Skip to comments.
FEC Eyes 'Shadow' Democratic Party
THE WASHINGTON POST ^
| February 1, 2004
Posted on 02/01/2004 4:16:04 AM PST by sopwith
Edited on 02/01/2004 5:25:18 AM PST by Admin Moderator.
[history]
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-49 next last
To: sopwith; All
21
posted on
02/01/2004 1:08:35 PM PST
by
jmstein7
To: G.Mason
Is there some sort of new conservative web site/group that is specifically to counter MoveOn.org?
I heard it was fire-something.
22
posted on
02/01/2004 1:10:31 PM PST
by
Howlin
(If we don't post, will they exist?)
To: Howlin
23
posted on
02/01/2004 1:12:08 PM PST
by
jmstein7
To: em2vn
He is completely detached from daily American society and its people.I think you really mean that he is detached from you, and people like you. If you can't even bring yourself to give him credit for the positive things he has done, it says more about you than it does about him.
24
posted on
02/01/2004 1:13:03 PM PST
by
DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet
(Four hours is too long for a Democrat to sit in the Oval Office, let alone four years. Vote W '04)
To: sopwith
All the same Democrat scumbags who were all for "campaign finance reform" are now doing everything they can to circumvent the law. Surprise, surprise. No way would there be any kind of "investigation" if the scumbags had the White House. Now, if some of these scumbags have to pay big fines and/or go to jail, I'll be convinced that the GOP is serious.
To: em2vn
Bush has cut my taxes and wants to cut some more.
I don't care about the rest of the stuff. I trust him.
To: DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet
No, he is not a "liberal". He is pro-life, strong on national defense, pro business and anti-tax. Does that sound like a liberal to you?Bush is conservative on most of the big issues but he is not -- and never claimed to be -- a fiscal hard-liner. That was what "compassionate conservatism" was all about.
In this connection, it is possibly important that Bush is not a career politician. If he were, he would probably have spent the 20 pre-White House years taking Republican blood oaths on balancing the budget and falling on his sword on tough votes. Instead, he broke into politics late and high, by running for governor during the boom/bubble years when projected surpluses dominated the debate. We are paying for that now, but Bush has not changed his spots.
Given the craven performance of the current Congress on spending issues, it is now clear who we must thank for balancing the budget in the mid-90's: Newt Gingrich and Dick Armey. The fiscal conservative wing of the party needs to regroup and get back into the saddle. We are going to have an interesting primary in four years.
27
posted on
02/01/2004 1:23:37 PM PST
by
sphinx
To: Howlin
"
Is there some sort of new conservative web site/group that is specifically to counter MoveOn.org?"
I haven't read about it, but I will check. If I find anything I'll get back.
28
posted on
02/01/2004 1:58:42 PM PST
by
G.Mason
("The secret to success is knowing who to blame for your failures" - Old Democrat saying)
To: Howlin; jmstein7
Seek and you shall find.
Thanks jmstein7.
29
posted on
02/01/2004 2:01:30 PM PST
by
G.Mason
("The secret to success is knowing who to blame for your failures" - Old Democrat saying)
To: G.Mason; jmstein7; Peach
Well, jm found it, and Peach showed it to me! I'm just glad we found it.
30
posted on
02/01/2004 2:05:06 PM PST
by
Howlin
(If we don't post, will they exist?)
To: Howlin
"
Well, jm found it, and Peach showed it to me! I'm just glad we found it."
Same here. Thanks
31
posted on
02/01/2004 2:10:56 PM PST
by
G.Mason
("The secret to success is knowing who to blame for your failures" - Old Democrat saying)
To: DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet
What good is it if he "holds conservative positions" if he governs like a liberal? If we cannot make progress with a Republican House, a Republican Senate and a supposedly conservative Republican President, then when will we make progress?
The argument that John Kerry would be worse is not sufficient.
In fact, one can make the argument that we are better off with divided government. If we are not going to make progress with Republicans in control, if the only thing we can hope for is to slow the decline, then give me divided government! Less will get done.
I believe we can do better. But we will not do better if G. W. Bush feels he can take his conservative base for granted. He is first and foremost a politician. If he is not under constant pressure from the base he will move to accomodate the Libs. You are not doing Bush or anyone else a favor by letting him get away with squandering the best chance to restore some of our liberty in decades.
