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

Vanity | 1/31/2004 | Self

[Kevin Curry]

We need to start discussing these things now. There is always a terrific lag between the shaping of the political debate and its influence on the positions of the candidates.

The earlier we discuss these thing--the more debate that is ignited among Republicans--the better chance we have of getting the right result both now and in 2008.

The right result could include a chastened George W. Bush, recommitted to conservative principles.

Sitting on our hands will accomplish nothing but will merely ensure we are unprepared for the worst. The US is like the Titanic. There is precious little time to start braking or changing course. Instead waiting to see whether collision is inevitable, we would be wise to start mapping our a contingency plan post-iceberg now.

Maybe Captain Bush and First Mate Rove will hear the angry, agitated debate, wake up, and start steering right.

[motzman]

You elect a democrat as President, you get liberal courts. Thats the history and the fact. To deny it is folly.

Then, these justices will legalize dope, and then KC will have to kill himself...

Careful what you wish for!

[Tench_Coxe]

What gets missed is that the system of government in the US was purposely set up to create a gridlock of sorts. There is an intricate set of checks and balances.

[the invisib1e hand]

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

Don't believe conservatives would want to.

[DManA]

Excellent essay.

[olliemb]

Please--do you really think that we conservatives would do better with a democrat president? Were we better with Clinton? Do we want to lose the partial birth abortion ban, do we want to lose tax cuts, do we want to lose the ability to appoint supreme court judges, do we want God to be removed from school, do we want affirmative action, do we want Hillary and Bill in the White House again, do we want Kyoto treaty, do we want the world court to rule over the United States, do we want the US security to be based on what the United Nations says? Imagine we would not be arguing about Iraq if only 3 countries had said yes--imagine, all the democrats would have been happy if Clinton ;bombed Iraq without UN permission and happy if the 3 elite countries who were being bribed by Saddam had voted to bomb Iraq?

Why is is that the democrats want the power to run their agenda and they don't eat their own? Why is it that the democrats blame the repubs for welfare refrom, Nafta, trade going over seas even when Clinton was the one who signed it. Why???"? Because a good democrat knows that they can push their agenda if they are in the White House and also in the congress/senate. We voted Bush 1 out because he raised taxes and CLinton came around and he increased the taxes even more including the social security. Did we complain as much with Clinton as we did with Bush 1?


Please, please--work with the republican party and with the president--voice your concerns and voice your worries, but for the sake of the unborn child, for the sake of God, and for the sake of our country's security, DO NOT allow the democrats power again in the White House.

The proposals that Bush 2 has put out NEA, MARS, immigration are just that proposals--begging the democrats to come up with their budget to counter. Don't fall into the trap of eating our own b/c the democrats will certainly eat us if they are in control.

[DManA]

Try it. Be interesting to see if this really is a conservative site.

[jwalsh07]

Federal Judicial Appointments
(Indexed by President)


PRESIDENT SUPREME
COURT U.S. COURT
OF APPEALS U.S.
DISTRICT
COURT TOTAL PERCENT
OF
ACTIVE
JUDGES
Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933-1945) 0%
Harry S. Truman (1945-1952) 0%
Dwight D. Eisenhower (1952-1960) 0%
John F. Kennedy (1961-1963) 0%
Lyndon B. Johnson (1963-1968) 0.131%
Richard M. Nixon (1969-1974) 0.919%
Gerald R. Ford (1975-1976) 0.787%
Jimmy Carter (1977-1980) 6.430%
Ronald Reagan (1981-1989) 22.047%
George Bush (1989-1993) 22.047%
Bill Clinton (1993-2001) 47.638%
George W. Bush (2001-Present) 0%

[chickenlips]

Ruth Vader was confirmed 97-3? Wow, that is scary!

I always said the she may look like Yoda, but she really is the master of the dark side of the farce!

[olliemb]

Pish--conservatives tend to feel sorry for themselves. Do you really think that the liberal left would leave Clinton after he signed Nafta or after he signed welfare reform? Do you really think that the liberal left would leave their president to allow a republican president win--whether he be left of middle, middle or to the far right?

Democrats never leave their party out of meaness to their president to try to punish him. They leave their party because they are forever leaving the party not leave their party for the sake of punishing. They want power and unless we are ready to fight them tooth and nail and with all our vigor we will always succumb to the democrats running the agenda.

