Posted on 10/26/2005 11:48:23 AM PDT by ovrtaxt
Except that this one makes political sense.
Well, I think most of this is very on target. But rather than agree with his final theory, I think it is more about establishment Republican's rock solid belief in the first theory/plan of action -- the be more democratish plan. And arrogance that is unwilling to see the failure of the plan. And spinelessness has made them unable to see the time to actually act on principle. Perhaps they just have no principle anymore, just a lust for power. So there is no plan beyond the pursuit of power for power's sake.
That's pretty much my conclusion. I don't have some naive view of political parties as agents of winning ideological battles for the good of the country, just agents of winning elections. If it's viewed in that context, it's simple logic.
The problem comes when we actually believe that a party exists for anything more than that.
What do you guys think? Too cynical, or legitimate reality check?
Legitimate, in my opinion. See tagline...
Not a very good theory.
Well, the fact is that they will sit home, as they did to Bush's father in 1992. I can't believe that the GOP does not know this - they vividly remember that year. However, when it comes time for elections, and the democrat opponent clearly wants to shove things like taxes, gay marraige, and America hatred down your throat, some (not all) conservatives will come out to the polls.
Just wanted to ping you to a few thoughts I've had lately.
I also remember in 91-92 how frustrated we all were that Bush refused to go on the offensive. He just rolled over and received the beating.
We walked away and said, "I guess he really didn't want to win."
And after Newt and the revolution of 94, the Democrats filibustered and shut down the government. While conservatives cheered that they couldn't spend any of our money for a couple of days, the GOP freaked out and the conservative advance was killed. To this day, I can't figure out what's wrong with shutting down the government. Big deal!
Thats what I feel the son Bush has done all year. Sat around and refused to fight. Its a big reason he has 40% approval rating and the GOP seems to be indicted by democrat thugs everywhere.
Exactly. He had the chance to put these DNC clowns in the grave, but his 'new tone' and reaching out didn't work.
Thus, my theory- they don't really want to win, but rather to prop them up so that they don't have to fight the disintegration of the GOP when the conservatives feel safe enough to bolt to the right.
Better to dance with the devil you know, I guess.
I'm almost ready to believe it. I still believe that 41 threw the match.
I remember the 1992 election quite well. Perot, Bush, Clinton.
When Perot quit, like a bolt out of the blue, he was LEADING, in fact he was way ahead. Clinton was only getting something like 25% support in the polls, Bush was around 35%, and Perot was around 40%. He was LEADING and he quit?
So the guy LEADING, quits, says that it was because his family was threatened, and the MSM could absolutely care less.
What may have been a gigantic story, worthy of a zillion reporters, something to dwarf Watergate, or any other political story of the last century for that matter, and the media just blew it off with a, "Oh he's crazy".
Even if Perot wore a tinfoil hat in public, you would think that the media would have shown at least a little bit of curiosity about a purported banana republic-like attempt to hijack a presidental election.
Maybe it was all on the up and up, but I've always thought that there was something that didn't smell quite right about that election.
1. GHWB threw the election in 1992, almost as if he wanted Clinton to win.
- Is it possible that Bush 41 gave Clinton the presidency in return for some later favor?
2. Clinton did nothing to help Gore in 2000, almost as if he wanted GWB to win.
- Is it possible that Clinton was returning the favor from 1992?
3. Clinton did even less to help Kerry in 2004.
4. GWB has gone out of his way to "include" Clinton.
A big duty of a second term president is to keep the party strong and united for the next election (as Reagan did for Bush 41), time will tell if GWB will do this. If he doesn't, the main beneficiary will be Hitlery.
It is an absolute fact that the Bush family (financial) fortune derives from Brown Brothers Harriman banking. W. Averell Harriman was a MAJOR powerbroker and financial backer for the Democrats for decades; however, almost all of his senior executives (such as George Herbert Walker and Prescott Bush) were Republicans. It is also a fact that Harriman's widow (Pamela Harriman) was a big financial backer of Bill Clinton and played a major role in his ascension to power before the 1992 election.
A conspiracy nut would read something into this, but I am willing to just chalk it up to coincidence or perhaps the fact that "elites" just "run in the same circles" even if they are in different parties. For all of the talk of GHWB and GWB being "cowboys" who are mental "lightweights," the fact is they are "textbook" elites (wealthy New England familiy, Andover, Yale, Skull & Bones, etc.), in fact they fit the "elite" mold far better than Clinton.
Then again there may be one other very simple explanation for all of this:
There is something in the missing FBI files that has GHWB and GWB scared to death.
Thanks for that information. Stuff I surely didn't know.
I have just observed the pattern, and it seems to fit. If the GOP wanted to, they could crush the Dems permanently- but they are pulling their punches.
The media could be made irrelevant. They are going that way now, but the GOP is doing nothing to accelerate that process. Instead, they are feared.
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.