Enough With The Neocon And Paleocon Carping—I'll Stand With George W. Bush In 2004

Toogood Reports ^ | Thursday, December 11, 2003; 12:01 a.m. EST | Bernard Chapin

[Fledermaus]

And here's your ridiculous argument:

"But just where does the CFR bill take away our rights to Free Speech? It merey places regulations on elections primarily because things were being abused. Our full Constitutional right to Free Speech is still in tact. You are not only not making sence, you exaggerate as well."

First, I can spell "sense". And "merely".

Second, it takes away MY RIGHTS to buy and ad within 30 days of the election. Or my group, or my PAC, or my party. If you don't think THAT is a dilution of our FREE SPEECH rights, you are on crack.

And exactly what abuse is it placing regulations on? Buying ads? Pointing out the other candidate is a liar or supports a policy another candidate disagrees with? Soft money to parties that mean nothing?

Do you ignore the Dems and cheaters break all the laws anyway? Clinton sure did in 1996, didn't stop him from winning.

So go ahead, enlighten us. Tell us about all the freedom of speech you think I still have that are CLEARLY stopped by this horrible bill signed by Bush for political reasons (I don't know why, CFR was never a big issue to the voters, only the press).

But you can't because I don't think you even bothered to READ IT!

When you are through shoving your uninformed opinion down my throat, I'll stop vommiting.

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

For one, President Reagan brought the GOP to it's feet by giving tax cuts.

Secondly, he kept a moderate profile so as not to alienate the left.

But mostly, he stood his ground even under overwhelming opposition from the extreme right and met most everyone "half way". He also stood his ground in the war against Communism until it was defeated.

The parallels of Reagan and President Bush are very similar even though you refuse to look for it.

[John R. (Bob) Locke]

What I'm "trying to do to Bush" is to try to hold him accountable.

I agree that he is keeping many of his campaign promises, and I give him credit on many. But there are some that bother me greatly. This issue (First Amendment), him promising to sign the "assault weapons" ban back into law (Second Amendment), the Patriot Act (Fourth Amendment) are all things that cause me to not support him, because he does not support many of the fundamental rights we should enjoy as Americans.

And I totally agree with you on Gingrich's mishandling of the situation after being given a large victory in '94. But the lesson learned is still applicable, IMO: When the GOP runs to the right, where its base is, and then follows up after the people give their support, then it can and will win many elections with ease.

[nopardons]

Pleas, please, PLEASE stop with your attempt at mind reading...thus far, you've been 100% incorrect!

It's late, you are irrational, unbending ( even when, which is about all of the time !)when you are wrong and proven so, and no, you don't see anything at all. I'm going to log off and no, answering your post, to someone else, isn't high on my priority list of things to do, dear.

You don't bother, not once, to debate my points, nor to even make a stab at refuting them. Yet, YOU demand that I should answer YOUR idiocies? Go talk to someone who cares.

The sole reason, Bush signed the CFR, was to shut up McNasty,not give the Dems, who had the Senate majority then, any more fuel, shut up the media, who were beating him over the head with it, and yes, to bolster his position. Poll numbers ? Signing a Bill that the majority of the voting populace neither understood nor gave a damn about ? Yeah, sure, that's right, you just keep repeating that to yourself and maybe, just maybe, your psychopathic need for self validation/ego stroking/attention yearning disorder will be assuaged for a nonce. LOL

[FairOpinion]

As I said, you want Dean to win.

What do you think will happen if conservatives stay at home Nov 2004?

Same thing that happened when the so-called conservatives wanted to teach GHW Bush a lesson and voted for Perot or stayed home, and gave us 8 years of Clinton.

And apparently still haven't learned their lesson.

The problem is that in the process of cutting off your nose to spite your face, you are putting the entire country in danger.

[John R. (Bob) Locke]

So your answer is to keep voting Republican and hope for the best? I'm guessing that I'm not following your position very well. Can you elaborate?

[John R. (Bob) Locke]

You don't bother, not once, to debate my points, nor to even make a stab at refuting them.

Okay, work with me. What "point" or "points" are you making. Please state them clearly, and I will reply one at a time.

We've both been giong back and forth. Time to clean things up a little.

[nopardons]

Oh gee, now, NOW you want to play nicely and be " reasonable "? Far too littel, far too late, and still far too demanding on your part. You want to at least try to respond tyo my posts? Go back to the beginning, read them, one by one, and then respond to them, reply by reply,without lumping the answers all into one huge post.

And whislt you're busying yourself with that chore, I'm off. Happy reading. :-)

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

One of the reasons GW has been so successful is because people underestimate him. He then stuns them with some brilliant action or move that they can do nothing about except throw childish diatribes and insults at him; Done out of envy or jealously more than anything else.

Your outward disrespect for me or anyone else on this forum who does not agree with you, speaks volumes as to your true nature.

Most of us ignore your kind as do I.

[John R. (Bob) Locke]

Same thing that happened when the so-called conservatives wanted to teach GHW Bush a lesson and voted for Perot or stayed home, and gave us 8 years of Clinton.

