Skip to comments.ANDREW SULLIVAN: Bush wins because people know what he stands for
Posted on 11/10/2002 12:40:21 AM PST by MadIvan
click here to read article
Good article. Thanx for posting.
Eat your heart out!
Underlying everything in the past 14 months is this fact. The Demodogs refuse to acknowledge this, but We The People actually trust President Bush to lead. His integrity is the paramount quality, and after x42, is starkly visible.
For an "evenly split country," I'd say that's not too shabby.
It doesn't hurt if the advantage shows up in the right states, of course . . . how about in Louisiana, for instance?! We could use a Republican senator come the runoff . . .
Bingo. Saved me a longer post.
Recall the convention, with the journalists carping about the black performers entertaining the crowd? Bush is gradually eroding the "race card" . . .
"Privatization of Social Security" would among other things give people who have historically shorter life expectancy a little better break (It is also the only way to make an effective Social Security Trust Fund, not the sham in which the government presently writes IOUs to itself and calls that "saving").
Why the hell not ? It was a massacre and the Democrats are humiliated. Republicans can't take advantage of this moment to remind voters of the abject failure of socialist doctrine ?
If not now, when ? The time is long gone when acting the 'gentlemen' scores points with an otherwise cynical populace of Survivor fans.
Republicans have successfully co-opted the Democrats' strategies, but will never understand their tactics.
I've come to like President Bush very much. I trust both his character and the judgment of his Administration in most things -- not because he and they are always right, but because I sense an underlying sober honesty about them. They will recognize and correct their mistakes. That's a paramount virtue in dealing with the world around us.
But this business of treating the victories of particular Senatorial candidates as wins for Bush has some disturbing implications, and they ought to be explored.
Is the most important thing about a Senatorial candidate his party alignment? Does the GOP only nominate persons who are fit for public office, or at any rate more fit than their opponents?
Inasmuch as a Senator is supposed to represent his state's interests -- the original design was to have the state legislatures choose Senators directly, without recourse to a popular vote, a scheme I'd like to see restored -- just how appropriate is it for the President, a national official, to stump for any of them? Doesn't that suggest that one of the components of federalism has been short-circuited?
Yes, yes, I know about Democratic obstructionism in the Senate these past two years, and I agree that it's been tawdry and deplorable. I'm glad -- so far -- that the GOP has regained a Senate majority. But I profoundly hope that the "federalization" of the Senatorial campaign hasn't saddled anyone with a Senator of less-than-sterling character, or less-than-adequate understanding of (and fidelity to) Constitutional principles. One of the reasons George Washington condemned "factions" and political parties was exactly that sort of result: the promotion of "our people" over the interests and well-being of the Republic.
Judge them on their records and their performance when trusted with power, please. Don't judge them by their hairdos, their lapel buttons, or their high-profile endorsements. That way lies God knows what.
Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit the Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com
The Republican Party has to get abortion-loving Dems. on the defensive in *all* races, and the partial birth abortion issue is just the one to do it. There is at least an 80/20 divide on this issue, and 80% of the country is with us.
Living in New York, I can't tell you how often I heard commercials that Forrester and other candidates were "extreme" on abortion. Excuse me, but it is the candidate whose position is supported by 20% of the electorate who is extreme!
The Republicans need to educate the public as to what the "extremist" Democrats support -- federal funding of abortion for any reason at any time in the pregnancy, taking minors over state lines without parental permission for abortions, covering up statutory rapes in order to perform abortions on minors.
Remember the hideous chain dragging ad that played in the Texas market of James Byrd's daughter practically accusing then Governor Bush of murder? Well, I have now heard the Republican equivalent. I don't know how many markets it played in but it accused the Democratic candidates of murdering black babies since 42% of abortions are performed on black women and the Democratic Party promotes this. (Not that I think President Bush had anything to do with this ad, but it just shows what an effective argument we can muster against abortion -- and how we can divide the constituency that Dems. take for granted -- if we are not too lily livered to do it.)
We now have a President who is not afraid to play hardball against his ruthless, murderous opponents.
In his favor, he is also willing to bide his time. When the time is right, President Bush will execute his plan to put the Democrats on the defensive re: the life issue -- as they should be -- so that the American public can see very clearly just who the "extremists" are.
Sullivan is usually right, but despite his protestations, he still continues to "misunderestimate" the (in John Huang 2's words) "el hombre de Texas."
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.