Republicans Ready for a Fight

none | 09/27/05 | J. Dunn

[HitmanLV]

I'm reasonable and I think we also have to evalaute the politcal climate. The border is a no-brainer and there is broad consensus for securing the Mexican border, though I don't think there is a consensus for closing the border entirely.

Yet both dems and pubbies are incapable of taking any meaningful step in just policing the border better.

The spending issue is a big one also, but unlike others on FR, I don't hold the decision to finance the rebuilding of NO against anybody. It has to be done. I just hope they 1. make NO a safer city, maybe move it a bit, so this won't happen again, and 2. that there is serious oversight on the money - I just don't trust the NO officials.

[Rodney King]

2. Please detail the increased levels of spending in non-military areas (excluding the hurricane, which has not yet been determined).

Are you asking this rhetorically, or do you really not believe that non-military discretionary spending has gone through the roof?

[Miss Marple]

A good case can be made for the drug bill being more cost effective in the long run, since people who take meds often do not need surgery or long-term hospital care. By the way, THE DRUG BILL WAS IN HIS CAMPAIGN PROPOSALS. No surprise there.

A good case can be made for the African Aid program in that it keeps terrorists from taking advantage of small, aids-infected countries. Remember Somalia?

The Farm Bill comes up every two years like clockwork. If you think it would be possible to veto it and not have it rammed down his throat by Congress, you are totally nuts.

I see that you don't have any real numbers. You are simply regurgitating a list of bills that have been the source of gripes with the perpetually PO'd since Bush was elected.

And you fail to address my explanation of why your attitude is going to end up being destructive to the country if enough people follow your lead. You can gripe about us Bushbots and high-five your buddies all you want, but the fact is that Bush is the President, and we need to keep control of all three branches. The alternative is not acceptable.

[Miss Marple]

Tom DeLay will be on Brit Hume's show LIVE after the commercial.

[A Citizen Reporter]

Delay says that the best part is that this has united the party caucus.

[krunkygirl]

save

[nicollo]

CT, I've posed this question to a few of the historian types on this forum, and I'll send it your way, for I'm verily confused as to what was actually happening in the '32 campaign in relation to the launch of the New Deal.

My understanding is that FDR ran as a conservative Democrat, which meant his platform was fiscally conservative and socially liberal (never a good mix, of course). His was a cut-spending, low-deficits, anti-tariff, pro-beer, bankers-suck platform. Sure, they called for regulation of the finance industry, and employment programs, but there was none of the radicalism of the first hundred days.

The way I see it, those 100 days would not have been anything had FDR taken office in January instead of March. Indeed, the New Deal was an unfortunate consequence of the slow adoption of the 20th amendment. Hoover's lame duck end-of-term went on too long. To me, that was what launched the New Deal, and not FDR's election promises/plank. Had FDR taken office in January, he would not have had those awful do-nothing months of Dec-Jan-Feb on which to blame for his newfound, unpromised, unvoted radicalism.

Just fishing for thoughts here.

[Chena]

We need to be about fighting back instead of wringing our hands and BLAMING BUSH

Well done, Miss Marple!!! I'm getting sick and tired of the whining. Maybe some of those who have one foot off the ship ought to spend more of their time fighting the good fight though letters, e-mails, and phone calls. IYIYIYI!

[nicollo]

btw, my question was not meant to challenge your post, which stands as a magnificent CT rule: good times = incumbancy, bad times = change.

I wonder, though, how and why it was that FDR ran in '32 on minimal change while in '33 institing huge change. Your dynamic works for '33, but it mystifies me as to why he stayed so conservative in '32. That make sense?

[Chena]

Spoken like a loser. Sorry, but I enjoy rubbing victory in the face of my enemies, as it demoralizes them. No need to put a limit on it. We have as our enemy an opponent that cannot tell the truth about themselves, or risk further defeat. They cant even talk about who they really are. Their media cannot report reality. Their news people make $hit up. Their foot soldiers have to have fake organizational names. They cant do anything truthful and win. I call that victory. Now, I just returned from killing lots of wild animals in Alaska and eating them. Every bite was a win against some effed-up liberal. I loved every minute of it. Then I come back here, and FReepers are bitching again about some trivial crap. We won, people. Get over yourselves.