And apparently still haven't learned their lesson.

I see. So GHWB deserved our support despite blatantly looking us in the eye and lying through his teeth, and for governing like a Rockefeller. I would say he was more responsible for his own demise than any other President in recent history (including Carter).

And what happened after the '92 elections? The Republicans reverted to conservative ideals in '94, won control of the House (which they have held ever since), and set the stage for winning the Senate.

And as they have drifted back towards the muddy middle, where they have consistently lost elections, the cheering section grows louder and smaller at the same time.

That is why they are so concerned, and rightly so, that '92 may repeat itself in '04. My suggestion: Start acting like conservatives again. It works.

[nopardons]

They refuse to get it. They have NO understanding , nor comprehension of politics, nor consequences of actions; let alone of history. The heck with 'em.

[Qwinn]

Um, PACs can still buy issue ads even the day before an election. I think they just can't name a specific candidate, the intent of this rule being to avoid last-minute hit pieces like they tried on Arnold. So, for example, a pro-life PAC could certainly run an ad on November 2004 saying "Democrats want to bring back partial birth abortions - vote Republican", but they could not say on November 2, 2004, "A woman from Vermont today charged that Howard Dean, whose medical training came from Planned Parenthood, ate her aborted fetus with a fine chianti". It's meant to avoid last-minute personal smear ads, but PACs still can discuss and buy issue-related ads, so it's not as bad as you're making it out to be.

I agree with you that I don't like the 1st Amendment implications (though I am not totally comfortable with the idea that money = speech... I think what Soros is doing is way wrong). But quite frankly, given the fact that Republicans receive more small donor money, CFR hurts Democrats far more than it does Republicans, not only because Republicans will get more legal funding out of it than Democrats can, but also because MANY MANY people are aware that Democrats are totally violating the letter and spirit of CFR while Republicans, who generally opposed it, are obeying both the letter and the spirit of it. That is going to be a massive campaign issue, I believe, and in the end Soros's contributions are going to hurt Dems more than they will help. The net result, IMO, if the Republican "base" doesn't screw everything up, will be such a huge Republicans mandate with enough -real- conservatives in power that we won't have to give a rat's ass what the Dems think, and real conservatives will be able to repeal CFR easily for the major debacle it became.

I don't like the principles behind CFR any more than you do. But from a pragmatic point of view, it is once again demonstrating how incredibly arrogant and hypocritical the Dems are, and they're so off-the-rails this election that they aren't even hiding it anymore. In that sense, I'm almost glad CFR went through. The payoff will come in 2004, where we see enough conservatives come into power that RINOs won't be able to turn the tide anymore. Again, that's IF the "base" doesn't pitch a tantrum and screw it all up.

Qwinn

[Steel Wolf]

So your answer is to keep voting Republican and hope for the best? I'm guessing that I'm not following your position very well. Can you elaborate?

The battle you want to fight is long over by the time the election rolls around. At that point, A and B are going to look at the the political lay of the land, and fight from there.

If there is little to no demand for issue X, candidates will supply issue X little to no support. Consider back when most people shrugged at Clinton's perjury. If society doesn't care, it's futile to think that politicians will.

Now, we can argue about what people should and shouldn't think all day long, but representatives of the people will generally be as dumb and short sighted as those they represent. In order to influence politician behavior, you have to affect their constituents.

[FairOpinion]

They refuse to get it.
The heck with 'em.

===

You are right on both counts! :)

[nopardons]

Thanks. :-)

[Fledermaus]

No, PAC's are the most limited because the are "outside sources" according to the bill.

Actually, the only thing that helps Bush is the fact that he's not taking federal funds so doesn't have to adhere to the CFR laws. But so did Dean.

So it now comes down, if Dean is the nominee (doubtful), to who can raise the most money. Isn't this scenario excactly OPPOSITE of what CFR tried to "fix"?

[Qwinn]

"As Gillespie is doing."

For Gillespie to say that the days of small government conservatism is over is a far cry from calling it something like "Voodoo Economics". What he said in the context of my sentence was more in line with "screwing over", not "demonizing". And Gillespie suffered a hell of a lot of heat for his comment, as opposed to the parades and cheers Bush I got for his ridiculous remarks.

Qwinn

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

Yes I can.

Any other vote than Republican is a wasted vote. Conservative is the goal, whether it is moderate or extremist. A vote for an alternative party will create the same scenario as what gave Clinton the election in '92.

Now enough of this "Beating a dead horse BS". You know good and well what most of our positions are on this but you keep "jigging" for us to take the hook. I believe I have spelled it out clearly. It is just that simple.

[Fledermaus]

P.S. If I had Soros money, I'd do the same thing.

I'd start all kinds of 527's and fund them.

Heck, I'd give $1 million to FreeRepublic alone just to encourage this form of free speech.

But CFR is heading down the road of trying to even ban this format.

Bottom line: Bush should have vetoed it. It's that simple.

[Fledermaus]

Your argument is moot in that you ASSUME Dean will win the nomination.

Where can I buy the crystal ball you use?