Nov 18 2006
Anti-Bush Republicans
To emphasize my point about Reps losing the independent middle, I must bring some history back into focus, and how much Republicans despised Reagan and Bush I. I use this example to show that the Far Right actually has a history of dumping popular Presidents and leaders due to their insatiable impatience. When they returned to form on the current George Bush the result was the same – Democrat wins. Last time they gave us Clinton, this time Pelosi and Reid. So let’s explore how the Republican party, driven by their unelected Gliterati (media talking/writing heads) has successfully snatched defeat from the jaws of victory once again. Because I think it is important for those who look down at us Bush Conservatives to face some facts: Bush is the Conservative defensive line right now. What we salvage will be up to him to defend. And if anyone thinks blaming Bush for Congress’ mistakes and self inflicted losses will gain them a voice at the new table, then they should think again. Who wants an angry loser around when the nation’s needs are at stake?
So what happened the last time the Republicans started their circular firing squad? Reagan had had a tough second term which included the Iran-Contra battles with the Democrat Congress, and the subsequent scandal. On top of that Reagan had to live with the prolific spending in Congress (sound familiar) that were in opposition to his policies of lowered taxes and smaller government. He did expand military spending in order to force the Soviet Union to capitulate the Cold War, but the fruits of his strategy would blossom after his term (sound familiar). He had suffered the 6th year election setbacks as well.
The low tax successes of his earlier term had turned into nothing special in the minds of the far right – who wanted more than was politically feasible. Of course we know the long term result was Clinton’s higher taxes. Which the current George Bush had to fight to turn back again. Every time the Republicans have a fit and lose ground it must be regained. Momentum is not a concept republicans seem to be able to coexist with naturally. Thankfully, at the moment, we have a Rep President with a veto to stop any significant backsliding.
Sadly, the Republicans are still shooting more at their own base than anything else and we could end up with another Clinton in the White House if this continues. And then we will have to work to gain America’s trust again and get back to the Reagan level of taxes again. A vicious circle of wasted time.
So with all this baggage and infighting Reagan supported the election of his Vice President, George HW Bush. This was the last straw for many Republicans who jumped ship to the Perot campaign. This included famous Reps like pollster Ed Rollins and Perot’s campaing manager Tom Luce. (Perot would later be very angry at Republican Tom Luce after he had his picture taken with George HW Bush). The electorate had tired of Conservatism as displayed by the Buchananites and other hard liners.
Side note: he media can be counted on to do one thing, and that is to put the spotlight in the most hardened right wingers while moderates (McCain being the exception) get little notice. This enhances the image of Republicans as too far out there. All the Republican Gliterati had more air time than Bush himself this round, so we can figure out where the bad reputation probably comes from. The Bill Kristol smirk when he skewers the right is a priceless reminder that the media has its useful idiots too.
Election results in 1992 showed Clinton held onto what was the normal Democrat vote. What happened was angry conservative males jumped ship to Perot:
For example we continued to hear much about the gender gap in this election, and once again the Democrats did significantly better among women voters (46%) than among men (41%). But the gender gap virtually disappeared for Bush. He received 38% of the vote from men and 37% of the vote from women. So if the conventional wisdom about the gender gap is accurate, the Republicans should be pleased.
Unfortunately for the Republicans the conventional wisdom has missed the point. Remember Republicans have been winning in elections where there was a gender gap, and the reason is that male voters have been reluctant to vote for Democrats. In 1988 Bush carried 50% of the female vote but he carried 57% of the male vote. In 1992 however, Bush dropped to 38% among male voters, and Ross Perot picked up 21% of the male voters. Clinton’s level of support among males remained unchanged, even with Perot in the race.
Even more striking is the vote of those who identify with one of the major parties. In 1988 the Democratic ticket maintained the support of 82% of Democratic voters, the highest level in the last four elections. In 1976, 1980, and the 1984, the Democratic Presidential ticket attracted 77%, 67%, and 74% respectively. But in this same period the Republican tickets dipped below 90% support of Republican voters only in the three way race in 1980, when the ticket still received 86% of the Republican vote. In 1992 Bush carried only 73% of the Republican vote, an 18% decline from 1988. Perot attracted 17% of Republican voters.
