The Conservative Revolt

[LuvRPgrl]

Help save America, vote for Condi for PREZ in '08.

 

[dilloduck]

Something Republicans, conservatives, libertarians, independents and whoever else can't stomach the current Democrat Party should think about. Right now what we have is a perfect illustration of the old saw that "power corrupts." Being in control of all three branches of the federal government has made conservatives and others who have views similar to the conservative philosophy very arrogant and unwilling to compromise in a place--Washington--where compromise is absolutely essential if you want to get anything done. The attitude is becoming more and more: it's my way or the highway. Fracturing within the "conservative umbrella" will not accomplish a thing, except get the Democrats back is power again, using the ammunition that the "conservative umbrella" group gave them.

I'm not buying this one,Apple. The conservatives can't even pull it together enough to use the power they have much less abuse it. Bush appears to me to be already concerned about HIS legacy and less concerned about the conservative agenda. If he delegates any more photo ops to Clinton, I'll barf. Bush isn't getting waylaid by the conservatives---they are coaxing him back in line with what they elected him to do.

 

[tim_duncan2000]

But I know that just about any and every Dem out there will be so much worse than him on every issue I care about. I simply refuse to pile on President Bush, help to splinter the Republican Party, and make it easier for someone like sHrillary to get elected.

I agree. Even if conservatives are not thrilled with some of Bush's policies, where else can they go? There is no viable third party and the dems (as you say) would be much worse.

 

[Annie]

All I can say to this is ..... does Ross Perot ring a bell? Cost us 8 years with a classless hillbilly in office.

Exactly. There will either be a 'true' conservative: strong on WOT; fiscally responsible; willing to fight for justices that will adhere to their roll in line with the constitution; domestically careful in what are the powers of the fed; strong on border security, while making sure that there are reasonable numbers of green cards issues; clear understanding of what civil liberties and responsibilities are...

Otherwise those neo-cons, libertarians, and semi-moderate Republicans will bolt. Bush's second term has been too much like his first months in office-he is NOT what I voted or worked for. To those that say, 'better than Hillary', find someone that is better than her AND Bush.

 

[Annie]

Actually, the DNC has more groups, but they stay there cuz there is nowhere else for them to go, even if the DNC doesnt represent them too well.

Unions,
Educators
minorities
homosexuals
feminists
Peta
enviormentalists
liberal Christians
illegals
Criminals
young people
single parent women

Im sure I have missed some (they will come to my mind while Im working on my roof, 35 feet above the ground )

That was my point, they ALL vote D all the time. It's imperative that those who are for smaller, more responsible/responsive government have a clear idea of what they want. Once that is done, which is basically your 'principles' or politicial philosophy, you know which fights are worth having and which to compromise with.

The judicial nomination to SCOTUS was worth the fight, first with Bush, then with the Senate.

 

[Annie]

I agree, Adam. I truly don't get Conservatives bitching about President Bush. He will be in the White House for 3 more years either way, so why throw spears at him and thereby give aid and comfort to the Democrats? It could all very possibly make it easier for a Dem to gain the White House in '08. I too have a couple of issues with the President, most notably his failure to address illegal immigration, and his unwillingness to inform the public about the progress we are making in the War on Terrorism. But I know that just about any and every Dem out there will be so much worse than him on every issue I care about. I simply refuse to pile on President Bush, help to splinter the Republican Party, and make it easier for someone like sHrillary to get elected.

One 'throws spears' in a forum like this, not while going door-to-door or making phone calls. One does write letters to the leaders of the DNC, their state party leaders, the White House, letting them all know what you want. It really doesn't take very long, and the object is to get the best people.

The truth is, the American people have given up on trying to converse with those in power, allowing them to believe that they will remain in lockstep with them. The politicos have come to believe that there will be no price to pay for abandoning the principles that got them elected in the first place.

 

[Annie]

I agree. Even if conservatives are not thrilled with some of Bush's policies, where else can they go? There is no viable third party and the dems (as you say) would be much worse.

As someone said some posts back, 'remember Perot.' The RNC should most definately remember how the abandoning of core beliefs and promises make it simple enough for someone sounding reasonable to cause a split. I would never have gone with Perot, same problem I've had so far with the Libertarian candidates, they sound cracked.

 

[Avatar4321]

Of course RWA it is the liberals fault that the conservatives are doing somthing you don't like.

Who said the conservatives are doing something he doesn't like? I think quite the opposite. its the President who has been neglecting his base.

 

[Abbey Normal]

So the theory I see expressed by some in here seems to be this: sharply criticizing President Bush for the next three years, showing disgust for his policies, and thereby shining a bright light on any factions within the Republican party, will actually help us to elect a conservative Republican in 08. That's just not logical to me. All you have to do is see the glee while reporting declining poll numbers for President Bush to know that Dems look at it as a golden opportunity to regain power. When the public is fed a steady diet of anti-Bush articles and TV news coverage, it is bound to show up in the polls. Just this morning on a network show, Harry Reid used those very numbers to bolster his call for Karl Rove to resign, for President Bush to sign a no-pardon bill, and for President Bush to "come clean and apologize" to the American people. When poll numbers were high, you didn't hear that talk. Now, they are circling like vultures and salivating.

There is absolutely wrong with stating your views about what you want in a positive way, and of course a MB is a good place to debate anything. But that is very different from attacking your own President. I am of the old-fashioned belief that we should support our President while he is in office. Especially today, when much of the world is against us. I try to look at the big picture, and there is an often hostile world out there, full of people who would love nothing more than to see the US fall. There have been many threads right on this board to that effect. When the time comes, go out an help campaign for the kind of President you want.

 

[Annie]

So the theory I see expressed by some in here seems to be this: sharply criticizing President Bush for the next three years, showing disgust for his policies, and thereby shining a bright light on any factions within the Republican party, will actually help us to elect a conservative Republican in 08. That's just not logical to me. All you have to do is see the glee while reporting declining poll numbers for President Bush to know that Dems look at it as a golden opportunity to regain power. When the public is fed a steady diet of anti-Bush articles and TV news coverage, it is bound to show up in the polls. Just this morning on a network show, Harry Reid used those very numbers to bolster his call for Karl Rove to resign, for President Bush to sign a no-pardon bill, and for President Bush to "come clean and apologize" to the American people. When poll numbers were high, you didn't hear that talk. Now, they are circling like vultures and salivating.

There is absolutely wrong with stating your views about what you want in a positive way, and of course a MB is a good place to debate anything. But that is very different from attacking your own President. I am of the old-fashioned belief that we should support our President while he is in office. Especially today, when much of the world is against us. I try to look at the big picture, and there is an often hostile world out there, full of people who would love nothing more than to see the US fall. There have been many threads right on this board to that effect. When the time comes, go out an help campaign for the kind of President you want.

I still would disagree on the point that the people are somehow 'disloyal' to the President by pointing out what he's doing we disagree with. Rather when it comes to domestic/political decisions, the burden of responsibility on citizens is to get involved and speak up where the representatives who are to speak for them, know what they want said.

Now if we are speaking of 'War issues' the only way that 'the people are heard' on a 'worldwide' basis is through polls, unless someone with press coverage and some sort of 'gravitas' like Kerry, Kennedy, Carter, Clinton, etc., gets up and does so. On this type of 'dissent' which is grossly different than telling the White House that Miers was the wrong, I agree with you.

 

[deaddude]

Hardly!! I keep wondering why those opposed to Bush just keep up with baseless insults, and I have come to the conclusion that's all they have.

It was a joke Bonnie. A joke and nothing more, there have been jokes about every president since Washington, the side in power just has to keep its sense of humor.

 

[Bonnie]

It was a joke Bonnie. A joke and nothing more, there have been jokes about every president since Washington, the side in power just has to keep its sense of humor.

Sure thing, but I don't find too much of what's going on now very funny.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Uh, conservatives ARE NOT in control of the three branches of govt.

Judical, hahahhahahahah

Congress, uh, not even

President, well, isnt he the one this thread is all about?

Are you crazy? We have a Republican executive branch. Both houses of Congress have Republican majorities and the Supreme court will have more conservative justices on it than liberal or moderate ones after Bush's next appointment. Where in the federal government aren't conservatives in control? Social conservatism is the rule right now buddy. Have you been under a rock for the last five years?

 

[deaddude]

Sure thing, but I don't find too much of what's going on now very funny.

The only sane defense against an insane universe is to laugh at it all.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

Why in the world would someone worry about the democrats gaining power when the biggest spending increases in the history of the world have occurred under Bush and the republicans? Oh noes, the democrats might waste our money! They oppose the Iraq war! (yeah right, about as much as republicans oppose wasteful spending).

The bottom line is, there is NOTHING Bush has done or proposed which will lead to less government power. Go ahead, name one thing that he's done to decrease government power in any way. Tax cuts would be about the only thing I can think of, and that's just a shell game that will be made up with borrowing and inflation.

Vote for whoever you really want without worry; the bottom line is, the feds won't quit spending money until their credit is ruined. That is the only thing that will ever stop them. And their credit will be ruined once the debt is so high that they must default on it, and pay for (greatly reduced) government operations solely out of taxes. Personally, I think the US government is going to implode, on a scale nearly on par with the collapse of the USSR.

 

[Adam's Apple]

I'm not buying this one,Apple. The conservatives can't even pull it together enough to use the power they have much less abuse it. Bush appears to me to be already concerned about HIS legacy and less concerned about the conservative agenda. If he delegates any more photo ops to Clinton, I'll barf. Bush isn't getting waylaid by the conservatives---they are coaxing him back in line with what they elected him to do.

