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.

[At _War_With_Liberals]

"Your homepage looks very similiar to Chancellor Palpatine's. He also liked to attack true Conservatives, labeling anyone that didn't agree with his socialist neo-con agenda as an evil "paleo-Con"."

An excellent comparison. Add D*** to that group.

[Lael]

Brilliant startegy. (/sarcasm)

It is the ONLY strategy in a flawed system.

Let's take a Voting Demographic like African Americans.

Right now, the RATS take them for granted, and the Pubbies write them off.

Which means that this coming election All blacks should vote Republican. The very next day, African Americans will have...

the Complete and Undivided attention of BOTH political parties!

[Who is John Galt?]

Kindly keep in mind that the only way the ban will be renewed is if Congress passes an extension.

Are you assuring us that Congress will NOT extend the ban? Hmm? If not, what is your point?

If that happens, will you vote against your representative and senator as well?

Yes.

And exactly what would you have Bush do differently with regard to border control...

I don't believe I have ever commented on that issue. Perhaps you should address your post to someone else...

;>)

[rushmom]

I am a conservative who will vote for Bush. I agree with you on the war and taxes. But on limited government...well, it's very depressing.

[FairOpinion]

THIS describes those who keep bashing Bush, while claiming to be conservatives:

====

The ignorance of the typical American when it comes to politics is often staggering.

This ignorance is the real reason special interest groups and demagogues have the success they do (though it's a wonder they don't have more). For example, we are constantly told by extreme left-wing groups and more than a few rightwing groups that there's no difference between the political parties.

As anyone who pays attention to politics knows, this is monumental nonsense on stilts; informed people understand that a Dean administration will be very different from a Bush administration.

But if you get much of your news from late-night comics - as is the case with nearly half of young voters, according to the Pew Research Center - it makes complete sense that you'd think there's no difference between the parties, in much the same way people who don't understand physics think protons and electrons are pretty much the same thing.

But Americans don't like being told they're the problem. So when they eventually tune into politics they tend to blame the candidates, as if it's the actors' fault you don't understand the play when you arrive for the last five minutes.



http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/democrat/news/opinion/7566396.htm

[CA Conservative]

Savage puts a poll question on his website, and in 10 days gets 6 1/4 MILLION unique responses running 19 to 1 against any form of Amnesty. The Local talk shows indicate that Illegal Immigrants are the #1 topic of choice.

Savage? Michael Savage? You consider him a credible source? 'Nuf said.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

...Your homepage looks very similiar to Chancellor Palpatine's...

Wonder why I never see those two together.

[gipper81]

So, GunsareOK, what did your voting record look like in the 90s?

[CA Conservative]

pending averaged 3.23 under Clinton, 8 year average.

True, but he gutted the miltary to achieve that. Total spending didn't rise much, but defense spending plummeted and social spending increased a heck of a lot more than 4%.

[Who is John Galt?]

Now the truth comes out, you don't think there is any difference between the R & D parties.

Your suggestion might be true if the Republican Party is controlled by "Republican non-conservatives," and the D@mocrat Party is controlled by "D@mocrat non-conservatives." Is that what you are suggesting? If so, care to prove the point? Or are you just emitting rhetorical fumes?

;>)

[!1776!]

If there is no functional difference between a Republican President and a D@mocrat President, then what do you suggest makes the former worth voting for? Karma?

Because the strategy of the liberals has been a death by a thousand cuts. Putting another liberal in charge of appointing judges and the heads of executive agencies will give them more razors and more time to keep cutting.

That doesn't mean salt in the wounds right now doesn't hurt, but in my opinion it sure beats a thousand more cuts.

The gun banners have been succesful because they have been patient, jumping at each opportunity either big or small. The longer we remain fixated on big, one shot snake oil cures instead of a progressive reclamation of our God given rights the longer it will take us to get them back.

I don't disagree with you in principle - RKBA means what it plainly reads in the 2nd amendment. THe problem is the reality within which we must work.

For example, Bush signs AWB. Enough "gun rights" folks are pissed they write in the dali lama. Dean is elected. He places liberals in the courts and RKBA build precidents as a "collective right. You and I (and many others) know it is wrong, but it becomes entrenched and much harder to dig out.

Flip side, Bush veto's AWB, enough one issue wonders on the other side get a lib elected. AWB's gone right? No, it's a law that that can be passed again by congress.

The AWB is a symptom of the disease. It's not fun, it's not right, it is unconstitutional. But if you fix the symptom, AWB in this case, the disease is still there, lurking in the courts that believe they can usurp the plain wording of the 2nd amendment (and others).

Without attacking the disease, every time you fix one symptom another will crop up. We can't get too fixated on the symptoms when curing the disease has to be our end goal.

