Minority party syndrome

The Washington Times ^ | March 6, 2004 | Richard W. Rahn

[luckydevi]

So you are ok with big government as long as republicans are in charge

[Consort]

OK

[Consort]

Keep the Dems out of control no matter what the size of government is. The bureaucracy (like academia, the legal profession, labor, etc.) is mostly populated by Democrats. The Democrats control the bureaucracy even when the GOP controls the "front office" as it now does. First things first. A big or small government populated and controlled by Conservatives would be the next step. Even Reagan couldn't get rid of the Dept. of Education.

[neverdem]

The GOP needs to be cleansed of RINOs once and for all.

I wish it could be done, but that's a tall order in many of the so-called battleground states where both parties are at close to parity. Not that it shouldn't be tried, but it's so tough as to be depressing. Remember, it's the stupid party against an evil party.

[GoldenStateConservative]

"A big or small governmnet populated and controlled by Conservatives would be the next step"

Supporting limited government just seems such a critical aspect of conservatism to me. As far as I'm concerned, a "conservative" that supports big government isn't a conservative -- he is a liberal/socialist. I don't care what party he affiliates himself with.

[Consort]

Supporting limited government just seems such a critical aspect of conservatism to me.

Good. When do we start and how long will it take? In '92, however, that effort was seriously set back when disgruntled and disenchanted (and misguided) Conservatives helped to elect the Clintons. Conservatives evedently can't be relied upon to help defeat Liberals.

As far as I'm concerned, a "conservative" that supports big government isn't a conservative -- he is a liberal/socialist. I don't care what party he affiliates himself with.

That's.......cute....and a bit simplistic.

[GoldenStateConservative]

"disgruntled Conservatives... helped to elect the Clintons."

Don't be ridiculous. George Bush (senior) lost not because of disgruntled Conservatives, but because of his own failure to follow through with his policies -- you know that as well as I do. Had Bush (the former) continued Reagan's policies and followed through with his pledge not to raise taxes, he would have been reelected by a landslide.

To blame Conservatives for his defeat is simply insane. It is his own fault.

"That's... cute... and a bit simplistic."

Yeah, I know. It's a shame I had to point it out.

[ConservativeMan55]

bump

[Consort]

"disgruntled Conservatives... helped to elect the Clintons."

That's exactly what happened, and some are threatening to sit out or go Third Party in ths year's General Election — more cute and simplistic thinking. Talk about being ridiculous. It's a "do it my way or no way" mindset. A dog-in-the-manger mentality.

To blame Conservatives for his defeat is simply insane. It is his own fault.

Yeah, point the finger at someone else.....never take any responsibility for screwing things up.

[greasepaint]

about your suggestion...
exactly what the smart party wants, for the stupid party to
chase off independent-leaning stupid party members.
Better for the stupid party would be: would
be for their core members to think like adults.

[GoldenStateConservative]

"someare threatening to sit out or go Third Party in this year's General Election"

Yes, and if Bush loses, it's still his own fault. He was elected by crusading against Al Gore's big government. If he now starts to support big government, then those same people that didn't vote of Al Gore's big government won't vote for George Bush's big government.

Bush will have lost those votes by abandoning the principles that he campaigned on. It would be his own fault -- the voters did not change their principles, George Bush did.

Bush could have won by a landslide if he would have kept to his conservative principles. Instead, he did the medicare thing, the immigration thing, the space thing, the arts thing...

He did these things and its his own fault if he loses because of them.

[GoldenStateConservative]

Just to clarify myself... I'm not saying that I hope Bush loses. I don't want to see a Massachusetts liberal in the White House. I'm just saying that IF Bush loses, it's his own fault for abandoning his base.

[AM2000]

If he now starts to support big government...

Did you really just say "If he now starts"?

[Consort]

Yes, and if Bush loses, it's still his own fault.

Nope. The voters (electorate) get the credit and the blame for who gets elected. It's the voters....it's always the voters.

He was elected by crusading against Al Gore's big government. If he now starts to support big government, then those same people that didn't vote of Al Gore's big government won't vote for George Bush's big government.

