he would be glad to supply the gasoline(money) for your fest.

[Zipporah]

Absolutely!! I was told that years ago and at the time, I didn't buy into it.. but as time has shown, she was right.

[joesbucks]

Obviously you are a troll. Abuse button material.

[NittanyLion]

While I understand where you're coming from, I don't think anything positive will come if a Democrat wins the White House in November.

That said, you obviously put a lot of time and effort into this well-written piece. Reminds me of the days when I first joined FreeRepublic, and the majority of the posts were actually substantive. Thanks for elevating the debate.

[Sir Gawain]

Never thought I'd see you post something like this.

[Arkinsaw]

I'm automatically leery of any stratagery (tm GWB) that requires losing to win.

You are wise.

The really important thing is not George Bush....its the Supreme Court. The Democrats have realized this, but we have not yet apparently. Any Kerry appointee will be 100% liberal activist. Any Bush appointee has about a 75% chance of being okay.

The upcoming President will get to appoint more than 1 Supreme Court Justice and WILL turn the court from its current split. If the unborn had to vote between Kerry and Bush for that job which would they choose? I think I will vote their way.

[NittanyLion]

He's a little...energetic...on the drug issue, but in terms of limited government I'm noticing that Kevin is right on the money.

[CMAC51]

Flawed logic start to finish. A Dem in the Whitehouse will easily extract themselves from Iraq. Just turn it over to the UN and leave. It's the wrong thing to do, but it will play to the base.

The economy will be booming, so the deficit will be going down and can be blamed on Bush anyway. No problem there.

The Republicans have never effectively resisted anything in the Senate and with a Dem in the Whitehouse, the mantra will be MANDATE and the Repubs will fold like a dirty shirt. Judicial appointments will sail through.

Do not make the mistake of thinking that the Republicans holding the line against any Clinton initiatives had anything to do with true gridlock. It all had to do with Clinton's inability to keep it in his pants. The odds of the next Dem in the Whitehouse having that problem are low.

There is no conservative candidate who will satisfy the conservative base because the conservative base can't be satisfied.

Two truths have become apparent in United States politics. The Democrat base will support their party no matter what it does and the Republican base will abandon their party no matter what it does.

[RJCogburn]

Excellent post, Kevin.

Just excellent.

[RJCogburn]

Uhhh, is that prediction as guaranteed as the one you made that Trent Lott would resign?

Just asking.

[Kevin Curry]

One of the most annoying things about die-hard Bush supporters--who nevertheless claim to be conservative--is how freely they give him a pass and refuse to hold him accountable. The seem to view Bush as a force of nature they are powerless to influence. They have no plan to ensure he governs responsibly. None whatsoever.

But would they find ways of making themselves heard if a Democrat tried to dump this garbage on them? The roar would be ear-splitting.

Some people have never outgrown the desire to be ruled by kings.

[monkeywrench]

"If SCOTUS vacancies open up, he will see his nominees scrutinized and resisted with a zeal that can only be expected and carried out by a Republican-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee that has suffered through years of kidney-punches and eye-gouging in judicial appointment..."

At which point, he will pull out his pen and write an Executive Order. Stroke of the pen, law of the land. A SCOTUS appointment is too important ( all the marbles) to be left to a democrat with a pen.

[edger]

The Supreme Court is where this politics plays itself out. Bush has, maybe, a 50-50 chance of making a decent appointment and a 10% chance of getting that appointment approved.

If Bush had any cojones, he would make a recess appointment of Robert Bork. But then you would have to pass out new Depends to all Republican Senators.

[Post Toasties]

I don't have your faith that Republicans will retain both houses of Congress, with or without GWB. And, if you believe that a Democrat president will appoint SC justices, and have them approved by Congress, that are not more activist than a Republican president would, you're dreaming.

[Kevin Curry]

A Dem in the Whitehouse will easily extract themselves from Iraq.

No they won't. Withdrawal will be far more complicated than you imagine. No move will be without political risk; every move will be scrutinized severely. Winning the Dem base will not translate into wider success among the Amercian voting public. The UN doesn't vote, and doesn't matter.

The economy will be booming, . . .

Only if the tax cuts are made permanent. A tax increase will depress it, shut it down--especially if spending programs are not curtailed.

The Republicans have never effectively resisted anything in the Senate and with a Dem in the Whitehouse

Republicans have never had this level of control with a Dem in the White House. Not in recent history, anyway.

Liberalism has been discredited. It is on its downhill slide. Clinton was sly enough to realize this, which is why he moved to the right. Apart from Lieberman (who has no hope) and perhaps Clark (who has almost no hope), none of the current crop of Dem presidential hopefuls has any ability let alone any inclination to move to the right.

I must modify the last comment. Screamin' Dean is a notorious cheapstake. He is likely to control spending--not because he is admires conservative values, but because he's a cheapskate. But he really has no hope either.

Any Dem who wins this fall will expereince the most feckless and frustrating term in power since Carter.

And Carter's wan, failed administration set the stage for a mighty Reagan victory.

[Always Right]

Gridlock is great, but the fastest way to send American to a European hell is to let Democrats appoint judges.

[ex-snook]

Good work. As a support Congress became Republican after two years of a Democrat President.

On the other hand 'Can Conservatives WIN with Bush'.[i.e. not the crossdressing New World Order Neocons or the RINOcons]

[Kevin Curry]

At which point, he will pull out his pen and write an Executive Order. Stroke of the pen, law of the land.

A SCOTUS appointment cannot be made by executive order.