Conservatives Contemplate Electoral Hari-kiri

FrontPageMagazine.com ^ | 2/27/04 | Michael Reagan

[kattracks]

President Bush fired back at his Democratic critics Monday night. After being a sitting duck for the slings and arrows fired at him by the “Hate Bush Brigade”, the White House says the President plans to go on the offensive.

It’s about time. We need to see a tough, straight-talking, Texas-style George Bush hammering away at his detractors. He also needs to reach out to his conservative base and remind them of what’s at stake in this election, because he has a problem with a lot of them.

In recent weeks my conservative listeners have been talking about the same things Kerry and Edwards have been talking about. They’re talking about jobs even though the unemployment rate is only 5.6 percent. They’re talking about outsourcing, they’re talking about amnesty for illegal aliens – these are the things that people who listen to talk radio are concerned about.

Their reaction to the President’s handling of these issues should be a warning sign for the President. Conservatives are calling my show and telling me that they are not going to vote for George Bush because of his stand on amnesty or outsourcing, for example. And this simply amazes me. I ask them if they aren’t going to vote to re-elect George Bush are they going to vote for the Democrat? And the answer is inevitably, "NO! I’m not going to vote for anybody. I’m going to stay home on Election Day."

My reply is if you stay home and George Bush doesn’t win re-election and instead Kerry or whoever the Democrat candidate is gets elected, do you think things are going to get really better? And their answer is, "Well, no, but I want to take a stand."

They should remember Custer. He too took a stand. It was his last.

That just stuns me because it’s utterly irrational. They don’t understand they are taking a stand against themselves. By not voting they only help elect a liberal Democrat who wants to raise their taxes, enact all kinds of new spending programs. They would also endanger the nation by their already demonstrated ineptness and weakness in the war on terror, and hand over Iraq to the United Nations so it can create the same kind of mess we are now seeing in Haiti – another UN and Clinton "success."

They are wearing blinders that only allow them to focus on one issue. They say they won’t vote for a candidate who disagrees with them on one single issue even though he agrees with them on every other issue. It’s utterly self-defeating.

Even though they staunchly support George Bush on his stands on tax cuts, how he is fighting the war, and applaud his pro-life policies, they disagree with him on the amnesty issue, for example, and therefore can’t bring themselves to vote for him.

They’ll just stay home and help elect a Democrat who disagrees with them on just about everything. They’d enact socialist programs that would cripple U.S. industry, yet some of my listeners applaud them not realizing that if you drive a company’s profits down, you drive the value of their stock down and the millions of Americans whose 401Ks are invested in that firm suffer losses as a result.

When President Bush goes on the offensive, he’s going to have to remind Americans that if they want to pay low prices for the goods they need, the reason they are going to have to look overseas is because Democrats in Congress have so regulated American companies that the cost of doing business has risen. That’s due to the unions and government regulations that have become so prohibitive.

What’s the Democrat answer? Well, they say they’d make foreign nations enact the same kind of onerous regulatory and environmental burdens we have here that would force the prices of their goods up to the same level as ours. In other words, wreck their own economies to make John Kerry or some other demagogue look good.

Fat chance.

---

Mike Reagan, the eldest son of President Ronald Reagan, is heard on more than 200 talk radio stations nationally as part of the Premiere Radio Network.

[panaxanax]

Where did I say I was sitting out the election? I'll be writing in my candidate's name and be able to live with myself for the next four years. Not settling.

[reformedliberal]

When in doubt, I press abuse and tell the mods: we report/you decide.

For a while, I thought "What if they post a troll and no one responds?" However,I am certain that the spirited rejection of the Vichy Conservatives, everyone of which proclaims themselves to be a real conservative(tm) partisan on these threads, is depressing the left no end. So, I usually wait until the more articulate Bush supporters have had a chance to eviscerate the troll.

The true conservatives(tm) are not the base. If they want to go off and post on the LP or the CP boards, more power to them. I think they stay here so they can feel they are part of a movement. Over there, they have to face the fact that are so very few of them and they get bored preaching to the choir.

The press keeps telling us the middle is no more. It is polarized, they say. I agree: the middle has gone center right, which IS GWBush's base. So, the left has their 38% and the center right has 55%. The other 7% are the fringes at both extremes and therefore are not even part of the equation.

I actually feel a wee bit of sympathy for the fringe right extremist party leaders. One deviation from the party line and their *supporters* will bail on them, too.

[Sabertooth]

a Kerry presidency is not a harbinger of doom (we're all doomed, DOOMED!

A Kerry Presidency is a harbinger of same sex marriage,
and that would be doom.

[SierraWasp]

"You're such an idiot, so vote for my candidate."

Old saying: "In every encounter a sale is made! Either you're buying what I'm selling, or, I'm buying what you're selling!"

I just ain't buyin it!!!(grin)

[MeekOneGOP]

Malcontent for Bush - 2004!

Yay !! ;^)

[JulieRNR21]

A Kerry Presidency is a harbinger of same sex marriage, and that would be doom.

BINGO!

And I'll add "A Kerry Presidency is a harbinger of attacking American business instead of America's terrorist enemies!"

[Doctor Stochastic]

A rather misleading article. Weyrich compares the Democratic record turnout in New Hampshire to the Republican turnout of 2000. I guess he could have compared it to the number of eggplant pizzas sold in Aix-le-Bains and drawn just as valid a conclusion.

He again compares the Democratic turnout in South Carolina which was double that of 2000 to the Republican turnout rather than the East Carolina homecoming attendence.

He left out Virginia which had 395,000 in the Democratic primary compared to 365,000 in 1988. (Small sample, only two primaries.) Here more Democratic-Americans were expected to turn out.

