Republican: GOP Revolution Dying on Washington D.C. Vine

BayouBuzz ^ | 8/1/2005 | Jeff Crouere

[Dane]

I personally have no problem with Bolton. Apparently there are enough Republicans in office who do and that is why the president had to appoint him without congressional approval

Blah, blah, blah, usual Pubbie hatred from you happy. In your above italicized passage no mention of the democrats using the filabuster to block Bolton.

No big deal happy, most people on FR, already know you are demo sycophant.

[Dat Mon]

Good article and post.

This kind of article is dangerous...it gets mainstream Republicans in the base thinking. I've been making the point that Republicans need to get back the vision and fire in the belly that they had back in 94 with the Contract With America.

Thinking is a bad thing for some Republicans you see...so out come the 'seminar posters' in their usual attempts to steer the discussion over to a personal slugfest...while ignoring the points raised in the article entirely.

Wouldn't it be remarkable if those people who disagree with the premise of the article actually took the time to logically go through the article point by point ...and refute it.

Nope...ain't gonna happen...thats above their pay grade.

[FBD]

Your misspelled posts are often laden with vile invectives, and usually lack any punctuation.
They glaringly reveal to all, what a base individual you are.

How many times have your posting privileges been suspended to date?

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

The confusion arises from the fact that the struggle is not between Republicans and Democrats but between fiscal conservatives and liberals, social conservatives and liberals, constitutional rights conservatives and liberals, and security conservatives and liberals.

Since 2001 there has been a slight majority in Congress only of security conservatives and even there it is because of 9/11 rather than an election and it is not enough for a major mobilisation. And there is a security and social conservative in the White House. Hardly enough to call 'a revolution'.

[Leatherneck_MT]

" So, if the Republicans are not going to govern any differently than the Democrats, what’s the use?"

I hear people say all of the time "You could have Gore!"

Yeah, we could have. But what we have instead is Gore and Hillary lite. That's NOT what I voted for.

I voted for a return to fiscal responsibility, a reduction in taxes, a REDUCTION IN GOVERNMENT, to include the destruction of useless beuracracies in Washington DC. I'm afraid the only way we will ever get back our Constitutional government is by open rebellion. If the Republicans won't do the job, then we don't have many other choices.

[Dane]

Your misspelled posts are often laden with vile invectives, and usually lack any punctuation. They glaringly reveal to all, what a base individual you are.

How many times have your posting privileges been suspended to date?

Damn you are mad that I haven't brought you an apple to your cyber desk.

[Happy2BMe]

" No big deal happy, most people on FR, already know you are demo sycophant."

===================================

Try again.

[Happy2BMe]

At this point, I'd even settle for Newt Gingrich.

[FBD]

>"Damn you are mad that I haven't brought you an apple to your cyber desk."<


- No, I'm not mad, and I refuse to lower myself to your level of communication.

Btw, the comma is a very useful punctuation device. You should try using them occasionally. Your IQ will appear to have magically gone up about 20 points.

[Dat Mon]

YOU SAID... "Damn you are mad that I haven't brought you an apple to your cyber desk."

Hey, since you are plugging apple barons...can I put in another plug for honey?

Support North Carolina Honey barons!

We thank yew

(private joke folks)

[F16Fighter]

For decades conservative Republicans dreamed of controlling the White House and Congress. The rallying cry was “If only we had the power, we could revolutionize this country and end the era of big government.”

But that was before RINOs moled the Party...

Nonetheless, let's face it -- "principle" and "by the people for the people" was ultimately going to be all for naught anyway.

The NWO internationalists have made it clear it is they who are now really calling the political, cultural, and economic shots for the U.S.

[HereInTheHeartland]

So we would be better off with "Traitor" Kerry and "Silky Pony" Edwards leading the war on terror?
I don't think so.

The problem is at the grassroots. People need to get out and blow the stodgy party hacks out of their comfort zones and take control of the party.

[mysterio]

Screw both Big Stupid Government parties.

I wish to cosponsor this statement.

[pollyannaish]

There are two things that might happen. One is that it would work. BUT—

The other is that we'd go further and faster down the socialism path and most people wouldn't care all that much. For instance, once socialized medicine starts, it would be next to impossible to stop it—ever. IMO, I will not proverbially "burn down my own house" to punish/shake up our team. How many years later are we trying to change SS incrementally and STILL having trouble? That's not our leadership alone, that is the American public. They must be moved first.

Therefore, I believe the best way to make things increasingly conservative is to focus on your own community, convince your friends and neighbors and put real conservatives in a the grassroots level. This stuff really should, and does, grow from the ground up.

[pollyannaish]

Republicans had damn well find another Reagan

There will never be another Reagan, just as there will never be another Washington.

In fact, I remember Reagan...and even he wasn't Reagan in the first half of his second term. ; ) All of our legends get much bigger with time, IMO, and we can't know what the effects will be as we are going through it. Hindsight makes them giants.

BTW, didn't Reagan do a blanket amnesty when he was in office?

[FBD]

"Whine, whine"???


After 5 years of Republican control of ALL three branches:
Tell me which federal agency has been cut?
What serious reforms of the IRS have been attempted?
What flat tax legislation has been proposed?

---

... and how about the increased funding of Planned Parenthood last year, in H.R.4818? (Which was signed into law by President Bush, and approved by a majority of Republican members of Congress.

"Provided further, That of the funds made available under this heading, $288,283,000 shall be for the program under title X of the Public Health Service Act to provide for voluntary family planning projects:..."

---

Instructions to locate this text yourself on-line: Go to: http://thomas.loc.gov

Click on: "Search Bills and Resolutions"

Select: 108th Congress (2003-2004)

Enter Search: H.R.4818

Click on: "Search"

Click on: Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)[H.R.4818.ENR]

H.R.4818 - Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate) - Federal HHS Appropriations Bill (FY 2005)

[ To see roll call votes in US House and US Senate, click on:
Link to the "Bill Summary & Status" file. ]

Scroll about 40% of the way down the page:

DIVISION F--DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES

Continue scrolling, click on:

TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Under:

Health Resources and Services Administration

Health Resources and Services

"Provided further, That of the funds made available under this heading, $288,283,000 shall be for the program under title X of the Public Health Service Act to provide for voluntary family planning projects:..."

---

"Always vote for principle,though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." ~ John Quincy Adams

[Reagan Man]

>>>>BTW, didn't Reagan do a blanket amnesty when he was in office?

The Reagan administration had the best of intentions when it pushed for passage of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. The amnesty was a one shot deal. At the core of the IRCA was strong enforcement of law that required employers to be prosecuted for hiring illegals. That never took place. In fact the entire piece of legislation has never been enforced. Its still existing law and the law should be enforced.

Granted, PresReagan made a mistake signing IRCA of 1986 into law. So be it. Today, the American people don't want amnesty for illegals. They do want the borders sealed, employers punished for hiring illegals and gov't welfare handouts halted.

I see no evidence that the American people want to give PresBush a green light to make the same mistake again, that was made in 1986.

[WilliamofCarmichael]

RE: didn't Reagan do a blanket amnesty when he was in office?

More or less, yes. There were restrictions but about three millions benefited, I believe.

We anti-ILLEGAL immigration folks have the hardest time getting a key point across. Perhaps it would cool the rhetoric if we could find a way.

To wit, the amnesty was suppose to fix the problem. It included provisions that made hiring people who did not have permission to work in the U.S. a "crime."

There was virtually no enforcement and consequently it did not fix the problem. The problem today is far worse.

I truly believe that President Reagan did not intend for that to happen.

I also believe that some in Washington finally get it -- prove that you would enforce any shiny new immigration reform then lets talk.

Fool us once, shame on you. . . .

[tkathy]

I fully admit, it just baffles me why anyone cares what desperate young women do.

[pollyannaish]

As always, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. ; )

That is exactly why I don't think we need more laws on this. We need to enforce the laws we have. That will take more than just an edict from the top.