Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

It is encouraging to see that many of the conservative columnists will not be browbeaten by the current Republican administration any longer.

More and more, it looks like Bush43 is on his own. If he's counting on Ed Gillespie and his wife to get his message out for his agenda, there's not much hope for it.

One thing I take exception with is Alexander stating it's better to be the principled minority than the current party in power. Since conservatism *can* win elections, it's better to be the principled majority. Not the "pragmatic" or "incremental" majority that too many RINOs seem to want.

1 posted on 10/14/2005 2:44:10 PM PDT by Frank T
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: Frank T

With all the RINOS in the Senate I am hardly inclined to think conservatives have "a majority in both houses."


2 posted on 10/14/2005 2:46:35 PM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Frank T
More and more, it looks like Bush43 is on his own.

Yeah, only 80% of Republicans still support him. He's on the ropes.

3 posted on 10/14/2005 2:48:22 PM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Frank T

A well written piece. Here's hoping somebody on The Hill is listening.


5 posted on 10/14/2005 2:50:14 PM PDT by TChris ("The central issue is America's credibility and will to prevail" - Goh Chok Tong)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Frank T

Mistaking conservatism for fealty to (R) might be a costly mistake, IMHO. Sort of like mistaking brains for a bull market.


8 posted on 10/14/2005 3:02:52 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry (Esse Quam Videre)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Frank T

I just heard a Forrester commercial [GOP Senate NJ candidate] say he was pro-choice and always was pro-choice. The GOP as a pro-life party is in Moynihan's words 'boob bait for the bubbas'.


13 posted on 10/14/2005 3:08:39 PM PDT by ex-snook (Vote gridlock for the most conservative government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Frank T

George Bush wasn't elected by conservatives to advance the Right's agenda. He was elected by globalists to disarm it. I'm convinced of it.


15 posted on 10/14/2005 3:16:14 PM PDT by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Frank T

Part of what has happened is that the Dem'crat "opposition" does not provide a true constrast to the political dialogue any more, because on most questions that come up, there is both a shared range of views, and areas between that have a shifting point of agreement. What is evolving is a Republican "party" that is really becoming two parties, and the Dem'crats are becoming irrelevant.

Something like this has happened in American history before, when the Whigs simply petered out, and the remnants formed the nucleus of the Republican party. In the dominance that the Republicans held from about the time of the Civil War until shortly before the Great War, a similar fissure occurred, which gave rise to the Progressive Republicans, the "RINO's" or their day. Finally, the Progressives severed their ties with the Republicans altogether, with the rise of the Roosevelt dynasty, first Uncle Teddy, then FDR, and cast their lot with the Dem'crats, once the party of rebellion and suppression, but by the 1930's, well on the way to becoming the socialist party they are today. By default, the remaining Republicans became the "conservative" party, and pretty much lived in the wilderness for some five or six decades, before they were were revived by a true conservative visionary, Ronald Reagan. It took over a decade to move the party from seemingly minority status to a real majority, then almost immediately, as if they could not stand prosperity, the edge was lost. The death of the Soviet Union, from its own internal hemorrhages, also spelled the end of most of the ideology that spawned it in the first place, except on the campuses of US universities. Slowly, the Republican majority was reborn, only to undergo the same schism referred to above, in which there is the branch of the believers, and the branch of the accommodationists.

But there really is nobody to accommodate any more. The Dem'crats have grown meaningless, lacking the sense or depth of experience to govern, or to negotiate, or even engage in civil conversation. They have decided to make overtures to like-minded foreigners, but they have become the awkward new kids on the block. Attempts to appease those factions in the world that are openly hostile to the US has left them looking stupid at best and treasonous at worst. Their one last remaining tactic is to be obstructionists, something they could not successfully accomplish without the assistance of the branch of the Republicans who have chosen to be accommodationists.


17 posted on 10/14/2005 3:17:34 PM PDT by alloysteel ("Master of the painfully obvious.....")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Frank T
Since conservatism *can* win elections, it's better to be the principled majority. Not the "pragmatic" or "incremental" majority that too many RINOs seem to want.

Ok... Explain to me why we have the RINOS in the Senate that we do. Why didn't 'you' elect conservatives? What happened? Do we blame you?

20 posted on 10/14/2005 3:23:07 PM PDT by AmericaUnited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Frank T
More and more, it looks like Bush43 is on his own.

Nah, Bush isn't on his own.

We're still with him, we just disagree on some issues. (Like this SC pick...) We're like Irish brothers - we fight among ourselves, but watch out if you take one of us on -- ' cause we're united against the common foe. Liberals would be mistaken if they think there's comfort in our fight...

21 posted on 10/14/2005 3:24:15 PM PDT by GOPJ (The enemy is never tired, never sated, never content with yesterday's brutality. -- President Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Frank T
"What went wrong?"

The answer can be summed up in one word... BALLS or more properly the lack of them.

22 posted on 10/14/2005 3:24:52 PM PDT by AmericaUnited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Frank T
Years ago, I happened to be seated at a dinner table with Bob Ney, then and still a Congressman from eastern Ohio. At the time, we had the House and the Senate, but Clinton was still President. He told me that, even if we control the House and the Senate and the Presidency, and even if we can control it long enough to realign the Supreme Court, we will NEVER control Washington, D.C.

He did not mean the city government, by the way; he meant the culture and the climate.

I also don't know if by "we" he meant Republicans or if he meant conservatives, but either way, he was and is right.

29 posted on 10/14/2005 3:30:10 PM PDT by GoBucks2002
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Frank T
... More and more, it looks like Bush43 is on his own. I

Just the way the liberal scumbags and our enemies want it. Like you.

31 posted on 10/14/2005 3:31:33 PM PDT by 68 grunt (3/1 India, 3rd, 68-69, 0311)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Frank T
What on earth has happened to Republicans in Washington? Twenty years ago, we conservatives could only dream of an opportunity like the one our elected representatives are now squandering: a Republican President with majorities in both houses of Congress, and two chances to nominate constitutionalists to the Supreme Court.

Many youngsters don't know those days.

60 posted on 10/14/2005 5:34:34 PM PDT by wardaddy (Save a cow......eat a vegetarian.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson