Safe House, Unsafe Principles: Will conservatives benefit from safe Republican control?

Opinion Journal ^ | 12/22/03 | John Fund

[Pokey78]

DALLAS--Gerrymandering is one of the most important factors influencing elections today. And now it appears that the practice of drawing the often bizarrely shaped districts is about to cement Republican control of the House for at least the rest of this decade.

[John R. (Bob) Locke]

For those who voted for the Contract With America to hand control of Congress to Republicans, the more important question is simply, will the GOP leadership remember it's limited government principles if it doesn't have to worry about losing control of the House? Unfortunately, the answer may already be in. This year Republicans in Congress have passed the largest expansion in federal entitlements in four decades and have presided over record increases in domestic spending. But for Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana, "It's up in the air." Mr. Pence led the revolt among conservative House Republicans against the prescription drug bill this month and says now: "Sometimes I think my colleagues want to stand up for what's right, and sometimes I think the pressures for higher spending are too great."

There's the whole thing in one paragraph.

[longtermmemmory]

The reason it has drawn so little attention is that the case law has already been settled on the subject. The Republicans lost the cases when they objected.

Democrats also think that they will just redraw them back to the way they were when they favored democrats.

Does this help conservatives? Yes, because it makes it safer to have open discusions in a conservative context. It no longer becomes wheter to privatize social security but how to do it. Topics which were impossible to raise in an environment with a viable democrat party will become agenda subjects in an environment with a marginalized wakado democrat party.

[Blake#1]

My Conservative Republicanism goes back to the early 60's here in California. I believe that I have earned the right to complain. My complaint is about the Republican voters that don't like the GW Bush style Republicanism. A voter like you Mr. Locke. Stop complaining about GW Bush's governing style. It is the wave of the future. It is a style that takes Capitalism and joins it to government. It is a program that lets the private entreprenuer prosper through government action. It is here, so get used to it.

[Galactic Overlord-In-Chief]

Does this help conservatives? Yes, because it makes it safer to have open discusions in a conservative context. It no longer becomes wheter to privatize social security but how to do it. Topics which were impossible to raise in an environment with a viable democrat party will become agenda subjects in an environment with a marginalized wakado democrat party.

True. We didn't have a prayer with this stuff when Tip O' Neill was running the place.

The Dems can't make hay out of the redistricting plans in court because they did the same thing in Maryland and Georgia. If Pennsylvania's map is unconstutional, you can argue the same for the above.

[John R. (Bob) Locke]

I believe that I have earned the right to complain.

I spent almost 13 years wearing a uniform for this country. I figure I've got at least as much "right" as you.

My complaint is about the Republican voters that don't like the GW Bush style Republicanism.

I'm not a Republican voter. I didn't vote for Bush in '00, and I won't in '04 either. That's not to say that I never vote for Republican candidates, because I certainly do and have. But simply being a Republican won't automatically get anyone my vote. I know better.

Stop complaining about GW Bush's governing style. It is the wave of the future. It is a style that takes Capitalism and joins it to government. It is a program that lets the private entreprenuer prosper through government action. It is here, so get used to it.

If more people start thinking as you think, then we may as well throw in the towel because it'll be over. That last commentary of yours is flat out scary to read, especially coming from someone who should have enough experience to know better.

[GeronL]

DALLAS--Gerrymandering is one of the most important factors influencing elections today. And now it appears that the practice of drawing the often bizarrely shaped districts is about to cement Republican control of the House for at least the rest of this decade.

Democrats were doing it for decades, nobody said it was bad, so we Texans assumed it was ok.

[GeronL]

It is a style that takes Capitalism and joins it to government. It is a program that lets the private entreprenuer prosper through government action. It is here, so get used to it

That sounds like public-private partnerships... also known as fascism

[GeronL]

conservatism will by far outlive Republicanism

[GladesGuru]

I suggest that you are confusing capitalism and private entreprenuers with oligarchies feasting in the public trough.

Just beause something is, does not mean it is either right or even within the bounds of the Constitution.

[AwesomePossum]

The democrats have been doing this stuff for decades.....and anyone who thinks that DeLay's counterparts on the democrat side over those decades were not involved in the planning.....well they just don't know much about the subject.

Also, Bush, when he goes after the sacred cows of the democrats, after 2004, will be able to say,"I did not start off cutting and slashing, but tried to work with the democrats and put more money into their sacred cow programs, but now we know it just doesn't work to keep throwing money down these rat holes, so it's time for some changes." And, he will be standing on firm footing as he says it.

[BlackbirdSST]

It is a style that takes Capitalism and joins it to government. It is a program that lets the private entreprenuer prosper through government action. It is here, so get used to it.

Love that Big Gubermint Socialism do ya? The fight ain't over yet slick. Blackbird.

[John R. (Bob) Locke]

Also, Bush, when he goes after the sacred cows of the democrats, after 2004, will be able to say,"I did not start off cutting and slashing, but tried to work with the democrats and put more money into their sacred cow programs, but now we know it just doesn't work to keep throwing money down these rat holes, so it's time for some changes." And, he will be standing on firm footing as he says it.

I'd say there's plenty of history already in place for him to make such a statement.

He's out-pandering the panderers, and he's being praised by his supporters for his slick political maneuvering.

God help us.

