An astute article.
Yes, very astute. But this is something that Common Tator has been saying for over a year now.
FR is so far ahead of the curve it's scary sometimes.
Be Seeing You,
Chris
Posted on 11/29/2003 11:26:31 AM PST by luckydevi
An astute article.
Yes, very astute. But this is something that Common Tator has been saying for over a year now.
FR is so far ahead of the curve it's scary sometimes.
Be Seeing You,
Chris
Brooks does fail to see that the GOP has given in to eventual fiscal collapse when the boomers' retirement IOU's come in, just as the Democrats gave in fifteen years ago.
No, an apology for socialism. A real Republican working majority would devise a health care plan that relied on choice and market economics -- and they wouldn't be afraid to push it through, over the protests of the media. Instead, they've surrendered to the media's liberalism and given us LBJ-style "reform" There's nothing "astute" in claiming this is a victory for conservatism. It's a defeat for real governance by Republicans and another victory for socialism
Sorry, but he was a fake "conservative" even before he joined the Times. That's why they hired him!
Excuse me. He seems to be confusing his parties. It's the dims who place judges who legislate from the bench.
He has chronicled the rise of the Republican Party and has identified that if you now want to play ball in Washington, you do so in the court of the Republicans.
He acknowledges the price that was paid.
The only drawback is that now, as the governing party, they have to betray some of the principles that first animated them.Now you and I and 95% of the posters to this board will argue that the price is too high and that more work is needed to roll back government.
But none of that makes the article less true.
60 years sounds pretty good to me. I'll take 60 years.
Both sides of the political spectrum live in a make believe world. The left thinks that if they just get the right people to run a socilistic government, or the right country to try it, or just the right amount of Socialism, it will work and produce utopia. Of course it will not.
The equally naieve people on the right think that if they just elect the right people the march to socialism will be stopped and the return to individual freedoms will prevail. What a CROCK.
What part of, This is a nation of the people, by the people, and for the people escapes the right? The answer is all of it.
The right constantly cries for principled leaders as if that were a good thing. What is a principled leader? He or she is a person who will do what their principles dictate no matter what the public want. Of course that is the definition of a dictatorship. The most principled men to govern in the last century were Hitler and Stalin. They did not listen to the public. They did what their principles told them to do.
You of course want a principled leader with whom you agree. That is how Hilters come to power. They always sound good until they get in power. Early on people agree with their principled leaders principles. Then the public learns to hate the implementation of those principles. Too late the public figures out they have no power under a principled leader. Remember he is guided by his principles not public opinion.
What is required to take this nation back to its basic form of government, is a change in the views of voters.
Then and only then will our public servants do what you want. Bush is doing the public will right now.. he is doing what the voters want. You don't like it because you are in the minority. If you were able to change public opinion so your views were in the majority every President would do your will.
But the right keeps looking for that principled leader. If you ever find one, he won't get any more votes than Barry Goldwater... and his very failed campaign will grant a huge victory to the other side. That will likely foster another great society.
I can't argue with your latest missive, but will add that the foundation has been laid.
This article shows the steady progress...Heritage Foundation, the utter triumph of Friedman economics, the emerging ascension of conservative media, and now peopling the "permanent" government with "our" folks.
The last hurdle is academia, and David Horowitz is working on that.
Good point. Factions and parties aspire to become "the Establishment," but this hardly matters to the public, even if they share the expressed ideology of the party or movement. The electorate only wants good, effective and honest officials. We certainly will try to vote out any entrenched, smug, or arrogant establishment, but if the new group shows signs of developing the same faults, the worst thing we can do is to let them take us for granted. Make any party, faction or establishment earn your vote or suffer the consequences of not getting it. Don't give your vote away too easily.
I can certainly admire the conservatives of the 1960s and 1970s setting out to change American politics. Once a movement has changed things and made a place for itself in the political system it's harder to get enthusiastic about it. All other things being equal I'll certainly vote for the more conservative candidate, but "we are the establishment now" doesn't resonate with those of us who never wanted to be part of a governing elite and aren't so crazy about political or journalistic careers. It has to be about something more than rank, office holding and hegemonic position for those of us outside the Beltway to get very interested about politics.
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.