It will be even tougher if the President signs a bill banning those same firearms, don't you think? Practically, no, one can be completely dealt with independent of the other. Different symptoms, same disease.

And how will this situation be improved if Mr. Bush signs, as he has promised to do, a reimplementation of the 'assault weapons' ban? Hmm? Are you expecting him to sign the bill, and then instruct ATF not to enforce it? Or will he use 'pixy dust' to make everything better?

Reagan didn't abolish the EPA, or their rules, but he did defind enforcement activities. Now, I personally disagree with this approach because it leaves the people out there hanging and vulnerable, but it is just meant as an extreme example.

Frankly, I might be willing to suffer another Clinton for 2 years, if it would produce another honest-to-God "Revolution of '94." Personally, I will not promote an anti-constitutionalist Republican in lieu of a real republican...

That's two terms - 8 years. What did the Revolution of '94 get us concerning RKBA? Notice AWB is up for renewal, and the "revolution" of 94 had it fully within their powers the entire time to pass legislation to get rid of it - but didn't.

If you want to bet the farm on a long shot that is your choice, I'm just dissapointed that it could effect my rights in the long term.

[RockyMtnMan]

Your position isn't exactly going to change the party either. If you vote (R) regardless of issue because they are more "conservative" than the (D)'s eventually your positions will not be supported by either party. Incrementalism is alive and well as long as you continue to chant the defeatist line of "voting third party is wasting your vote".

You're stance will lead to the socialization of the country not those who are capable of identifying a "conservative" and actually voting for them.

If by some freak of nature Dean does become president I would hope people would see what a freak he really is when he butts up against a republican controlled house and senate.

[At _War_With_Liberals]

"That's okay, if you have to beat around the bush (twice now) on what "Human Resources" entails I'll just default to my definition. Remember you provided a pretty picture, I asked for clarification, and you dodged the question. "

You think Bush is not a big spender. No matter what the reality is, there are some here who will not even admit that. It is therefore pointless to argue semantics.

I do not debate on a micro level. It is a losing game and a waste of time on FR.

Looking back, I should have not even posted the chart. Any proof I post will be refuted anyway, regardless of merit.

[Muleteam1]

Having now read the 250-plus replies in this unworthy thread, I now detect that conservatives here are caught in a trap of their own making and chewing at their leg. A few liberals may even be covertly jumping in to help them chew. As I try never to chew my leg off in front of a liberal, adios. See you in another thread.

Muleteam1

[Crawdad]

How did reagan defeat the U.S.S.R.? He out-spent it.

[Who is John Galt?]

What are you suggesting? That Mr. Bush will not be responsible for his own actions if he signs into law an extension of the so-called 'assault weapons' ban? Or that he was not responsible for his own actions, when he stated before the fact that he would sign it into law? What's your point?

;>)

[!1776!]

Stop painting Bush as Jesus. He is the most powerful man in the history of the US, and the HEAD of the PARTY.

Please provide to me where in the Constitution the President is responsible for making laws, if you must disagree so vehemently.

He has great influence over the direction of the Congress, as is evidenced by his not vetoing 1 damn thing.

I wouldn't disagree that he has influence, but last time I checked Congress had to to pass bills before they could be signed into law. Am I wrong?

And the appointment of lackey, closeted socialist Bill Frist as a yes man to the neocon agenda.

This coming from one who was flinging about rants concerning the horrible corporate profits and contempt for the peasents of American...

I have researched Frist's record of legislation. It is DISGUSTING to any conservative. On the religious compassionate moral conservative bit. he gets an 'A'. And he gets an 'A' for socialism.

What were your comments bashing captalism and the peasant class all about?

[LibKill]

Am I getting everything I would like out of W? Of course not.

Would I get more of what I want out of some democrat FREAK? It will never happen.

Does the Constitution Party, the Libertarian Party or Tancredo have a chance? Yes, the same chance a snowball has in hell.

Do as you please, I will vote for W.

[Lael]

Savage? Michael Savage? You consider him a credible source? 'Nuf said.

What are you saying...that Savage cooked his own website???

I could adopt your own mindset and ask "What if another, more credible website had asked the poll?"

Unlike you, I prefer to see counter examples, and assess the risk.

The local talk shows wouldn't be beating the drums unless Arbitron is rewarding them with ratings.

It's a Straw in the Wind...Bushbots ignore it at their peril!

[Wild Irish Rogue]

" Bottom line: Bush II will not get the chance to appoint a SC judge unless one drops dead. And the odds are MINISCULE."

Ruth Bader Ginsberg has had surgery,radiation and chemo for colon cancer, John Paul Stevens at 83 has been treated for prostate surgery, Sandra Day O'Connor 73, has had breast cancer and William Rehnquist,78 has a history of some kind of painful back condition.One of the Justices was rumored to have a heart condition. How can you predict the future health of anyone ??