The Republicans threw Bush I under the bus basically. This phenomena was reported here and many other places. But why? Interestingly enough Perot was against the first Gulf War which meant he attracted the Buchananite wing of the Republican party. Those jumping ship on Iraq today also have no stamina for a real war. We all knew Iraq would be tough, but the establishment of a democratic ally in the Middle East is still well worth the effort to ensure success. Buchanan has been calling for surrender as much as Pelosi. The parallel between 1992 and 2006 are striking. The Perot disaster mimics the Republican Thumpin’ of 2006 in another way as well – immigration:
Perot also led the charge against Senate ratification of the North American Free Trade Association (NAFTA), designed to reduce trade barriers with Mexico and Canada. Perot stepped up his media campaign against NAFTA with his catchy “giant sucking sound” quip about American jobs being pulled to Mexico. Perot also authored a book (with economist Pat Choate), “Save Your Job, Save Our Country: Why NAFTA Must Be Stopped Now!”
Perot was a pro-choice, isolationist, small government candidate. So it is hard to call him a conservative magnet – he was a mixed bag at best. But his big draw was being against NAFTA and immigration:
Today, foreign professional workers can enter the US labor market, but only “temporarily†& only if an employer gets a certification that a qualified US worker cannot be found. Also, the existing US immigration laws place a numerical limit on the number of temporary workers. Put another way, American workers have priority for American jobs.
NAFA radically alters this entire concept. Under NAFTA, Mexican and Canadian workers in 63 designated categories may be hired in the US, even if qualified American workers are available.
I see a recurring pattern here. The Buchananite wing of the far right threw its support to Perot and gave us Clinton. So let’s not simply take for granted the hard right is infallible. The fact is it is very fallible and has run to rash judgements more than once to upend conservative policies. In fact, the Buchananites tend to follow Buchanan in declaring themselves anti-Reagan as well as anti-Bush Republicans.
Except that in 1992, Pat Buchanan made clear that he was no longer a Reagan conservative. As you may recall, in his celebrated speech to the Republican National Convention that summer, not only did he make angry statements, but he spoke far longer than the time allotted to him, thus, delaying the speech of the man who was to speak later that evening, a man whose ideas Buchanan once claimed to have championed — Ronald Wilson Reagan.
By going over his time limit, Pat Buchanan bumped that great American’s speech out of prime time. It would be Ronald Reagan’s last address to a Republican National Convention. Any true Republican, knowing that he was speaking before Ronald Reagan, would, instead of extending his remarks (as Buchanan did), have cut them short, out of respect for the then-octogenarian Gipper. And acknowledged how humbled he was to be on the same platform as that great man.
I recall this time because I had voted for Carter in 1980 and learned my lesson to become a conservative independent by 1984 – rarely to vote Democrat again. All this anymosity towards Reagan was covered over after his death, but it was real at the time. As we pick the ashes of the 2006 debacle, we must face facts – history has repeated itself and it is at the hands of the impatient, far right that conservatism saw its losses. These hardliners have openly declared a willingness to fight conservatives if they do not get their way, and align with liberals if that is what it takes:
“If we have to make common cause with the more hawkish liberals and fight the conservatives, that is fine with me,” William Kristol has told the New York Times.
The Weekly Standard editor added that the neoconservatives may just abandon the Right altogether and convert to neoliberalism.
…
Kristol’s warning that the neocons could break with the Right and go to Kerry is an admission of what many conservatives have long argued. To neocons, Israel comes first, second and third, conservative principles be damned.
Granted, Kristol was aiming at Buchanan in this piece saying he would prefer Kerry to Buchanan, but what he also said clearly is he has no allegiance to the conservative movement if they oppose his wants and desires.
The point is Kristol runs a magazine, he does NOT represent conservatives in this nation. Yet he pontificates on Fox News as if he is one with the movement. But how could that be if he is willing to oppose the movement on a whim? In fact, he should be seen as an unstable, fair weather, loose associate of conservatism – as long as the movement suites his needs we can count on him.
