Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why are "Conservatives" so eagar to lose in 2004?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Why are "Conservatives" so eagar to lose in 2004?

    It seems the average Conservative activist still has not learned the lesson of 1992. By deserting a flawed leader (Bush 1) for Ross Perot's 3rd party Siren song, Conservatives managed to elect a worse leader (Clinton). One of the biggest problems Conservatives face is their all or nothing attitude. Our form of Government is OF, BY and FOR, the people. ALL the people. The Conservative Movement is NOT all, or even most, of the people. Conservatives will have to build alliances with other interests if they want to advance their agenda. The current attacks on President Bush by the Conservative movement are totally counterproductive. The Conservative pundits in broadcast, and published media, seem more interested in demonstrating their ideological purity then in advancing their political cause. I cannot understand how Conservatives think replacing a President who gives Conservatives 50% of what they want, with a President Kerry who will give them 100% of what they OPPOSE, will help their agenda.

    Please spare me the sophistries about the glories of "divided government" As the 2 years of a 1 vote Republican Majority in the Senate have shown, it is simple for Democrats to seduce some of the 5 Liberal Republican Senators to their side. A Kerry administration, especially with a Democrat controlled Senate, would have no problem trading votes to get what ever they wanted out of Congress. The problem is the 5 "Liberal" Republican Senators and a 1 vote Senate majority, not President Bush! The glory of "Divided Government" are, to paraphrase Daniel Webster, like a dead mackerel seen by moonlight on a beach, all shiny and silvery far off, up close it stinks. So all this Conservative screaming about Bush does NOTHING but help elect Kerry.The solution is not to defeat Bush, but to fight like heck to elect as many Conservative to Congress as possible. Pennsylvania has the right idea. Fire Alan Specter. Even if Specter wins, notice has been service on the "Liberal" Republican Senators that their rampant disloyalty to the Party will be called to account sooner or latter. Bush has only one straight up or down vote on legislation. Congress actually WRITES the legislation! What is IN the legislation, especially the budget, is more the work of CONGRESS. Conservatives should keep the words of Talk Show Host and Columnist Hugh Hewitt firmly in mind until November 3,2004. "We must keep our eyes on the ball." Reelecting Bush is the ONLY chance we have of advancing the Conservative/Libertarian agenda. Desert Bush and we may just lose the Senate as well. I may not like, or understand, some of what Bush is doing but I CAN trust this guy when the chips are down. I CANNOT say the same of ANY of the other candidates.And all Conservatives know it is far to late in the campaign season to heed the siren song of the 3rd party activists. Third parties have ZERO chance this election cycle and voting for a third party candidates is morally the same as voting for John Kerry.

    The big complaint from Conservatives seems to be the Federal Budget and Bush's Immigration plan. The Immigration plan is an issue that will be decided by Congress so really is not an Presidential election issue. If Conservatives are upset by the the Immigration Plan they should kill it in Congress. I suspect a lot of the "facts" on the Federal Budget are plants from the D.N.C. (Democrat National Committee) designed to fracture Bush's political base. The truth is the Conservatives are not nearly paranoid enough about just what a sleazy bunch of political opportunists run the Democratic Party these days. For the 1st time in 50 years they are completely out of control of any part of the Federal Government. There is NO tactics or actions the Democratic Leadership will NOT take to try and win power. Take note of the Gay Marriage fiasco in Massachusetts and San Francisco. The Democratic Activist have shown that they will pay no attention to ANY authority that does not conform to their political whimsy. In their "Holy Mission" to save the world from President Bush, they will not be bound by ANY measure of intellectual honesty or moral decency. Conservatives can count on massive voter fraud and dozens of other sleazy tactics between now and election day. The only way to defeat these slimes is to be better organized, more passionate and better disciplined. These traits all seem sorely lacking at this point in the Conservative movement. However, the Hysterical Left has a great weakness. They have become reckless in their hate for Bush. Conservatives can beat the Hysterical Move On.org Left if they fight a tough, honest, disciplined campaign! The Conservative movement is in a fight for it's political lives but unfortunately only the Hysterical Left seems to understand it. The Conservative movement seem more interested in beating up each other then in fighting their blood enemies. The radio call ins, articles and letters to the Editor from the Conservative Movement have way too much of a DNC paid Seminar caller sound to them for my taste. "OH, I am a life long Conservative but I am staying home election day because Bush did...." I find it very hard to understand how a "Life long Conservative" would throw 60% of a good thing (Bush) away for 100% of a bad thing (Kerry). So what are the facts on the Federal Spending?

