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

To: nathanbedford
We conservatives have better decide what we are going to do with the our movement. My preliminary conclusion: the sooner we conservatives divorce George Bush, the better for America.

I think you are right, nathanbedford. I have been reading about how this is going to rip the Republican party in two, and I just haven't felt that. There is no need to withdraw support for the war, whatever the front or the battle happens to be. It is not "Bush's war", it's ours and we much fight it. But there is no need not to take the paths on other issues that we feel are the right ones. I think the Republican party can simply regroup on the issues with little to no reference to the President, as good a man as he may be.

21 posted on 06/02/2007 4:59:38 AM PDT by Bahbah (Regev, Goldwasser & Shalit, we are praying for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]


To: Bahbah
It is interesting that you raise the next pertinent question, what exactly and specifically do we conservatives do next? I've been drifting towards the kind of conclusion that you just articulated, that in making our own way we need not abandon our principles about the war but that does not necessarily imply that we must reflexively support George Bush on every issue. As a matter of fact I think we should cast about for issues over which we can in principle separate ourselves from him.

Certainly, immigration which has precipitated this agonizing reappraisal for the bulk of the conservative movement is one such issue. Spending is another.

Our problem is that we have gone from the dominant party to a position of pathetic weakness in an absurdly short period of time. We lost the House, we lost the Senate, and, in effect, we lost the Executive. We failed to get the Judiciary in time and remain one vote short there. There are so many rinos in the Senate and the House that we cannot realistically expect to muster effective resistance to the left. Apart from a very dubious tactic of filibuster, we have no levers at all. We have no place where we can get traction for the next election. That is why I've been saying that if we run the next election as business as usual we have no candidate who will be able to carry the day against the Democrats. In my view the race will be between Thompson and Romney and either one of those could conceivably win against the likes of Hillary Clinton but we need new ideas.

This is what I published three weeks ago, I see no reason to change my opinion now:

Posted by nathanbedford to Kuksool

On News/Activism 05/30/2007 2:23:36 PM EDT · 25 of 25

THE FIELD NARROWS... AND BROADENS BUT ULTIMATELY IT IS DOWN TO TWO.

This has occurred without any formal announcements with the doings this week have made it clear that the field was narrowed because John McCain has forfeited all hope of nomination by his ill advised press conference in support of an amnesty immigration bill which is anathema to the party base. So the field has narrowed by one as John McCain is dropped, although he has not yet acknowledged this reality and dropped out, as he now inevitably must.

The field broadens as it becomes increasingly clear that Fred Thompson will run. He has advanced his cause greatly by his timely and unqualified announcement of opposition to the amnesty Bill. Similarly, Newt Gingrich is showing a little more leg as he mopped the floor with Chris Dodd on Meet the Press. If Gingrich sees any daylight at all at the end of September, he will opt in.

Meanwhile, Mitt Romney is doing his best to deny the rest of the candidates that daylight as Rasmussen reports that he is moving to a double digit lead in New Hampshire and other reports show that he is ahead in Iowa. I predicted that Mitt Romney would be the nominee in August 2006 and I hold to that prediction providing Fred Thompson does not enter the race. Thomson is playing outside game while Romney runs conventionally. At some time that window will be closed and if Thompson procrastinates too long, it will be too late. But so far, Thompson has shown strength in Georgia and elsewhere, and must be considered the front runner, despite his undeclared status. He should have a care though, his weakness might be lack of coherent organization against a man who has demonstrated in every endeavor, demonstrated by earning tens of millions of dollars, that he is the ultimate mechanic. He will find a way to probe and test Thompson.

Rudy Giuliani's reaction to the amnesty Bill is too ambiguous for my taste and I believe he is otherwise disqualified by his views on abortion. The remaining candidates, especially Huckaby, are running in reality for vice president. This includes, alas, Duncan Hunter who is right on every issue there is.

So if we subtract McCain and Giuliani and the second-tier candidates, that leaves us with a fascinating field of three, two of whom were as yet undeclared: Thomson, Romney and Gingrich. I've often posted that Gingrich cannot be elected and will not be nominated, but the party desperately needs him. I believe the party is sleepwalking toward a disaster in 08 and we need to kick over the table and change the rules or we are going to find ourselves in the wilderness for a generation. Newt Gingrich is the kind of bombthrower a party in our situation needs ram-rodding the party or acting as eminence grise backstage, however he cannot be the nominee. But he can save the party.

I would love to see Gingrich in the debates but, if he chooses not to run, I hope someone enlists him in his campaign to somehow change the dynamic so that we have a chance in November 08. A Bush, Rove, Martinez Republican Party is foredoomed to a disaster. Gingrich alone, despite all his liabilities, is the only man known to us with the genius to change the rules of the game. The man, like Churchill, is a walking idea factory and, above all, the Republican Party and the conservative movement needs new ideas about Iraq, the war on terror, globalization, and the emerging threat from Russia.

So the real field is reduced to two: Romney and Thompson. Either one of these two could win the election but not if it is conducted as business as usual.


27 posted on 06/02/2007 5:31:22 AM PDT by nathanbedford ("I like to legislate. I feel I've done a lot of good." Sen. Robert Byrd)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]

To: Bahbah
> I think the Republican party can simply regroup on the issues with little to no reference to the President, as good a man as he may be.

George Bush is a good man, and he means well. When I look at the field of Democrats, with a very few exceptions, I don’t see good people, and I don’t believe they mean well.

In 2000 and 2004 we did not get to choose between George Bush and Ronald Reagan.

In 2000, I suppose the only realistic choices where McCain, Gore or Bush. At that time, I was a little unsure of McCain, but from what I know now, there is no circumstance that I could vote for him.

In 2004, it was Kerry or Bush. The thought of an out right traitor in charge of our military during wartime still horrifies me.

In 2008, for the first time, we really have a choice. We must not blow it.

37 posted on 06/02/2007 6:30:28 AM PDT by dinasour (Pajamahadeen, SnowFlake, and Eeevil Doer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | 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