Don't get me wrong. I will vote for Bush. But I am very disappointed that he and his Republican colleagues have not made any real progress. In fact, in many important ways they are implementing policies ( e.g. campaign finance reform, medicare, immigration) that we would all vociferously oppose if they were put in place by Democrats. This to me is definitely "getting screwed."
32
posted on
02/01/2004 2:16:34 PM PST
by
trek
To: trek
Don't get me wrong. I will vote for Bush.Glad to hear it, but why on earth would you do that, if you think he "governs like a liberal" and you say the argument that Kerry would be worse "is not sufficient"?
I think you generalize too much. In some ways, yes, he has governed to the left - but in other very important, very significant ways, he has governed to the right. Give him credit for that, okay?
33
posted on
02/01/2004 5:12:26 PM PST
by
DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet
(Four hours is too long for a Democrat to sit in the Oval Office, let alone four years. Vote W '04)
To: sphinx
Yes, we are. (Good points in your post.)
34
posted on
02/01/2004 5:15:26 PM PST
by
DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet
(Four hours is too long for a Democrat to sit in the Oval Office, let alone four years. Vote W '04)
To: DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet
As I said. I am supporting the President because of his conduct of the war. I made that point in my first post.
But please indicate the "very important, very significant ways" you see President Bush governing to the right. (We are agreed on tax cuts, PBA and the war so please don't rehash these). I don't see it. I see occasional rhetoric to the right and significant policy moves to the left.
We are likely to see the high water mark of Republican control of the Federal Government in the next year or two. As it stands now, domestically the country will end up worse for it in absolute terms.
Please don't throw me the canard "that it would have been worse under the Democrats." By that logic the Republicans can never fail. Not even if they gut the First Amendment, enact massive expansions of the welfare state, open the borders, put milk-toast judges on the bench (or worse), institutionalize 1/2 trillion dollar annual deficits, etc.
35
posted on
02/01/2004 5:50:55 PM PST
by
trek
To: trek
But please indicate the "very important, very significant ways" you see President Bush governing to the right. (We are agreed on tax cuts, PBA and the war so please don't rehash these).If you agree that he sometimes governs to the right - and you indicate here that you do - all I ask is that you stop making declaritive statements like "He governs like a liberal." Or saying that aside from the war, the rest of his agenda "sucks".
I don't want to nitpick about every little thing. I am just asking you not to make general, sweeping, and completely inaccurate statements. Of course, if you are determined to, I can't stop you.
36
posted on
02/01/2004 6:21:22 PM PST
by
DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet
(Four hours is too long for a Democrat to sit in the Oval Office, let alone four years. Vote W '04)
To: DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet
I'm not sure what "people like you" refers to but I have given him credit for the war on terror and the tax cut. Having said that I don't intend to endorse extremely liberal stances such as his ideas on immigration and a national prescription plan. Nor will I support the massive increase in national spending that has taken place under his administration.
As I said before I will vote for him again though I wish there was a conservative to support. Comparing the President to Clinton certainly casts him in a very favorable light. If he is compared to past conservative presidents he doesn't fare as well. Then again that is only "people like you" speaking.
Do tip your nose down in a rain so that you don't drown. That would look so un-tidy at the country club.
37
posted on
02/01/2004 6:24:09 PM PST
by
em2vn
To: DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet
Well, I guess we will have to agree to disagree.
Perhaps a compromise is in order. I will generalize a bit less if you will provide a few specifics. I have provided several examples of very significant policy items that should greatly alarm small government conservatives. Can you provide similar examples of policy items that Bush and the Republicans have enacted that small government conservatives should be pleased with?
38
posted on
02/01/2004 7:39:34 PM PST
by
trek
To: trek
39
posted on
02/01/2004 7:54:13 PM PST
by
DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet
(Four hours is too long for a Democrat to sit in the Oval Office, let alone four years. Vote W '04)
To: em2vn
Do tip your nose down in a rain so that you don't drown. That would look so un-tidy at the country club.I didn't intend to sound like an elitist. I grew up poor but conservative (my dad was very conservative). When I said "people like you", I meant those for whom nothing is ever satisfactory.
40
posted on
02/01/2004 8:01:51 PM PST
by
DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet
(Four hours is too long for a Democrat to sit in the Oval Office, let alone four years. Vote W '04)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-49 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson