Skip to comments.Michael Reagan Addresses Conservatives Who Won't Vote For Bush
Posted on 10/11/2004 1:18:40 PM PDT by treowth
"A lot of Reagan conservatives are threatening to cut off their noses to spite their faces. They think that because President Bush hasn't done every single thing they want, or has done some things they didn't want, they should punish him by staying home on Election Day or voting for some third party candidate who hasn't got a chance to win in November. It should be obvious to them that they will therefore help elect the Kerry-Edwards team that will do nothing they want and everything they don't. Somehow this idiocy seems to make sense to them -- dump a conservative president for a pair of socialists who, given four years in the White House, will wreck this country's economy and in the process probably lose the War on Terrorism, as well. What bothers me is the insistence of these dissident conservatives that they are devoted to the legacy of Ronald Reagan, who understood the truth of the old adage, 'Politics is the art of the possible.' In other words, you get what you can and wait for a chance to get the rest. These people think that if they don't get everything they want they are willing to accept nothing, but that's not what my father stood for. My father would say, 'If I can get 80 percent, or 60 percent, or 50 percent of what I'm looking for, I'll take that and I'll go back later on for the rest of it'."
Some Freepers should take notice of this
Excellent! and finally someone calling Kerry/Edwards what they really are...
"... dump a conservative president for a pair of socialists....."
Paleocons, and the like.
"Some Freepers should take notice of this
You've got that right! This 3rd party protest vote has always seemed so irrational to me.
SCOTUS, the WOT, 2nd Amendment rights. ....the list is long.
thanks for your comment and your good work. you deserve a medal.
I am a newbie here, what does it mean when somebody says BUMP????????
Sadly, the Buchananites are beyond help.
It happened in 1992 with many voting for Ross Perot and what did it get us: Bill Clinton for 8 years.
Bump is just a say that they're pushing a thread back to the top of the front page.
When someone posts, it moves the thread to the top of latest posts. So a bump is a post designed to that.
'bttt' is another message that may be posted -- short for back to the top.
In addition, 'pings' are designed to flag certain posters over to a particular thread.
Yes. But any President who had extended the ridiculous AWB wouldn't be able to pick a suitable Justice anyway.
Fortunately, that is not a problem today.
Are there really conservatives who might not vote for Bush?
Signing CFR was similar to the AWB ("sign it if it crosses my desk"). The effect of CFR was to give Soros the keys to the RAT party. See FrontPage Mag online for a great article on this subject.
Thanks for the advice LF.
Now tell me again about how the Religious Right should leave the GOP and not let the door hit them in the ass on the way out?
Everyone else - please don't get me wrong, I agree 100% with the Reagan column and am voting for Bush, despite many reservations, for the reasons Michael (and especially JimRob in post #3) note. I just have a problem with those in the GOP for whom the "Big Tent" is a one-way street.
What about those conservatives who voice criticism of some specific Bush policies? Do you see that as being equivalent to bluntly declaring "XYZ isn't voting for Bush because of ABC?"
You can probably slide by this time, but just don't "BTTT" or you'll really be in for it. Consider it a little friendly advice.
By the way, welcome!
I just finished reading Bork's "Coercing Virtue."
The appointment of SCOTUS judges is my number one concern after the WOT. If Kerry gets in and two or three judges resign, the judicial activists that Kerry is sure to appoint would deliver a wound to this country that we may never recover from.
The unconstitutional CFR may have restricted political parties somewhat, but it actually opened up a whole new ballgame to grassroots free speech. Soros, moveon.org, SwiftBoatVets are just examples. Free speech knows no bounds. No matter how hard the McCainiacs of the world try, they will never succeed in shutting down political free speech.
There ARE no conservatives NOT voting for Bush.. They may be radicals of some stripe but their not conservatives.. Allowing Kerry to win this election is a radical move and left wing radical at that.. Ron Reagan is a left wing dupe, single issue flunky..
There are plenty of single issue folks around here as well.
We all criticize specific Bush policies to some extent. The vast majority of FReepers and I suspect of conservatives in general were dismayed and highly critical of CFR, the deal with Kennedy, the prescription drug expansion, the perceived weakness on the AWB renewal, the lack of attention to the borders, etc, etc, etc. But I also know that 95% or better of us are going to vote for him anyway. The alternative is unthinkable.
And your mother dresses you funny...Most of us Buchananites voted for Bush the last time...In fact, if it wasn't for Buchananites, Bush would have lost...So bite your tongue...
It is a pleasure getting a response from you, sir. Agreed -free speech does acknowlege no bounds (neither does money in politics). I hope it is a pleasant fall day in Fresno. I grew up down the road in Coalinga, so I know that October and April are the best months in the Valley;)
Nope...You wasted your vote on Bush Sr...YOU gave us Clinton...Face it...
Thanks for the welcome.
But I still don't get what "Bump"means.
Anybody out there who can help?
Thanks... but I still don't get it!
I will read, observe , and learn.....
Let's go over it again. :-)
When someone posts a message, it moves the thread to the top of the latest posts. Therefore, when someone shows up and simply says "bump", that is what they are intended to do--bump the thread to the top.
If you see "bttt", it is the same thing (short for "back to the top.")
Yeah but most all are voting for Bush even if libertarian..
Yes they should, because Bush had to settle for less than he wanted in the first tax cut .. but with the success of the first tax cut .. we now have a second tax cut.
I know a lot of people were unhappy because we didn't get it all the first time and called the repubs spineless for not getting it done.
So does the person that says "bump" actually bump the article to the top????
(sorry for sounding like a technovirgin)...
Don't forget the Keyes folk.
Yes, it's extremely unfortunaate that there are Conservatives who refuse to vote for Bush. They stand strictly upon principle.....in other words, Bush is expected by them to conform very narrowly to certain beliefs.
Their stance is outrageously unrealistic, given the sad state of cultural and ethical deterioration in the US.
Considering how widely read the Free Republic is, we can be pretty darn certain that the Freepers you referred to and the Buchanonites I'm thinking of will read this :-)
snip....Excellent! and finally someone calling Kerry/Edwards what they really are..
You mean Poodle Butt(-Head) and Breck Girl Butt(-Head)? :-)
Big/Intrusive Govt vs. Bigger/More Intrusive Govt....
Wow! What choices..!
I never claimed they *should* leave, I just wouldn't be sad to see Pat Robertson and his gullible followers run out the door.
OK go ahead and vote for Nader and then tell us that WE gave us Kerry.
Fair enough - while I disgree w/you on Robertson, there are certain groups in the GOP I wouldn't be sad to see go. So I can't be too critical of your stance, even if the groups we wouldn't miss are at different ends of the spectrum.
BTW, I think post #28 hits the nail on the head. It certainly sums up my thinking on Bush '04.
Soros (sorryass) was a big supporter of CFR
I have never understood where anybody gets the idea that they are doing Pres Bush a favor by voting for him. Either this election will give us a pro-America First, George Bush or a pro-world first socialist, John Kerry. Whatever gripe or issue a person may have with Pres Bush pales when compared to turning this country over to John Kerry and his socialist cohorts. The appointment of Supreme Court Justices in the next four years should be enough cause for any American who values their freedom to vote for the only person in this election who will nominate judges who respect the constitution and our republican form of government. That person is our proven pro-America President, George Bush.