Ping me when you post another rant. I'll look forward to it. BTW, glad you came on up to Alaska! Sounds like you had a successful hunt. I'm just now getting over my "pity party" after an unsuccessful moose hunt. After a week of hunting, I decided to not give up and keep my vigil at a small moose pond where I knew a cow and calf (full size) had crossed. On the last morning of our hunt, I told hubby that I was going back to "my spot" and he then went off hunting elsewhere. Within 4 hours that cow & calf crossed the road, and an hour later I heard a bull calling. I called back, and we had a lovely conversation. LOL Long story short....the bull (a 60") had gotten to within 150' of me, yet still hidden in the trees, when a road hunter came along, passed my position, hopped out of their rig and SHOT MY BULL! They were sorry, they apologized, but that doesn't get the meat in the freezer.

[jmc813]

So, who is your preferred candidate for 2008. Speak right up and let us know who you think will do a better job.

At this point I'm leaning towards Mike Pence and Gov. Sanford of SC. I think President Bush has been a terrific Commander in Chief of our military, but either of those guys would greatly outshine him domestically.

[Miss Marple]

That's fine. However, you were not the person to whom I addressed that question.

Mike Pence is a wonderful man; he had a talk radio show here in this state before he ran for Congress. He is sincere in his conservatism, is a deeply religious man, and pledged to never run a "mean-spirited" campaign, which pledge he kept.

Pence's first try at Congress was a slash and burn campaign which fell short. He felt guilty about how he had campaigned, and when, a few years later, he got another chance torun, he completely changed the tone of his campaign.

Now, should Pence get elected as President, he will face working with the same type of Congress that President Bush has. Whether Pence could be more succesful in paring down the size and cost of government remains to be seen.

[joesbucks]

I read your reply. Let me explain my position on this. I'm a moderate, so there's much that Bush has done domestically that I can agree with, including the macro view of No Child Left Behind.

That being said, you state that you have to choose a side and support it. That is exactly what happened during impeachment with the dems. How many of us here were scratching our heads when feminist groups one after another still supported Clinton? Why? They had chosen a side and supported it. Look at the denial in the Catholic church when the accusations first started coming out about the abuses of the priests? Why? Many Catholics chose their side and supported it. And the abuses continued.

Conservatism was about principals, not sides. Standing by and on the courage of your convictions. That's where many conservatives have a rub with the so called "Bush Bots". To shut up and choose a side means not standing by and on the courage of your convictions. It's sort of like standly idly by while the 10 Commandments are shredded. Conservtives are never to give up or give in on thier convictions. Yet day after day, Bush Bots (I'm using the term without malice) encourage and cajoul those who find something the President has done that violates their convictions to shut up and let it go.

They are put in a Catch 22.

[dagoofyfoot]

Now, I just returned from killing lots of wild animals in Alaska and eating them. Every bite was a win against some effed-up liberal. And I loved every minute of it.


Ummmm.....yeah.


and you say the liberals are "effed up"


...okay.

[LS]

I don't see that at all. If you read our book, "Patriot's History," you'll see that FDR had virtually no plan for anything; that the few policies/programs he did endorse were a continuation of Hoover's already failed policies; that he was (due to a lack of any true convictions) constantly whipsawed by the deficit hawks and the big spenders, and as a result, he tried to do both by increasing taxes; and that the ultra-left part of his "brains trust," esp. Tugwell, seemed to win over quite quickly.

It is important to reiterate---I cannot find that FDR stood for ANYTHING. Like Clinton, he there was nothing inside the box, except the acquisition of power. He was a consummate liar. Had he had a GOP congress that was fiscally conservative, like Clinton he would have supported balanced budgets. As for the regulation and reform aspects, all of those laws were based on highly faulty premises (that stock market speculation had caused the depression; that bank securities "affiliates" had fueled the boom; that low wages were to blame, and so on). Since he completely misunderstood the problem he inexorably was going to get the answers wrong.

[Miss Marple]

You bring up an interesting point, and deserve a detailed response.

One of the lessons I learned from the Impeachment was exactly what you pointed out: sticking to one's side when the going got tough. Bill Clinton remained in office despite his obvious crimes and personal failings. The democrats continue to remain a force because of their unity. Had they turned on each other, Clinton would have left office (like Nixon) and they would have spent the next 20 years wandering in the wilderness like the Republicans did throughout the 70's and early 80's.

President Bush is not a criminal or a degenerate. He is a Republican who is not as conservative as some on this board, and he has accomplished some conservative goals, such as reducing taxes and increasing the strength of the military (two of the main reasons I voted for him). Furthermore, he is a man of good character who has conducted himself with dignity and honor while in office.