Conservatism won in the 2006 elections. Protection of marriage as an institution between a man and a woman won handily in many states. The Embryonic Stem Cell measure went down in MO (I believe) and CA rejected numerous liberal spending measures. So conservative policies did quite well.
So what happened? Clearly the anti-Bush (previously anti-Reagan/Bush) Reps repeated their mistakes of 1992. What can we do? How did the Reps turn it around by 1994? The Reps in 1994 rejected the far right and found common ground with the broad American people. Bush and Reagan were elected by the people, yet many in their own party threw them under the bus because of that very same broad appeal that got them elected. This is not the first time the far right wanted to jam their agenda onto a coalition that only agreed on a limited portion of their agenda. The Buchananites and the Kristolites do not support the governing coalition, they use it to further their views. They are not open to debate and evolving ideas. They only see ‘useful’ and ‘not useful’ in terms of their agendas. That is why NRO and others spend days taking pot shots at their most successful conservative leaders – they are not out for common ground with Americans. They are agenda driven. And their agendas focus on specific solutions, not broad goals. That is why the Fence Only crowd paralyzed the Congress over the guest worker program. It was not on their agenda.
A lot of people commented on why I am a Bush Conservative and how ‘asinine’ that view is (as one person put). But I do have a long view in these matters, and with it I see the second far right disaster in two decades. In 1992 the anti-immigration nativists flocked to Perot who was no true conservative (pro choice, anti Gulf War???) outside their one issue. The result was President Clinton who dutifully ignored the warning signs of Al Qaeda while all his energies focused on the polls and creating (and later salvagin) his legacy. He also pushed for full amnesty and citizenship – another resoundingly bad idea. In 2006, the anti-immigration, nativists folks crippled Congress and refused to pass comprehensive immigration reform (which 2/3rds of the electorate support). As in 1992, the result was a fractured (in other words crippled) democrat party now in charge of Congress. And again the result will be losing focus on the threats to this nation while we are consumed by partisan investigations and the Democrat internal battles. Once again the hard line gambled all and decided if they could not have power, no conservatives would have power. They bet it all and lost. But this time we still have Bush who, unlike Clinton, is not concerned with his legacy but on protecting this nation. And that is why I stick with Bush and reject the Republican Gliterati. Those are my choices and the Bush wins hands down.
Once the long view comes into focus it will become clear what happened. And the first party to see what happened clearly will be able to adjust and grab the initiative for the next few years. That is what happened in 1992 after the far right threw the last Bush under the bus. We shall see if history will repeat itself on the upside as well as the downside. But be forewarned, it is just as likely the Democrats could finally see where things are heading and grab the initiative. Both parties are no fractured and relying on the independent voters to give them a chance to govern. Neither is party is looking very good. So small adjustments will look incredibly better.
Addendum: And who has been the loudest critics of Hispanic Sen Mel Martinez’s selection to head the RNC (a selection I was not keen on)? Well, you can guess it. The “Fence Only” crowd (at the Weekly Standard [Tripe] no less) took it as an attack on them probably because Bush is still trying to reach out to Hispanic voters – which makes them Citizens!:
BY APPOINTING Florida senator Mel Martinez to chair the Republican National Committee, President Bush sent a blunt message to conservatives: “Drop dead.” That’s the opinion of Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, who has lobbied hard against Bush’s “comprehensive” immigration reform package. Hyperbole, perhaps, but it highlights the GOP fissure on immigration–one deepened by the recent election.
Martinez, a Cuban refugee who fled the island in 1962, supports the Bush vision of a guest-worker program for future immigrants and a “path to citizenship” for illegal aliens. He is also a prominent GOP envoy to the Latino community. His elevation to RNC chief, says Krikorian, shows how “emotionally” invested Bush is in passing an “amnesty” bill. “This is something the president can’t let go.”