Doesn't matter. His fathers "Read my lips" sounded big until Clinton out taxed him....retroactively. If Bush loses, Kerry will undo what Bush did (tax cuts, ban on partial birth abortions, etc) and then do what Liberal do, including nominated a few SCOTUS Justices to fill the upcoming vacancies. Bush 41 should have been reelected regardless. Same with Bush 43. There is too much at stake to let misguided principles put more more Liberals in control. If that happens you will not be happy and you will blame someone else, including Bush.

Bush will have lost those votes by abandoning the principles that he campaigned on.

Forget about principles, morals, conscience, etc....every Liberal and every Conservative has them. It's a wash. Use common sense, instead.

It would be his own fault -- the voters did not change their principles, George Bush did.

It will be the voters fault if the wrong people get voted in.

Bush could have won by a landslide if he would have kept to his conservative principles. Instead, he did the medicare thing, the immigration thing, the space thing, the arts thing... He did these things and its his own fault if he loses because of them.

Will any of that go away if he loses?

[goldstategop]

Keep pills for Grandma. Cut everything else.

[Consort]

I'm just saying that IF Bush loses, it's his own fault for abandoning his base.

Constantly repeating that doesn't let the "base" off the hook if they sit out the election or vote Third Party. If Bush loses, the base loses, you lose, the country loses. Let's get off the "losing" mentality.

[GoldenStateConservative]

"Will any of that go away if he loses?"

Had a Democratic president proposed any of those things -- space, immigration, medicare, arts -- the Republicans in congress would have blocked it. None of them would have passed.

"Use common sense, instead."

Common sense tells me that if I always vote for a candidate that supports big government, I will always get big government. That's not what I want.

[Consort]

Had a Democratic president proposed any of those things -- space, immigration, medicare, arts -- the Republicans in congress would have blocked it. None of them would have passed.

Clinton had to deal with a Republican congress....and he still managed to do a lot of damage. He appointed 370+ lifetime Liberal judges and 2 SCOTUS Justices. He re-seeded the bureaucracy with career Liberals. His Att Gen, Reno, successfully went after smoking and guns (which is still ongoing), he damaged the CIA and depleated the military and wagged the dog.......

Common sense tells me that if I always vote for a candidate that supports big government, I will always get big government. That's not what I want.

Vote for the major party that is most likely to control the size of government over the long run. The next GOP president may be more or less conservative than Bush. The next Democrat president will Liberal or Socialist. It's not complicated...unless you nake it so.

[GoldenStateConservative]

"Clinton had to deal with a Republican congress....and he still managed to do a lot of damage."

Couldn't agree more. If size of government was all that mattered, than I would prefer Clinton over Bush anyday, but that's not all that matters. However, it is part of what matters. For me to criticize President Bush's fiscal policy is perfectly reasonable.

"The next GOP president may be more or less conservative than Bush."

Unless they devise a winning formula of forgetting about their base and spending big. If the base stands by them throughout all the big spending, it will be determined that the best strategy to win elections is to spend big -- you can't lose any votes, right? So the long term effect will be two socialist parties running against each other every year. When people vote third party, they are making a temporary sacrifice in order to prevent that from happening in the long run.

That being said, I'm not saying that I won't vote for Bush. I honestly haven't decided on that one yet. It doesn't really matter -- Kerry will win in California no matter what I do.

[Consort]

If size of government was all that mattered, than I would prefer Clinton over Bush anyday, but that's not all that matters.

Not good, no matter how you meant it.

For me to criticize President Bush's fiscal policy is perfectly reasonable.

It quickly turns into whining. Not good, either.

If the base stands by them throughout all the big spending, it will be determined that the best strategy to win elections is to spend big -- you can't lose any votes, right?

It depends on one's mindset, but it would keep the Liberals out of power while we work on the problem. Try not to use the word "base" for the rest of your life.

When people vote third party, they are making a temporary sacrifice in order to prevent that from happening in the long run.

That's the biggest cop-out you mentioned, so far. Perot Syndrome seems to be alive and well.

That being said, I'm not saying that I won't vote for Bush. I honestly haven't decided on that one yet. It doesn't really matter -- Kerry will win in California no matter what I do.

You insist on complicating your life. What are we going to do with you?