Rumbling on the Hard-Right

The Washington Times ^ | December 30, 2003 | Stephen Dinan

[GunsareOK]

President Bush is beginning to anger certain hard-line conservatives, particularly over fiscal issues, the way his father did in the year before he lost to Bill Clinton in 1992.

It's not clear how deep the dissatisfaction goes, and whether it will translate to damage at the polls in November.

[hawk1]

Whats the alternative to Bush? If there was I would not vote for Bush. Picking the lesser of two evils seems to be the choice.

[!1776!]

No sale. The most powerful man IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD has no influence on the domestic agenda and direction of the nation? Absurd.

When does the President usurp the powers of congress and begin writing laws?

According to my public education, bills must be passed by the peoples direct representatives in Congress before they go to the President for signature into law.

Somebody isn't doing their job, but I bet you and I disagree on who is most at fault...

[Lael]

Anyone helping the Dems win is no conservative

"There you go again!"

Its called enforcing "party dicipline". You can't have my vote just because "there is no place else to go".

I could vote the Straight Republican ticket but leave the Pres/Vice Pres blank.

Even if Bush 'wins', the descrepancy will be noted!!

[At _War_With_Liberals]

"People like you have to lurk in the dark recesses of the web because very few people agree with you in real life. This is why you are statistically insignificant and why George W. Bush is very smart in ignoring you. Your candidate will be crushed by GWB in 2004."

KEEP USING THE RNC STRATEGY, you rich, elitist 'screw the middle class, I'm not one of them anymore' POS.

I am completely aware of the GOP game, as are many others, and will not bend over because a Bush presidency is best for my personal wealth.

You have made yourself a slave to wealth, and are a traitor who condones socialism and the diminishing of liberty.. all to get richer.

[Missouri]

Nazi is the term you used in post #68 so don't try to run away from it.

Nobody here on the FR even comes close to being a nazi and you know it.

Of course the national socialism proponents in the US are not out killing Jews, building Autobahns, nationalizing industry, etc. right now. They don't have the power.

What are you saying? Those of us here on the FR who have disagreements with GWB on issues like CFR, Education bill, 15 billion dollar give-away to the AIDs mafia, or his lack of will on enforcing our immigration laws are going to start-up the concentration camps for Jews again if we ever get any power?

building Autobahns ?

I've voted every tax increase for highways here in Mo. ever since I can remember.

nationalizing industry?

I've yet to hear anyone on the FR wanting that.

Face facts, Your boogyman, Pat Buchanan, has no power. Your disagreement is with us. Bush is a politician and the lesser of two evils and we all know this. If you don't like us expressing this, why don't you just exit from this thread.

Your use of the "Nazi Card" is worse than Jesse Jackson's use of the "Race Card".

[JohnnyZ]

And added them to the deficit. Future taxes. Wake up.

No, you wake up, ya moron. Lowering taxes establishes a new standard of government intake. It is very difficult politically to raise taxes, and lower taxes makes cutting spending much much much easier.

To think that people can call themselves fiscal conservatives and don't understand how lower taxes are 90% of the battle . . . it boggles the mind. More "conservative" morons.

[A Navy Vet]

Constitution Party Platform

[gatorbait]

I'm beginning, for the first time, [to hear] people talk about 'it would not be the worst thing in the world if Howard Dean were president,' because the size of government would stay still rather than increase 50 percent under a second Bush administration.

" Bush’s spending decisions have absolutely sucked ass, but this is just retard talk.

Dead, I agree on both your points. The very idea that a Dean or Hillary! administration would cause less damage is ludicrous in concept and suicidal in execution.

[!1776!]

And the veto pen sits in the White House. Apparently, it's now rusting away in some old coffee can in the basement.

I think you missed my point. If you dislike CFR, AWB, prescription drugs, etc., why does Congress get a free pass even letting them out of committee, let alone passed by both houses?

You kill cancer early, not when it has had a chance to spread. The President is getting blamed for COngress's failings on social spending issues. Hell even the SCOTUS backed up Congress against the Constitution.