Ler us work with the president and with the republican party. Imagine what President BUsh would do in a second term when he would not have to pander to the left because he was not facing reelection.

Medicare drug, reform of social security, millions of illegal immigrants are problems that need to be tackled. Health care is coming up. Do you really want the democrat president to be in charge of veto power even if their is a republican congress? You must be in lala land if you think we can accomplish more with a democrat president.

Posh

[e_engineer]

Excellent posting Kevin.

[olliemb]

"Senate Judiciary Committee chairmanship may be more important than the presidency itself--especially if the president is a Democrat"

Either you are in lala land or you are very dangerously trying to convince conservatives to dump the president and allow the democrats to win. You should be so angry about not being heard that you should fight for what you want but to cower and allow those people who most oppose what you believe in does not make you any better than the liberals out there.

[Kevin Curry]

Please--do you really think that we conservatives would do better with a democrat president?

With a Democrat-controlled Congress? No. With a Republican-controlled Congress? In light of Bush's boneheaded leftward course, yes. That's the whole point of my essay. Did you read any of it beyond the headline?

You need to carefully think this through. Let the lib Dems knee-jerk their way to an answer. Conservatives ought to have better sense. Bottom line: any liberal Democrat will have a terrible time working with a Republican-controlled Congress.

The ldeal solution is to have a consistently conservative president leading a Republican-controlled Congress in 2004. Unfortunately, Bush has decided that consistent conservatism on his part is either optional or wrongheaded, which has created the current strained state of affairs.

I am prepared for a Bush defeat. With intelligent commitment and consistent dedication to the task at hand, conservatives can not only survive a Kerry adminstration and its almost certain gridlock-they can come out of it far ahead of where they would be had Bush finished a second term.

Lastly, I firmly believe for reasons set forth in my essay that Hillary's best chances of winning in 2008 hinge on an unrepentant George W. Bush winning in 2004. Do you want that?

[joesbucks]

I've never done that to a poster.

I've always thought it to be quite childish. I'd rather let a post or comment stand with some sort of override that the site does not recognize that type of post, but it should stand.

[Republican Wildcat]

You make a lot of comments that indicate you don't follow the news very closely at all. Forgive me if I don't take your opinions seriously because of this.

[section9]

Paradox my ass.

You don't value a Conservative Supreme Court, do you?

Your solution is tailor made for a banana Republic.

Jesus, some people are so brilliant they're clueless.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[arrow107]

Can't imagine where in my post that I indicated Conservatives would like to see a Dem. in the White House.
If you are so blindly Republican that no matter what a Repub. POTUS does, you vote for him - your party is in trouble. I was simply stating our disafisfaction with him, in hopes that you die-hard Repubs. would recognize the danger you court. You lose us, you lose the White House. It is my greatest hope that GWB would make his stand against the Liberal agenda - so far he has not.

[olliemb]

Did you scream about the increase salaries of congress every year? Did you scream about the increase taxes in 1992? Did you scream about the pork barrelling added to bills?

Remember the war, recession, corporate wrongdoing, and the effects of 9/11 affected the deficit. And remember the surplus was in projected monies, it was not money held in escrow or in an account or in savings--it was projected monies. The economy is improving, jobs are picking up and we have not had a terrorist attack since 9/11 and we have not cowered in Iraq or AFghanistan. A few more years the effects of the tax cuts and the success in the war will be evident but if we vote for a democrat, it will be the democrat that will ride that wave of success and believe he will do a bill clinton and take credit for it.


Remember the president does not have a line item veto. The president does not have 60 votes for cloture either.

[deport]

(it would help immensely if the spineless, Kennedy-appeasing Orrin Hatch were replaced as Committee Chair).

---

I havent' read the thread but the above part of your wish happens in Jan. 2005 regardless of who wins the election... Senator Hatch is out as Committee Chair and in steps Specter if the Republicans hold the Senate...

Now you assume they but why would the populace vote for the Democrat for President and not vote for the Democrat for Senator? My guess is if they are motivated enough to change CinC then they are motivated enough to change the control of the Senate.. If so then you have set your conservative agenda back at least another 30 years with the Judicial nominations that will occur. My opinion, yours may differ.... ain't life grand.

[Zipporah]

1st paragraph -> that is why I voted for Bush

2nd paragraph-> that's a reason to vote for again for Bush..concerns about who will take credit?

3rd paragraph-> maybe gridlock would be a good thing