Posted on 07/28/2005 1:05:23 PM PDT by w6ai5q37b
A Republican president can often enact a more liberal agenda than a Democrat could because many Republicans in Congress are more loyal to party than to principle.
Over the past few generations, congressional Democrats could customarily be relied upon to promote a liberal agenda while their Republican counterparts developed the reputation of being stalwart opponents of our nation's slide into big government and internationalism. The record shows, however, that during the past 50 years, congressional Republicans have exhibited such opposition only when....
(Excerpt) Read more at thenewamerican.com ...
he was very negative. don't like convesing with someone like that. Glad the mods did their jobs. :)
There is much truth to the notion that a Dem president with a GOP Congress results in more fiscally tight fisted outcomes. But a president has a few other responsibilities, like being commander in chief, and nominating federal judges. Just a thought. And then there are all those irksome little social issues. The compass of the author per the teaser appearts to rather constricted.
I didn't ask for your help, thank you very much. Did you know that our Senate, our Republican Senate mind you, has sent a bill to conference 85 to 12 that would permit the Chinese to buy our public utilities?
You may be worried about the social issues. I am, too. But, I also know that there is a lot going on with our Republican administration that isn't Republican and isn't good for America.
Seems to me a lot of people who vote know about partial birth abortion, which btw, is still legal. Bush has not ended that. And now the GOP chair and First are attempting to put a bill through allowing expanded fetal cell research.
Can't you see that this bill wouldn't even make the light of day if it weren't for a tag team wrestling, good cop/bad cop coordination with the entire bunch?
I'm sorry. I don't see any difference other than that one is slower implementing exactly what we don't want than the other.
No, it's Nixon. It's an outgrowth of LBJ's so-called "civil rights" bill of 1964, granted, but it comes from Nixon's "Philadelphia Plan."
The campaign-finance law I was referring to was McCain-Feingold, given to us by the last Congress (the 108th, Republican controlled) and this Administration, updating the Ford-era "Watergate" campaign "reform" law. McCain-Feingold prohibits us from criticizing any officeholder in the media for TWO MONTHS before an election. First Amendment violation,anyone?
That is your right, of course.
If we expected each incoming president to do what he needs to make everyone in the country happy, then why even have an election?
That wasn't what I was saying. My point was that there aren't enough 'real conservatives', whatever that means, to elect a President. Since most people fall somewhere in the middle of the 'bell curve,' it is logical to presume that most who get elected will fall toward the middle.
The fact is that the President, as with all elected officials, is duty-bound to faithfully represent those who elected him
Seems Bush is doing just that. After all, it wasn't just the ones who call themselves 'real conservatives' who voted for Bush.
And since people fall all along the spectrum from far right to far left, no one is ever going to be happy with everything the President does or says. It simply isn't possible.
For one ideological party to place a candidate in office, only to have him promote the ideologies of both parties or of the other party alone flies in the face of all reason.
I agree. It is erroneous thinking, however, to presume that all members of the party hold the same opinion on every issue.
And immediately the nattering naboobs come out to denounce the truth in the article.
It's why I'm no longer a republican.
American Conservative
Both the repubs and the dims can go to hell.
OK, fair enough. I thought what you were saying is that a Republican president is supposed to serve all interests, including those who didn't vote for him (such as Bush and Democrats). I think a large part of the Republican party would agree completely with the approach to domestic issues that Bush has taken, so he is serving many who voted for him when he goes that way, but I also think that very few of the Republicans who are happy with Bush's domestic policies are actually conservative. I think the Republican party got a lot of disaffected Democrats over the years who are still pretty liberal on domestic issues but just couldn't stomach the anti-Americanism that has come to define the Democrats.
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.