What the Fence Only crowd cannot let go is they are losing Hispanic voters. I reiterate – these are American citizens – not illegal aliens. And opposing a Hispanic US Senator because of fears the Fence Only crowd cannot control the agenda (that already happened in the House loss, but these new Buchananites can’t ‘let go’) is just the kind of broad insult which repulses people. Martinez is a US citizen and a US Senator. The fact he is Hispanic is the only reason these people are pushing the panic button. The Fence Only crowd is rapidly, and thankfully, isolating itself in a fit or purity. Not all conservatives are buying their fear mongering:
But not all conservatives agree about the House Republicans. Americans for Tax Reform president Grover Norquist thinks there has always been a functioning House majority for comprehensive immigration reform. So what happened last summer? “The radio talk-show hosts got out there and poisoned the atmosphere,” says Norquist, who worries that being overly harsh on immigration contributed to the GOP’s loss of Congress.
I know I have ruined my standing with Cons over this bitter medicine. But I, like Bush ,have much more important goals in mind than pandering to the far right when they are in a self destructive mood.
What if Pelosi does make common cause with Bush on immigration? How will House Republicans respond? “I think they’ll lay down on the railroad tracks in front of it, to keep it from going through,” says an aide to GOP congressman Mike Pence of Indiana, head of the conservative Republican Study Committee. “We lost the base a long time ago, and that’s why the House crumbled.”
Last Friday Pence lost his bid for minority leader to John Boehner, the current majority leader. Arizona’s John Shadegg also lost his challenge to incumbent Roy Blunt of Missouri for GOP whip. Both vote counts were lopsided. “I have never been so disgusted with my own party,” says another Republican House aide. “I find it astonishing that our leadership just seems to be skating through.”
Let them lay down on the tracks. The sooner we end this fiasco the sooner we can get right again. Pun intended.
Update: More evidence that Latinos and Hispanics left the GOP after all the success Bush had in bringing them INTO the debate on how to fix illegal immigration.
Personaly, I think Ronald Reagan was the Best President we have had in my lifetime. My only wish would have been for him to have had a more Conservative Congress.
I enthusiasticly voted for W in 2000, believing he was Conservative also. I also voted for W in “04, but by then, I thought anyway, that he was no conservative at all. But I voted for him again because there really was no other choice for any of the things that were important to me. The War on Terror, Preserving the Tax Cuts, and the Judiciary. Beyond that, I personally had no other reason to vote for him other than I do believe he is a man of his word and a good
Christian.
But a closer look at his policies, I just don’t see Conservatism, unless it too, is being re defined. Government has grown more under his leadership than any other I’m aware of. The Prescription Drug Program certainly was not a conservative idea. I think it was to take an issue away from the Dems. Signing that horrible Campaign Finance Reform bill sure doesn’t seem conservative. Never vetoing those awfull Pork Filled spending bills doesn’t seem conservative. But worse than that, he should have said to congress before they sent him those bills, Guys, we have to hold down spending. No more earmarks either. But I’m unaware of him ever doing anything like that.
Sadly, I can not point to any True Conservative Leadership in Washington. I think it has been a building problem. I did not see Bush leading a Conservative Movement, Nore Haster, nor Frist. I thought Newt and the boys were following in Reagans footsteps. But when he left due to scandle, I did not really see any fill his shoes. I’ve never liked any of our Senate Leaders From Dole to Lott to Frist. I thought they all leaned Moderate to Conservative, but mostly moderate. I’d have love to have seen say Phil Gram as a leader back in the day, but he wasn’t.
I certainly don’t feel like arguing about this as with other topics. But this is my opinion. I’m not saying I don’t support W, I just don’t see any Conservative Leadership in D.C., and sadly from my perspective, I have not seen any in many years.
Ow, weren’t we going to eliminate PBS, NPR, DEPT. of EDUCATION, etc. Privatize Amtrak, etc. Instead, they have at least maintained their funding, and in many cases, grown exponentialy.
This is without a doubt the VERY best commentary I have read about Bush, the far right, conservative GOP treason, and the real problems with the right.
They have a tendency to forget how they treated Reagan toward the end. Fact is the “right” has a great tendency to forget just who Reagan was, what he did, and what he said….first – never speak ill of a fellow Republican! Reagan was a Republican first and a conservative second. I truly do not understand where and when the whole concept of ideology over logic and reason occurred with these people. It may have been Buchanan, but I’m not quite sure about that.