His claim for the Oklahoma turn out disagree with other published figures: Weyrich claims 400,000 in 1992 compared to 300,000 in 2004, others claim 150,000 in 1992.

Other sources also compare Democrat turnout to Republican. This would be a valid point in the general election but not for comparing Democrat 2000 vs Democrat 2004 enthusiam.

[sweetliberty]

"His post could be interpreted that he is mad at the President's stance on Gay "marriage".

Now THAT's funny.

[Heatseeker]

RE. your #161:

Even if all that about Kerry is true - he would still cave to the Islamicists. Having to suffer four years of a Dem president is one thing - getting put feet-first into the shredding machine because I didn't face Mecca and pray the correct number of times, is another.

[OldFriend]

Stay home. You'll really show us!

[Sabertooth]

And I'll add "A Kerry Presidency is a harbinger of attacking American business instead of America's terrorist enemies!"

Well, I'm lookng more at America's imminent civilizational threats, and I don't include Kerry's economic proposals among them.

Same-sex marriage is the most immediate threat, because marriage is the fundamental unit of consensual human interaction, and thus civilization. It is the institution by which most in this society receive most of their values. If we lose marriage, all hell breaks lose within a generation.

The next two threats are Islam and the dissolution of our borders.

President Bush is fighting an aspect of Islam, and fighting it well, but he will not engage the larger enemy because he honestly doesn't see the conflict as a clash of civilizations. I doubt we will see anything like Iraq or Afghanistan in his second term. Libya will be the new model. Not a complete solution, but the threat is at least sufficiently put off under a Bush second term. I doubt Kerry would carry the gravitas to effect more solutions like Libya.

On the dissolution of our borders, this President leaves much to be desired. The only consolation is that this threat to American civilization might be stymied under Bush (in spite of him), and it would be worse by far under Kerry.

I see the third tier of civilizational threats as the erosions of our First and Second Amendments. I think President Bush has earned mixed or inconclusive grades here, but again, Kerry would be worse.

[MeekOneGOP]

I usually try the argument (as I've posted on this thread a few times now) that anything that helps to get the opposition elected doesn't help the cause of Conservatives. Usually in the form of a question. It portrays my thoughts without alienating folks on our side. We need ALL our folks to vote for Bush and other Republicans as well. Just my humble opinion. ;^)

[Poohbah]

You're probably right and it's Reagan's fault. He spoiled alot of us.

Reagan raised taxes enormously, gave no-foolin' real amnesty to illegal aliens, sent US troops to operate in, among other places, Beirut--and did so under UN control (and then cut and run when we were attacked, instead of doing the conservative thing--crushing our enemies, seeing them driven before us, and hearing the lamentations of their women), and presided over massive growth in federal spending, and was the guy who got the NAFTA and WTO negotiations started.

If that's a "true conservative," I'll stick with Dubya.

[MeekOneGOP]

Amen to that !

[JulieRNR21]

Well, I'm lookng more at America's imminent civilizational threats, and I don't include Kerry's economic proposals among them.

My addition was not meant to challenge you but to merely add that Kerry will most likely (as Clinton did) use considerable resources to go after corporate America rather than vigorously pursue Terrorism!

I believe that our greatest danger continues to be fanatical Moslem terrorism!

[MeekOneGOP]

Please ! Kerry for President ? I don't wanna really THINK about that prospect ! I can't imagine having to live through possibly EIGHT YEARS of that !

His flip-flop on Vietnam and thinking of him as CIC over the War on Terrorism ? [Shudders].

Actually, he flip-flops on MANY issues ...

_______________________________________________

We need to unite behind George W. Bush in 2004, imho ...

[Sabertooth]

I believe that our greatest danger continues to be fanatical Moslem terrorism!

If same-sex marriage is instituted, with all that would inevitably follow -- polygamy, polyandry, incest, group marriage, bestiality -- then it won't matter if we win the War on Terror.

The knife is at our throat.

[prairiebreeze]

Was 8 years of Clinturd not bad enough for you? Certainly plenty bad for me....and America.

Prairie

[WhiteGuy]

Carping?

Government, under the leadership of the GOP, has gotten bigger and more intrusive than ever during the last 3 years.

I, for one, had a reasonable expectation of the opposite taking place. I'll bet you did too.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but our elected officials have failed to even address this problem.

You asked if I thought a larger majority in the senate and full backing of the president would get US closer to what I want.

I'll answer this way, I don't think there is any interest at all in reducing the scope of government by politicians of either party. I once believed that the gop would indeed have this goal, but their actions have proved otherwise.

It isn't just what I want, it's what is RIGHT to do.

I'll ask again, what have the republicans done to solve this problem?

[My2Cents]

Conservatives are calling my show and telling me that they are not going to vote for George Bush because of his stand on amnesty or outsourcing, for example

The bottomline in this election are the judicial appointments which will be made during the next term. For nearly 40 years the left has pushed its agenda primarily through the courts, realizing that they could never get the representatives of the people in the legislative branch to enact their agenda. We're seeing a re-enactment of this approach in SF and Massachusetts with the gay marriage issue.

So, there is the likelihood of three or four Supreme Court nominations between 2005 and 2008. I don't care what issues conservatives have with Pres. Bush; one thing all have to acknowledge is that his court nominations have been stellar. If narrow-focused conservatives sit at home this election, or vote for some loser minor party candidate as a "protest," thereby allowing John Kerry to win the Presidency, we can all kiss the conservative movement goodbye, because it will be John Kerry who will be determining the character (or lack of it) of the US Supreme Court, and of course lower federal courts, for literally the next generation. GET THIS! -- IF KERRY WINS, WE WILL ALL BE DEAD BEFORE THE NEXT CONSERVATIVE MAJORITY EXISTS ON THE U.S. SUPREME COURT. That's what's at stake in this election.