This map has a big, giant x on it where the problem resides, the only difference is it is easier to blame one individual in an influential position than it is to fix the problem by working hard to get Congress populated by people who will uphold the Constitution in the first place.

[FairOpinion]

"Even if Bush 'wins', the descrepancy will be noted!!"

==

And what if Bush LOSES because YOU didn't vote for him?

The razor thin edge in Florida still didn't sink in to people. Every vote DOES count.

[Taliesan]

If a president sucks, he doesn't deserve your vote, period.

This is just plain dumb. If Joe sucks, but Fred sucks more, I assume you'd rather elect Joe than Fred. If not,you are dumb. Your choices:

1. not vote. You hurt Joe more than Fred. Dumb.

2. vote for Fred. You voted for the suckiest. Dumb.

3. vote for Larry, who has no chance of winning. You helped Fred and hurt Joe. Larry is irrelevant; he won't win. Dumb.

Let me repeat what a wise man posted earlier: there will be two candidates with a chance to win. Vote for the more conservative of the two. If it's Hitler vs. Stalin, and the guy who gets the most votes is going to get the power, pick the more conservative of the two and vote for him.

Work againt him in the primary. Express your opinion any way you want.

But in a general election, the guy with the most votes gets he office. (scratching head)

[FairOpinion]

Why don't some people get it: you have a choice between Bush and a Democrat, NOT between Bush and some "ideal conservative".

You are either voting for Bush or you are voting for the Democrat. Anyone aiding the Dems to win is NO CONSERVATIVE. This is FACT.

[!1776!]

The site where that chart is from is extolling FDR's virtues, and bashes Bush. That should also give you a clue, as to what they are really doing.

I'll bet you'll believe that I am not surprised.

Critical light shines bright...

[Godebert]

From what I can tell....he IS a Conservative, and you're just a bleating ewe.

[Muleteam1]

And if a Studebaker was all one had to cross Death Valley in July, many simpletons would choose to walk. Give us a break.

Muleteam1

[JohnnyZ]

Bush is a politician and the lesser of two evils and we all know this.

Bush is what, 90, 95% conservative? If you want to put yourself at 100 (I'm sure you would identify as the perfect conservative; I know I do) and call a 90 or 95 a lesser evil, well, that is just a failure of perspective. Bush is very very good, maybe excellent.

[At _War_With_Liberals]

RNC strategy:

Bush can win without embracing the conservatives in the party. Conservatism will be DEAD if they get away with this. If there is no backlash now, it will be the death nell for conservative, constitutional thought.

Game. Set. Match. The argument that a vote for Bush supports conservatism is an outright lie. It supports continued socialism and degredation of the Constitution, and is a vote to ELIMINATE conservative thought. The Bush admin has already defined it as EXTREMIST by every political means available to them. And Bush has surrounded himself with RINO, PC, anti conservative appts... including Tom Ridge, a secomd rate politician, to head HS...when he had NO QUALIFICATIONS for the job, except a stint in the service. Ridge is their to spin HS for the sheeple's consumption. As evidenced by his lack of real reforms and accomplishments (illegals, INS reform)

A backlash and protest against the current GOP status quo, and their future socialist plans, are the only option we have now.

[Lael]

And what if Bush LOSES because YOU didn't vote for him?

Then "they" will know not to take us for granted...

Dean 'wins', we keep control of Congress, and we marginalize Dean, who as a former Alcoholic, stews in a perpetual "dry drunk" rage.

Next redistricting continues the Demographic shift to Republicans, just that the Pubbies will have learned that "people who have 'no place to go'" really have someplace to go.

And, best of all, it sinks Hillary!

[At _War_With_Liberals]

I gave you the link to get the definition from the source defining it. Use it.

[TX Bluebonnet]

I thought the idea was to vote for the candidate most qualified - not someone who cowtows to your every favorite issue. I'm sorry, but that seems so childish.