Unfortunately, I too feel the ‘right’ is going to throw Bush on the sacrificial pyre of ideology over real life. If so, he will get the same treatment as another great man, his father. Okay, my honest opinion is they really don’t want a powerful conservative leader. If there were, they would be forced to shut up and behave themselves. Consequently when someone like GB #’s 41 & 43 come to power, they must do their level best to destroy them so the ‘RIGHT’ can remain right, and they can bask in the glow that no one person is more important than a movement. Sounds a little bit like socialism to me!
I truly think the rise of Buchanan in 1991 was due to the fact that GB #41 had literally amassed the power of a Caesar during Desert Storm. He had to be taken down so THEY could rule. And now they are doing the same thing to his son. It is absolutely amazing how these people work. Then, they go out calling others who do not submit to their slash and burn, search and destroy methods RINOs. Problem is the people they call RINO today were here as Republicans before they were. They will be here after they are gone, picking up the pieces.
Interestingly the “RIGHT†conservatives like to deride GB #41 about the tax increase he ‘pulled’ on them. Unfortunately, they have a tendency to forget he was dealing with a Dem controlled Senate and House and there were a few Republicans who negotiated that specific budget and tax increase. There’s one “PURE†conservative GOP name who is often forgotten as the one who promoted and pushed this plan that GB #41 signed. At the time I wondered about the abject betrayal of the President and why this person would do something like this. I still wonder. Oh, his name? The ‘architect’ behind the GOP’s caving to that specific budget and the tax increases? Why just a few years later he rose from the ashes of a blinding GOP defeat and put together the great Republican take over of the House and Senate. Yep, Newt Gingrich himself.
I’ve had my doubts about these people since then. They constantly blame GB#41 for something a few of the more conservative members of the House worked on. But since #41’s signature is on the document, he gets all the blame and they get the glory of being conservatively pure.
The only possible explanation I can come up with, is the RIGHT Republicans are nothing but a bunch of narcissistic bottom-feeders.
Maybe we should call them the anti everybody Republicans. I wonder how many votes David Frum or Bill Kristol or Ann Coulter or even George Will would actually get in an election if they stopped just running their mouths and put themselves in the position of winning elections.
I read somewhere {sorry no link} that self described moderates made up 47% of the electorate, the largest single group.
This is a pattern. I have often wondered if Bush might have been able to get the social security reform fiscal conservatives say they want if they had been half as interested in backing him on that as they were in bitching about Miers, Dubai, immigration and earmarks. And now they want to pick party leadership. I don’t think so. They have not earned that right.
I stopped even looking at Malkin and polipundit and a lot of right leaning blogs because of their attitudes about immigration. When polipundit said Bush could go eff himself because he backed comprehensive immigration reform. I said screw this. After all what makes people who say something like that think someone else isn’t saying: right back at you buddy.
And then there was Frum and Coulter over Miers. The whole thing about Dubai was silly in the extreme. And that kind of incessant whining hurts.
And after attacking the man relentlessly they complain about Bush’s numbers. Kristol blames Bush for the election because of his low numbers. Well how exactly did people like Kristol help in that regard? Did they support Bush and try to keep those numbers up or did they stab in the back every damn chance they got?
If conservatives eat their own and the left hates moderates and conservatives anyway and the right in turn hates the moderates and the liberals…well it seems to me that it is no great surprise that Bush’s numbers would be down..especially in a long war.
So defeat becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.
Great Post AJ
I believe the problem lies with the fact that the people you mentioned are not really conservatives. They are really KOS like intellectuals who for some reason come to different conclusions.
Marvin Olasky wrote an article several months back about why GWB is a different conservative. His view is that the reason “conservatives” do not understand it is because the ideal is solve problems. Get from unsat point A to sat point B.
Look at “No Child Left Behind”. KOS style thinking revolves around government spending. KOS Libs are fixated about not enough gov’t spending, KOS conservatives are fixated that their is gov’t spending.
The point is to get from a hopelessly expensive dysfunctional system to an ecoonomical effective system. This may include more or less spending in transition or long term. KOS libs and KOS conservatives equally hate the program.
People like Limbaugh, Malkin, Coulter, NRO, Savage cannot get beyond the spending fixation. The liberal mentality drives them to think along KOS lines. This line of thinking is why Malkin can justify detention camps for American citizens in WWII.
