Posted on 10/04/2007 1:21:58 PM PDT by sitetest
Sorry, but I’ve been down the road of “the Democrat will not be worse than the Republican because of a [perhaps mythical] Republican opposition.” If such an opposition doesn’t get elected, the Republic is in far deeper doo that Rudy could ever put it in.
Actually, I think that one lesson of the Clinton years is that Republicans CAN stand up to liberal Democrats and CAN leverage the excesses of liberal Democrats to the advantage of the party, of conservatism, and of the nation.
The election of 1994 would never have turned out as it did without the election of 1992 and the overreaching of the Clinton administration.
On the other hand, the Bush II presidency teaches us that the Republican Party finds it exceedingly difficult, sometimes impossible, to stand up to the liberal excesses of a Republican president.
No Child Left Behind
Medicare Part D
sitetest
One example out of 40 years of trying isn’t worth the chance. Not by a long shot. I would gladly trade welfare reform in 1996 for a Republican Congress in 1965 so we didn’t GET welfare in the first place. You’re fighting a retreat. Let’s fight an advance.
“Not by a long shot. I would gladly trade welfare reform in 1996 for a Republican Congress in 1965 so we didn’t GET welfare in the first place.”
If Mr. Giuliani is elected, we may not see a Republican Congress again in our lifetimes. Certainly, it will be near the end of my own lifetime before the Republicans might again hold a congressional majority.
The Republicans in Congress will be drawn increasingly to leftist ways. We will all be told that the “Giuliani way” is the way for Republicans to win elections.
All the folks who have been trying to throw social conservatives out of the party will believe in their own vindication, and we social conservatives will be told to shut up and take it or hit the road. Heck, there are already minions of Satan who say that around here on FR every day.
Becoming the second party of the Left won't lead to consistent electoral success - but that will be the new orthodoxy. Republicans will abandon pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, pro-gun rights, low taxes, personal liberty. And folks who traditionally have voted Republican for the last nearly three decades will abandon the Republicans.
And Republicans will scratch their heads and say, “What’s wrong here? We’re adopting the Giuliani Way, and we’re STILL losing elections! We’re becoming more and more of a minority, even as we back abortion on demand, homo marriage, and gun confiscation!”
I figure this’ll go on for all of the eight evil years of Mr. Giuliani’s presidency, and likely another eight or twelve after that. If we’re lucky, by about 2028, someone will remember what happened the last time when the Republicans chucked the whole Democrat-lite thing and ran as a real conservative: Ronald Reagan. And it'll take years beyond that before the Republicans might see a confessional majority after that.
But by then, another 25 - 35 million children will have been murdered, and Mr. Giuliani’s legacy will have evil effects for easily a century or more.
“Let’s fight an advance.”
Electing Mr. Giuliani is neither fighting a retreat or fighting an advance. It’s destroying one’s fighting capacity.
If your house is on fire, don’t burn down the fire station.
sitetest
And it is simply shrill hysterics to say "we won't see a Republican Congress in our lifetime with Rudy." HUH??? It's going to be less of a chance if the Clinton machine gets back in power, and you can take that one to the bank---if any are still left.
“Lessee, because there is a liberal Republican, you have a WORST chance of getting a conservative?”
Translate into English, please.
“Bush actually was the FIRST in half a century to expand his party’s seats in an off year election.”
That’s true. Thank you for making my argument. ;-)
If Mr. Giuliani is elected president, I expect that it’s more likely that Republicans will LOSE seats in Congress, not gain them. All the while becoming ever more liberal.
“And it is simply shrill hysterics to say ‘we won’t see a Republican Congress in our lifetime with Rudy.’ HUH??? It’s going to be less of a chance if the Clinton machine gets back in power, and you can take that one to the bank-—if any are still left.”
I don’t know. The first Clinton presidency managed to produce a Republican Congress for the first time in 40 years.
Thus, going by recent history, it seems that:
- a Clinton presidency is more likely to produce Republican majorities in Congress (as actually happened in 1994);
- a [liberal] Republican presidency is more likely to increase Democrat congressional seats (as has often occurred in the past 40 years, and as happened in 2006, and, as you noted, with 2002 being an exception to the rule).
In that actual conservatives will increasingly abandon an increasingly liberal Republican Party once Mr. Giuliani is elected, it could be a very, very long time before we see a Republican Congress again. The moderate Republicanism of President Eisenhower took nearly 30 years to purge through the election of Mr. Reagan, and years more before that produced a Republican Congress. The liberalism of Mr. Giuliani could take even longer.
sitetest
Absolutely no proof of this, or recent evidence to that extent.
The whole point about Clinton "electing" Republicans was that it was the first time in nearly a half-century that it had happened. No thank you, I'll go with history over fluctuations.
The big news on Fox TV this am is that Hill’s fund raising, and dems’ in general has outstripped republicans. Also that Obama can probably kiss the VP slot goodbye, since he and Hill are at daggers drawn. Same goes for Mitt and Rudy, either or. (Breathless reporting of Pamela Anderson’s latest marriage in Vegas.) Basic drivel.
Actually, the 2006 election represents “recent evidence” as does the 1994 election. You, yourself labeled the 2002 election as an exception.
Although Republicans were unable to translate previous Democrat presidencies into outright control of Congress, one can see, if one looks at the record, that Republicans often increased their numbers during Democrat administrations.
And, the fact is that under the Clinton presidency, Congressional Republicans were ascendent and gained a comfortable majority. Under the Bush presidency, Republican congressional majorities were lost.
In that Mr. Giuliani is hardly a source of coattails for conservative candidates, one can reasonably expect that it will be even worse for congressional Republicans under Mr. Guiliani than it has been under Mr. Bush.
sitetest
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.