Posted on 04/18/2006 4:39:46 PM PDT by RWR8189
The only way Bush can deal "a lethal blow" to the conservative movement is if conservatives choose to sit on their backsides and bitch rather than go to the polls in November!
And, I submit, if that's what happens, it won't be Bush's fault -- it will be our own. We'll have destroyed the movement that Barry Goldwater began all by ourselves.
And that is exactly what we will do from this point onward whenever the GOP offers up a RINO or faux conservative instead of one who actually believes in conservatism and intends to work at actually advancing a conservative agenda. By continuing to support RINOs and faux conservatives by placing party loyalty over principle, we simply validate the poor choice of a candidate. By refusing to vote for them, we will force them to actually start nominating the real thing instead of empty suits.
Do as you wish. But, personally, I'm prepared to go to the mat for any conservative candidate in the GOP primary. Then, I will give my full support to whoever wins the GOP nomination -- because the alternative is simply too awful to contemplate.
I cannot abide turning this country -- and my grandchildren's future -- over to the tender mercies of the left again.
The similarities are superficial. There are important differences. One could probably make the same analogies to the budgets under Reagan. However, if you want to gripe (and lots of us are getting really tired of non-stop griping) about budget deficits, you should also give credit where credit is due when they cut programs and pare the budget. That is a thankless task that Dems and press scream bloody murder about. Don't expect pols to do what you want, if you bitch no matter what.
You might be interested in the New York Times article, "Out of Spotlight, Bush Overhauls U.S. Regulations", archived at http://www.onwardoregon.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=ffIOIRMEG&b=122912&ct=206599
...Bush may be a big spender, but in other area's he's acting like a small-government conservative. Praise where praise is due!
Yes, what many today call conservative has changed greatly in recent years (Reagan excepted). Ike had a Democratic congress thru most of his term but the budgets were balanced and the ONLY big federal expenditure ever was the national highway bill - which was very necessary. But in those days even most Democrats were more restrained in spending than they are today - and both parties at least went thru the civilities of bipartisanship.
"And that is exactly what we will do from this point onward whenever the GOP offers up a RINO or faux conservative instead of one who actually believes in conservatism and intends to work at actually advancing a conservative agenda."
Not me. I won't vote for a RINO, but I will vote. And it will be for a candidate who represents to the GOP that they haven't gone far enough in the right direction. If that means an LP or Constitution Party candidate, even a 'wasted' vote on a third-party candidate is better than a wasted vote on a RINO that will stab the conservatives in the back like Chaffee, Specter, Lugar, Hatch...ah, hell, I can hardly name a Senator that ain't gonna stab conservatives in the back. Sessions, maybe.
Someone doesn't know what a conservative is, but that someone isn't us. One of the first principles is...absolute principles, not moral relativism. Statements like yours make us weep for the Republic.
I disagree. I believe that Eisenhower, rethought (read Jeffrey Hart's book about National Review), is more conservative. But, if you exclude him, there's only been one conservative in our lifetimes. The rest are statists, including W.
But I backed it up. There can't be absolute conservative principles when an issue doesn't even exist in the past. How can there be?
And I offered examples. Here are some more.
What was the conservative position on funding unmanned vs manned exploration of Mars in preparation for American colonization -- in 1850? Don't play games with whether or not you approve NASA. Answer the very specific question on the very specific funding quote. Which option gets funded?
What was the conservative position on whether or not to support the Cuban exile attempt to overthrow the Communist government in Cuba in the Bay of Pigs invasion -- in 1850?
In the year 2200, what will be the conservative position on whether or not to fund nationwide installation of Star Trek style transporter booths as a function of the FAA's oversight of transport safety -- that incidentally will eliminate the existence of passenger airlines, but which a number of religious figures claim will not successfully transport the soul?
In the year 2200, with all the aforementioned issues in play, what will be the conservative position on whether or not to forbid such technology in the US given that same claim from religious figures?
Come now, where is the perpetual absolutism of conservative principle on these issues?
"Well, my personal history goes back to FDR. And I can assure you that George W. Bush is clearly the 2nd most conservative President in my lifetime. And I suppose Harry S Truman would have to be a distant 3rd."
And you don't see all this as a problem? Something to be rectified by change?
If your measure of conservatism is relative to those in the post FDR era, essentially a new republic in America's history, I suggest you have a low standard.
Conservative is a relative term. But I hope that most of us can agree that in our context, it means bringing about the federal arrangement that existed PRIOR to FDR. Rollbacks, in other words. And to accomplish that requires candidates who are actually conservative, and not simply the most "conservative in my lifetime."
75+ years has been a good run for the FDR republic. Time for something new.
"If it was just three more years of Bush, I'd hold my nose and accept it. But he is in a position to deliver lasting damage to the conservative movement, if not a leathal blow. On domestic issues, he has sold out virtually every conservative principle."
This is the real problem. It is one thing that Bush doesn't advocate and carry out conservative policy. But he is where he is, spending conservative "political capital" due to the work of many grassroots activists in years past, and is squandering a legacy that was passed to him.
What does Bush leave for the next GOP presidential candidate? Or for congressment, senators and governors for that matter? He has defined Republican government downward, and has discredited "conservatism" by implementing big government programs in its name.
This makes it kinda hard to figure Bush out.
I've felt that in a gut way for a while, but hoped I was wrong. The painful similarities between Rumsfeld and McNamara have something to do with it.
Bush is one third or one half a conservative -- depending how you break it down. He's not a small government, low spending conservative, and he also doesn't look much like a traditional conservative on foreign policy, but in some real ways he is social/religious conservative. To that you could add his low-tax pro-growth, pro-business outlook, which probably qualifies as more conservative than liberal, though both budget cutters and free marketeers would disagree.
But across the board, up and down the line conservatives are a smaller a part of the population than many people think. It's also not clear just what the "real thing" would be. Politicians come up with a mix: they stand firm on the things they think are important, and avoid conflicts on other, less important matters. Bush's mix hasn't been as appealing as, say Ronald Reagan's, because he let go of some important concerns. For example, it wouldn't have hurt President Bush or the country any, if he used his veto power once in a while, or to stand up for our immigration laws, but on right to life issues, he's been quite solid.
The Bush years give the lie to one common idea about our politics: that elections pit the big government blue states against the small government red states. There's certainly some truth in that way of thinking: the blue states are larger, more urban, and more crowded, so they support all the big government programs that urban areas want. They're also the center of secular liberalism today. And the red states are smaller and more rural. They don't go in for the liberalism of the blue states.
But the blue states are more divided into competing and conflicting groups. It's hard to reach a consensus on things there, and they're often already financially overextended. By contrast, there's more community in the red states, more agreement about things, and more religiously-inspired social concern. So you'll find some red state leaders who aren't as opposed to big government as, say Robert Taft or Barry Goldwater was. They don't have any use for the ideological liberalism of the Democrat strongholds, but they accept large-scale government programs.
Conflicts between secular and religious, liberal and conservative are sharply defined on the national scene, but disputes over this or that program are a lot blurrier in local politics, so you do find politicians who are very strongly religious and and socially conservative, without following the Goldwater line on big government.
And you don't see a historical trend running in our favor?
I'm not cheering the slow rate of progress. But I'm failing to see any reason for self-flaggelation, either.
"He's 0/3 of a real Conservative."
Amen!
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.