    Why to I smell a DNC rat named Terry McAuliffe in the timing of this issue? The budget issue has been going on for 3 years yet only now, on the eve of the 2004 President Elections, does our "Objective News Media" suddenly mobilize on this issue? Seem a bit too convenient for the Democrats to be real to me. Conservative have the right issue but the wrong timing and the wrong target. We can, and should, fight this battle in the halls of Congress. If the Conservative Movement takes it Budget frustration out on the Bush Campaign, it will accomplish noting but 4 years of non-stop political pain under a Kerry Administration. Yes, Conservatives, we need to get back in this fight. No Conservatives, anti-Bush tirades are not the solution. Lobbying Congress to reimpose the 1995 Federal Spending restraings is the solution

    Conservative need to keep in mind that we are in the midst of both a WAR and a Recession! Kind of impossible to balance a budget and effectively fight both war and recession. The Budget Surplus politics of the late 1990s destroyed the Federal Budget restraints that the 1994 Republican Congress forced into place. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan last week urged Congress to re-implement those budget rules which acted as an excellent break on runaway spending during the mid 1990s and succeeded for the 1st time in 27 years in balancing the Federal Budget. Conservatives should also keep in mind a lot of the "facts" present by Bush Critics are sort of misleading. They like to throw around the factoid about "Non-defense spending went up x4 under Bush but only x2 under Clinton." Times 2 in a period of Budget Surpluses, Mostly World Peace, massive defense cuts, full employment and general economic prosperity vs. x4 fighting war and recession? Why did "Non Defense Spending" need to go at all during the 1990s given the economic conditions of the times? Under those favorable condtions, Federal Spending SHOULD of gone massively DOWN! It is a much different world we faced after September 11. Kind of puts a different spin on the Federal Budget issue when you put it into the context of the times? The Federal Budget "facts" thrown around by the Bush critics are more than just a bit intellectually dishonest. The fact that HOMELAND SECURITY is a "Non-Defense spending" issue also has been conveniently been omitted from those "reports.

    From an interesting article in the Washington Times.

    Cutting the deficit in half

    The Washington Times

    By Joshua B. Bolten

    Monday, February 16, 2004

    The 2005 budget, which President Bush recently transmitted to Congress, continues to support and advance three overriding national priorities: winning the war on terror, protecting the homeland and strengthening the economy.

    While the president is committed to spending what is necessary to provide for our security, he is also committed to restraining spending elsewhere.

    Since September 11, 2001, more than three-quarters of the increase in the federal government's appropriated spending has been directly related to our response to the attacks, enhanced homeland security efforts, and the war on terror. "

    3/4s of the spending hmm? Kind of puts "Bush's Spending" in a different light

    The point of all this is simple. Bush is the edge of the wedge to divide an American people use to 50 years of some form of Democratic Party rule to one that is comfortable with Republican rule. We have a very good chance to work with a Republican majority we have zero chance with the current leadership of the Democratic party. Our whole failure after 1994 stems from our rush to implement Conservative values at once without convincing the American People we were NOT going to "starve their children" or "throw our old people out in the streets". The Democratic Party, with their full scale campaign of lies, smears and accusation against Bush, clearly see the danger Bush's reelection represents to their Socialist agenda. Why can't the Conservatives see the same?

  • #2
    Whats your point, if you like Bush just say so it takes to long to read all that.

    Comment


    • #3
      The Democratic Party, with their full scale campaign of lies, smears and accusation against Bush, clearly see the danger Bush's reelection represents to their Socialist agenda. Why can't the Conservatives see the same?
      While I agree with much of what you say, I think where some of the objection comes in because of the nature of the conservative and even more so, the libertarian ideologies.

      There is an understanding that many on the right have that once a government policy is enacted, it is extremely difficult to remove. Thus issues like the presidents immigration policy, lack of border control policy, spending, etc are issues that should be spoken out against in my mind.

      It ranks of hypocrisy to me, to give such issues a light going over since it comes from a republican president. If clinton were to propose such things we'd be having a field day on the radio talk show circuit, and rightly so.

      So while bush will probably get my vote, although I have voted for the libertarian candidate Browne in the past, I still think it necessary for us to voice our discomfort with policies than can and will give us long term problems such as defecit spending and immigration/border issues.

      Conservative need to keep in mind that we are in the midst of both a WAR and a Recession! Kind of impossible to balance a budget and effectively fight both war and recession.
      I don't believe we are technically in a recession, in fact I believe we are in a period of economic growth. Anways... while the point about war is accepted, the problem is we aren't cutting spending and I don't mean cutting growth, I mean cutting spending in other areas to help compensate for the fact that we are involved in a war and nation building. Yet it's those government entitlement programs which have fostered a strong belief that all government spending is entitlement and people now are unwilling to see cuts in spending in some areas to compensate for necessary spending in others... see defense budget.

      So, the question is, is the president doing the right thing by proposing an increase in spending across the board without cutting spending in some areas? My answer is a resounding no, he isn't and this should be voiced by our compadres in the media to express that to the president in ways in which a single letter can't match.

      Will this affect the swing voters? Probably to some degree, but considering the opposition, I'm not, atleast at this point, too concerned. I will say though, that it's been the continual erosion of ideology or even more to the point, principle that has gotten us into the governmental morass that we are in now and with most things government, it's much easier to try to stop someone from increasing governments interests and controls than it ever is to remove some of them...
      Islam... it's a blast - literally.

      Comment

      Latest Topics

      Collapse

      Working...
      X