Posted on 12/05/2005 9:43:02 AM PST by strategofr
Well, considering that spending keeps going up and up, then there are only two possibilities: they are cowards or they are liberals.
The conservative movement of Goldwater and Reagan is dead. Time for a new generation of leaders to infuse the GOP with vision and courage.
You're joking, right?
Bravo to Tony Snow for this article. He couldn't of expressed my feeling any better BUMP!
Bump for cowards.
"I know a lot of republicans and not one single one is a "coward". Why doesn't Tony just shut up?"
You obviously do not know many congresscritters or local RINO's. Spine is not an organ they are born with.
Think "Wormtougue" from the Ring trilogy.
Ping.
I find it more than a bit ironic that Snow rightly criticizes the GOP for the massive expansion of the Federal government that has occurred in recent years . . . and in the course of his article refers to the U.S. president who was probably more responsible for the rise of the Federal government as an uncontrollable institution than anyone save FDR.
Look at many members of congress and most of the Senate.
TKathy, meet Licoln The Commie Chafee.
Now, you can retract your post.
Indiana Congressman Mike Pence
Bad choice of word.........how 'bout GUTLESS, SPINELESS,
"There are just people who have decided to make politics a career."
Amen! Oh, for the days when people took up the mantle of servant leadership, left their farms for 4-6 years, then WENT BACK HOME and let some new blood in. Nobody ought to be more than a 2-term anything, IMHO.
"I hope I'm dead before I see the end result. Clearly no one in Washington has any intention of fiscal conservatism anymore. When George Bush goes on TV and pledges $200 billion to New Orleans and then tells everyone that the reason those people are poor is because of racism, conservatism in Washington is clearly dead."
I'd like to think that a President doesn't make a party, but just has the wheel for a while. There's more to Republicans than him.
Unfortunately, if his compassionate conservatism or communitarianism didn't tip off primary voters in 2000, who can you blame? He never said he was a solid conservative.
And please, God, do something about McCain before 2008.
Tony says it right. I get those questionaires in the mail asking what I think is important to the government and at the end they ask for money. I'm glad it comes with a postage free return envelope because I don't fill out the survey and I tell them exactly why I will not donate to a party who has left its' base and looks more and more like the democratic party every day.
Parties very seldom fold. They are usually successful in rolling out new policies as time progresses to meet the changing concerns of voters and supporters of the day. Correcting the course as needed.
A party will only fold when it's either out of step with most of it's membership, or when it too closely mirrors the opposition party and its base ("extremes") are not represented adequately. And FWIW, the Republicans aren't the party of Pulosi, Dean and Reid. There's enough on the other side for rank and file to stick around to oppose... probably. It happened last year, to keep out John Kerry. We have to see if either Party's leadership really starts to step out of synch with the base, more than grassroots are complaining about today.
Jeff Jacoby made a good point in his article on Townhall today, about how the absolute abortion stances of either party can't be legislated while Roe v. Wade stands, but given that Republicans are pushing for middle ground measures like parental consent and banning unpopular partial birth abortion, the Dems have been hurt more electorally in the past few decades. But what happens if Roe v. Wade is overturned?? Then many voters go back to the Democrats. There is a natural tendancy towards different types of political outlooks, and regarless of what you call the parties, these outlooks need to be represented. For Republicans, fortunately, the Dems haven't been serving their natural base good enough, and that moves some voters across the line on important issues.
My hope is, if things like Roe V. Wade, the marriage question, and some other cultural questions get settled, the two political parties loose some of these contradictions and offer more clear cut ideological choices.
The Democrats, historically, have been communitarian. Used to be right wing communitarianism for natives, and ethnic communitarianism for immigrants, but now is mostly let wing communitarianism. But it's the same root impulse. They became too egalitarian to retain their national majority.
The early federalists, then the Whigs, and then the GOP have been the party of revolution, and backed the individual in making his own way, and bearing the burden of his own mistakes. Constitutional guarantees such as free speech and the right to bare arms, and the prohibition against owning other people *are* radical things, given what history has shown us. These constitutional amendments are not moderate or centrist. The sad part is that the trajectory has been going down, and too many compromises with the Left have been made over the years.
To be fair, Lincoln died before the "French Revolution" stage of American politics.
Democrats have been riding the Expand Government pony ever since, too.
Tell me about it! I'm from Ohio.
(DeWine, Taft, and Voinovich.)
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.