The attacks on him by the anti-Bush conservatives are vitriolic, and rival the attacks I saw on Clinton on this very forum when I joined in 1998. Those attacks are undeserved.

Do I expect people to agree with the President on every issue? No. In fact, I myself do not. I am very doubtful about the "No Child Left Behind" bill, but it has passed and we will have to wait and see if it is effective. Do I think that President Bush is a socialist who is determined to bankrupt the country? No. I think this was his way of getting accountability from public schools. I understand the thinking, but am dubious about whether it will work.

What good do these vitriolic attacks on the President accomplish? He isn't going to leave office for three more years. He is still going to set the agenda. The choice is to support him and the Republicans (while disagreeing on certain issues) OR refuse to support him on anything and go into non-stop attack mode. The people who are perpetually complaining about Bush and insulting everything he does on the grounds that he isn't doing what THEY want, are being counterproductive. As I said, if by their continued attacks they cause a weakened presidency they will end up with more democrats in Congress and perhaps in the White House. That is simply what happens when there is dissension in the ranks.

All over this board are articles about the disarray the democrats are in because of the takeover of the party by the far left. The moonbat wing has caused infighting and are weakening their party.

The extreme right is going to do the same thing to the Republicans if they continue down this path. And although I am a loyal Bush supporter, it is a tactic that goes well beyond President Bush. What if Guiliani wins the nomination? There will be a fair amount of the same type of critics which will start in attacking him because he doesn't line up with them on some issues. How about Condi Rice? The same thing would happen to her.

Let's suppose Mike Pence secures the nomination. I know quite a bit about him because he is from my home state. He is very conservative, but he shares a trait with George Bush: he is a Christian and he will not campaign in a cutthroat manner, and he would do his best to bring everyone into agreement. The people who are griping about Bush's "new tone" would start attacking Pence for being too nice to the democrats.

Does anyone wonder why we have trouble finding quality candidates? In addition to the democrats' politics of personal destruction, a fair number of people on the right can be counted on to heap scorn on our own people.

My personal opinion is that we are not involved in politics in the usual sense; we have a great danger from the left's increasing anti-Americanism and anger, and we need unity, not a bunch of finger-pointers and attack dogs who see nothing positive in our current party leader. When 2008 arrives, we will have a choice to make. Until then, we should support the Presient as much as we can, rather than using every opportunity to attack him.

[joesbucks]

First, thank you for a detailed and well thought out reply. There are areas that I can find disagreement with and I will detail those later. But again, I do appreciate the well thought out and well written reply.

We may ultimately agree to disagree or we may find concensus as we exchange our beliefs, views and general thoughts.

I hope you didn't find my use of the term "Bush Bot" as offensive, but many on this forum use that moniker with pride while others find it an insult. I see it the same as I see Reaganite. Not as offensive, but simply a one word fits all for those who support the President.

[nicollo]

I'm sorry to keep beating on that one... but I'm not satisfied with my understanding of it yet. So, thanks for your reply, especially this:

Since he completely misunderstood the problem he inexorably was going to get the answers wrong.

Btw, I'm ordering a copy of your book to put in the Social Studies office at my school. They've got all the wrong books... including Zinn's.

[joesbucks]

One of the lessons I learned from the Impeachment was exactly what you pointed out: sticking to one's side when the going got tough. Bill Clinton remained in office despite his obvious crimes and personal failings. The democrats continue to remain a force because of their unity.

Again, go back to that time on this forum. It howled with "how can they stand behind him, when clearly he's violated eveything they stand for". Of course, we were talking about the feminists. Why couldn't we understand their unity then, when we are in fact calling for it now.

President Bush is not a criminal or a degenerate.

I would generally agree with that.

He is a Republican who is not as conservative as some on this board, and he has accomplished some conservative goals,

His public marketing during 2000 was compasionante conservatism. His public marketing during 2004 (when you get right down to it) was you're safer with me in office and it wouldn't be right to change since we're in the middle of the war on terror. But to the evangelicals, the message was he would hear them and act on their agenda. That hasn't happened to a large degree. Oh, there have been some wins, but there have also been some setbacks. Most notably, CFR. But in general, the evangelicals have been very patient, but I'm starting to see cracks. I think in the long run John Roberts will disappoint them. I don't think Roe v Wade will be turned back any time soon. I really haven't seen any real work to turn back the ACLU and their trespassing on all things Godly. The administration was largely silent during Judge Moore's 10 commandments issue. After fighting a affirmative aciton case in I believe Michigan, when it was lost the President praised the decision he just lost. And while there was some lip service on gay marriage, civil unions was offered as a compromise which is the same thing, just a different word.