[AwesomePossum]

With all due respect to someone who carries such a noble pen(post)name, I must defer.....President Bush was handed an economy in decline, a military out of money and with low moral, a drug enforcement agency gutted, almost every single agency and cabinet missing tens of millions, some hundreds of millions, some billions of dollars, our nations' secure labs in disarray, our secrets and security comprimised, nearly every aspect of the government politicized, thousands of Clinton appointees with knives sharpened and ready to do as much damage to the new administration as possible, an outgoing president refusing to cooperate fully with the transition of the new executive, claiming that Bush may not have really won the 2000 election, and it goes on and on......then after only a few months in office we are attacked(911) and are in a war to defeat our enemies (and rightly so), and anyone who has studied our history knows that during a major war(s), our country runs a deficit (it has been this way since our first war of independance.)

Now, all the while, the democrats and the big media, hollywood and the socialists in America are trying to convince as many people as possible that we are going to hell in a handbasket.

Personally, I think that under the circumstances, Bush is doing a very good job. Is he perfect? No, none of us are....but, he's got my vote over any democrat, any socialist, and any weak knee naysayer who may run against him.

[Blake#1]

No one is as blind as someone (you) who will not see!

[John R. (Bob) Locke]

My point is that he could have held the line on a lot of places where domestic spending was concerned, but he didn't. He didn't just throw in the towel; he joined forces with "the enemy" (Dem's) and has passed budget increases that Clinton would have blushed at. And he's increased non-defense spending at a higher rate than defense spending!

If Al Gore had won, and had presented the exact same budgets as George Bush has, everyone on this forum would have been up in arms about it, and the Republicans in the Congress would have done everything in their power to prevent the legislation from passing. But because Bush is "our guy", he gets a pass on it. Why? Because he's "taking issues away from the Dem's", and they won't be able to use them against him in November.

In my book, when one party's issues are advancing and another declining, then I'd say you have a clear indicator of which party is actually "winning". And from this seat, the party that controls both the White House and both chambers of the Congress is the one caving in.

[AwesomePossum]

With respect, I will go slowly this time:

The coffers were emptied by the Clintons.

The economy was in serious decline.

Our nation's security was at risk (pre-911)

Our dedicated military was in very serious trouble.

The opposition (dems, big media, socialists,etc) had/have their long knives out with the intent of destroying Bush (Nixon style).

The Clintons politized all aspects of the government, even the electoral process, the Secret Service, and non-political appointments and employment.

Now, with all of the forces of darkness against him (dems,dictators,UN,communists,our big media,terrorists,radical religious nuts, hollywood, socialists,etc., etc.) With a government in near shambles, thanks to the Clintons. With being faced with a challenge, that most men would run from.......remember Carter hiding out in the Oval Office? At the height of an economic, political and security nightmare,(with the dems all the while doing every thing possible to make the nightmare worse), Bush and the people he surrounded himself with were faced with yet another major nightmare....our homeland attacked by an enemy....an enemy spread out over several areas of the globe.

Is it any wonder that our military needed to be built up again, that much needed weapons needed to be manufactured (even the basic stuff was in short supply), that the coffers need to be filled again, that programs needed to be instituted, such as Homeland Defence, that America needed to be reassured that someone was in charge?

So, while President Bush is getting the job done, an extremely hard job, that he can only do with the help of God and the prayers of the people of this country, the best you can come up with is that he has been too generous to children, the elderly, the poor and the downcast, "taking issues away from the democrats", that he is spending too much non-military money.

The Clintons cleaned out the bank account...........the economy was tanking...........the military was cut off at the legs.......we are now at war, not a little war, but a full time war, a very, very serious war.

You have to be smart enough to know that if Bush would have taken the "hatchet" to social programs during these times of real trial, that all the above mentioned extremely powerful "dark forces" would have had the ammo they so dearly needed to ultimately defeat and destroy him.(Think back to the 90's when the republicans only wanted to hold the line on the growth of social progams....the dems and the big media successfully painted the republicans as evil, hateful beings bent on turning our nations' children and elderly out onto the street with no clothes and nothing to eat, remember? This tact allowed them to turn the focus away from a corrupt president and instead onto the "meany" republicans. The republicans did not want to make any cuts to the programs, only hold the line on growth, and they were crucified, and a presidential felon was allowed to stay in office)

Please answer me this question........why would any responsible leader, up to his elbows in crocodiles swarming through the front door, turn around and open the back door and allow more crocodiles into the room?

We are winning. We are winning the war against terrorism, we are getting the economy back in shape, the military back in shape, the government back in shape......but, good grief, give the man some breathing room.......after the elections in 2004, we will get the deficit back in shape and even more.

I am a conservative, a fiscal and social conservative. I want less waste, fraud and abuse. I want America to be as great as she can be. I want the whole world to be free.

Should we speak up about things we hold dear? Sure we should. But if you and others withhold your vote from Bush because he wouldn't open the back door and let more crocodiles into the room.......well, then you will deserve whatever type of Clinton-like scum you help elect.

Again, I say these things with due respect, because of your pen name.......but, believe you me, George Bush is by far more like the real John Locke than all of the other presidential candidates combined.

Peace be unto you and yours, Bob, and Merry Christmas.

[Blake#1]

I am going to take another "run" at you hoping you may understand what is happening. My position is based on my Health Maintenance Operation (?) or HMO. Mine here in California is Kaiser Permanente. Been a member for over 50 years. To me it has all the benefits of a "private" Capitalistic operation. I have my own doctor. Today, he is the son of my earlier doctor. I pay something each month and so does Medicare. I/we have learned how work Kaiser for our benefit. I/we feel very comfortable with their service. If idiots like you call this "socialism" that's your problem. It is how "voucher" schools should be run. It is how the American Courts are run. It is how are streets are kept safe, the police are payed with my money.
Think about it!