Fine. I respect your right to disagree

 

[Adam's Apple]

To those that say, 'better than Hillary', find someone that is better than her AND Bush.

If you were a person “who was better than Hillary AND Bush”, would you want to be the candidate of a party that you could not count on to support your decisions as President? I think actions like this cause qualified people to have serious second thoughts about even making the run. The quality of person you have in mind would not want to serve as a “puppet president” to a segment of the Republican Party. The President serves all the people—Democrats, liberals, far left, etc., and he has to deal with that fact. The opposition doesn’t just lie down and play dead during a President’s term. For the past two elections, the Republican Party has been able to get its man in the White House by the barest of margins (51% does not a mandate make), so conservatives should not get too puffed up by the power they think they have. The ideological war has not yet been won. The pendulum can swing back quickly to the other side. Beware lest conservatives have a hand in making that happen.

…the American people have given up on trying to converse with those in power…

I don’t think the correct words are “given up” but rather “don’t take the time” to converse with those in power. Without taking that step, the result will be as you say. If people would bombard their elected representatives with mail about how they feel on important issues, I doubt that many elected politicians would stray from the espoused principles that got them elected. And we might not have such things as journalists—liberal or conservative--trying to deny elected Presidents their constitutional rights.

...telling the White House that Miers was the wrong choice...

We have just sacrificed one of the major (and correct) arguments directed at the obstructionists: the President has the right to select nominees to the Supreme Court, with advice and consent of the Senate, and that these nominees have a right to an up or down vote. Now the conservatives cannot use this argument again with a straight face without the “hypocrite” label being rightly slung their way. Didn’t conservative journalists just circumvent the legitimate process to keep Miers from getting a fair hearing? Aren't these the same kind of tactics the Democrats use when they don’t like a Supreme Court nominee?

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Go ask OCA, he is leading the bandwagon, thats why I dropped the HAMMER on him. Its all emotion based Bush bashing, they are no better than anti war liberals.

I'd like to see the hammer you dropped. Link?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

If you were a person “who was better than Hillary AND Bush”, would you want to be the candidate of a party that you could not count on to support your decisions as President? I think actions like this cause qualified people to have serious second thoughts about even making the run. The quality of person you have in mind would not want to serve as a “puppet president” to a segment of the Republican Party. The President serves all the people—Democrats, liberals, far left, etc., and he has to deal with that fact. The opposition doesn’t just lie down and play dead during a President’s term. For the past two elections, the Republican Party has been able to get its man in the White House by the barest of margins (51% does not a mandate make), so conservatives should not get too puffed up by the power they think they have. The ideological war has not yet been won. The pendulum can swing back quickly to the other side. Beware lest conservatives have a hand in making that happen.



I don’t think the correct words are “given up” but rather “don’t take the time” to converse with those in power. Without taking that step, the result will be as you say. If people would bombard their elected representatives with mail about how they feel on important issues, I doubt that many elected politicians would stray from the espoused principles that got them elected. And we might not have such things as journalists—liberal or conservative--trying to deny elected Presidents their constitutional rights.



We have just sacrificed one of the major (and correct) arguments directed at the obstructionists: the President has the right to select nominees to the Supreme Court, with advice and consent of the Senate, and that these nominees have a right to an up or down vote. Now the conservatives cannot use this argument again with a straight face without the “hypocrite” label being rightly slung their way. Didn’t conservative journalists just circumvent the legitimate process to keep Miers from getting a fair hearing? Aren't these the same kind of tactics the Democrats use when they don’t like a Supreme Court nominee?

I hear what you've been saying and it is commendable to defend the man you voted for. However, don't gloss over the fact that Bush was elected primarily by his conservative base in order to represent them. If an elected rep chooses to go his own path (as Bush did) instead of represent those he was elected by, then loyalty has been first been broken by him - not the base - and the base has every right to get upset. Nothing hypocritical about that.

 

[Annie]

Have to agree a bit with SE, it was conservatives, not just the 'religious right' that elected GW. Thus, he does have to walk a bit of a curvey road. Some are all about WOT, many of these would have voted Democrat prior to 9/11.

Some are all about Roe v. Wade, again, pretty wide support, but not as far as just 'forcing through' someone like Miers, with a wink and nod to Dobson. To me, that was an insult to those like me, that want more than a right that is just the inverse of the left. I saw it too as an insult to the far right, as it was like, 'they're so in lockstep, this should be enough to calm them.' After reading some of the responses from some they may have been closer than I thought to a correct assessment.

A lot of 'us' though, are not one issue voters, with the exception of WOT, which is a 'deal breaker' for many. While I am pro-life, it would not be at the expense of other important judicial issues such as property rights.