In addition, the border issue continues to fester.

Do I think that President Bush is a socialist who is determined to bankrupt the country?

Neither do I. But the other evening, I wondered aloud whether this was a Reagan like speech or a LBJ like speech. Most everyone agreed, it sounded more closely to LBJ. And on a fiscal level, there have been many spending bills filled with pork that would have this forum howling if it would have been Clinton and a democratic congress.

All over this board are articles about the disarray the democrats are in because of the takeover of the party by the far left. The moonbat wing has caused infighting and are weakening their party. The extreme right is going to do the same thing to the Republicans if they continue down this path.

Possibly. And yes, both ideologies have moonbat wings. But I still go back to my earlier post and the thing about standing on and never giving up the courage of your convictions. Are the more conservative than I or more conservative than you to compromise on their convictions to avoid infighting. Many of their convictions lie in religion and the belief the founding fathers were divinely guided in the founding documents and the formation of this country. Frankly, instead of a Constitution, they should have simply used the Bible. It's all there in black and white (some editions have red in certain places. But since their convictions lie in faith and religion, you're asking them to basically blaspheme.

I read Chuck Colson's articles on this forum, and I think he's a little too strong and over the top. But he is steady in the presentation of his beliefs and convictions. A bit out there in my view, but consistent. During Clinton, how many times did Rush advise to stand on and by the courage of your convictions? Honestly, how often do you hear that now. Not very often. How often during Clinton did he encourage compromise, and how often do you hear it now? Almost constantly.

I've heard Rush chastize the President on an issue, yet when it went the Presidents way he praises the result. Maybe that's why talk radio ratings have been drooping recently. People are scratching their heads wondering what's going on in talk radio. Suddenly convictions mean nothing. Support of the CIC is.

What good do these vitriolic attacks on the President accomplish?

They can accomplish plenty. If not snuffed out, they can influence and cause a course to change. But the Presidents machine (and he has one) can count on a loyal legion to dampen the embers of dissent.

You mentioned Guiliani. I believe the social conservatives will fall apart. The other large possibility is McCain will get the nomination. If it becomes a race between the two in the primary, I'm not sure what would happen. In 2000 a large undercurrent was to install GWB in order to instill a little payback for Clinton defeating GHWB. That was a major factor in the party machine derailing McCain. I haven't seen a 2008 contender yet (can you believe we are already talking about that) that is the anti-McCain. Guiliani vs McCain. Pretty much two peas in a pod. McCain is probably a little more pro military.

I agree that sniping for the sake of sniping is not productive. But sometimes a little complaining can instill change. But if it keeps getting snuffed out, it will always be seen as sniping.

[Miss Marple]

I think you misunderstand my position. First of all, what I learned from the democrats is that there is a reward for sticking together. Yes, they stuck with an unworthy person...but it worked. The feminists were no surprise to me, because I realized their main motivation was keeping someone close to their ideals (Hillary) in office, and for them, if a few blue collar women had to be sacrificed...too bad.

On our side, I am not asking for people to sacrifice principles. For example, if people adamantly believe in the pro-choice position, I am not asking that they support all of the President's pro-life positions; ditto for stem cells. Orrin Hatch is a good example of someone who disagrees on stem cells but supports the President on other issues.

Here is the problem, as I see it. You and I are having a civil conversation about the general trends in politics, whether or not the evangelicals will get discouraged (I personally think not) and whether some of the spending has gone overboard.

No problem, as far as I can see.

However, if you were to say something like this: "Well, how do you Bush-bots feel about your hero spending money like a drunken sailor? He's no better than his daddy, who was a wimp just like he is," then perhaps we wouldn't be having such a nice talk.

It isn't the disagreement. It's the attitude that whatever pet cause someone has is THE defining issue and that anyone who supports the President is a simpleton or a socialist. This is not helping to advance conservative ideas, because I can guarantee you that statements like that do NOT make me re-examine my position, but rather make me dig in my heels. I am certain that attacks on Bush-critics in that vein results in the same feeling.

My position is that disagreement if conducted in a civil manner is not a problem. Angry name-calling and mockery is a BIG problem with me.

I hope I have explained my position more clearly. Thank you for taking the time to post your thoughts.