It also drives the fence debate. It’s driven by a paraniod isolationism.
It refuses to recognize that walls and barriers (Great Wall, Atlantic Wall, Berlin Wall) have only failed through history. It also fails to recognize the underlying causes. (failed Mexican state, full employment and affluence here)
It matters not to these type of people that you can be for strict border enforcement and not want to have the disruption of sending 10 million workers away at a time full employment. Nor will they realize the possible problems with Mexico if you cut off the largest source of income while overloading their social system.
Hopefully, sites like this will be the wave of the future. We are suffering from too many “pundits” earning a living from commentary
“I recall this time because I had voted for Carter in 1980 and learned my lesson to become a conservative independent by 1984”
Wow, even if I had voted for Carter, I wouldn’t admit it. Of modern Presidents ( FDR and later) he has to be the worst, hands down, followed very closely by Clinton. Pres Reagan the best of all time and I put GWB in the 2nd position for the modern period.
I bought a house during the end of Carter’s regime and interest was 15.5%. Had Carter gotten re-elected, it would have been about 20 % by 84. Carter may be a case of a Christian president that prayer did not work for.
I, like everyone else, have a lot of thoughts about this post and will be analyzing it more and responding. This may be a case of half full or half empty. Which position you take may be the angle you are looking from. Since leaving the presidency (or maybe before) he has gone totally off the deep end. I personally think it was before he was elected the first time.
Just one example, you seem to think conservatives left Bush over Iraq. They may have, or maybe not. I certainly voted Straight Repub and I was very dissatisfied with Iraq, but did NOT desert GWB. My dissatisfaction is only from the point of view that I don’t think we are doing the right things to win it sooner. Under NO circumstances can we surrender or give up supporting freedom throughout the world.
The Islamo-Fascists want to kill us and are not going to stop until they are dead or we or dead. I’m pulling for my side.
More later.
What’s all this attacking Ann Coulter. She’s one of the GOOD guys folks. She is on the RIGHT side . She supports Conservatives, Republicans, and opposes the BAD guys. She uses humor to make her point. For goodness sake, we could use a lot more humor and when those Dems get in there running things, we sure better not lose our sense of humor.
I’ve read every one of her books and all her columns and I laugh all the way through.
Will, Buchanan, Kristol, some others, yeah they’ve had a wheel run off or something. They sure have lost their way.
Anti-Herman, you don’t seem to understand Coulter at all to say what you did. Maybe you should read something she wrote and quit relying on sound bites from the Formerly MSM.
People like Limbaugh, Malkin, Coulter, NRO, Savage cannot get beyond the spending fixation
But less spending, smaller Government, Individual Liberty, and Personal Resposibility use to be the Cornerstones of Conservatives.
Bush has been excellent on Taxes, the War, and Judges. I would have liked Harriet Myers to have had her hearings. The only thing I did not like about her nomination was her age. Granted no one know how long they will live, or for that matter be mentaly competent and productive, but I was personally hoping for someone younger. Just because, I had hoped they would serve longer on the Court. So, that is what we ended up with. She should have gotten her hearing though.
I like to say ALL Presidents have selective alligence to the Constitution. Some thing they are good at standing up for, and other things, they aren’t so good at. I think the same could be said for Conservatism or for that matter Liberalism. The seem to have selective alligence to those Ideals, depending on Party affiliation.
Not related, but something else that bothers me, is Politicians who have either never lived somewhere, or who haven’t in many many year, moving there, and running for office. I’m specificaly speaking of Senators Clinton and Dole. This bugs me. I’d like to see a residency requirement of say 2 years in a state before you can run for a Federal Office in that state. Neither of these two should have been allowed to run where they ended up running. Neither had lived in the State that they were elected to represent more than a few weeks prior to anouncing their candidacies. It has alwats bothered me. Party switchers AFTER an election also. Phil Gram was a demacrate. He decided he no longer was. He did not just switch parties after being Elected, he ran as a Republican. Sadly, no other politician I can think of had the guts to do the same.
the term Neocon should be prohibited speech. It is equivalent to calling conservatives the N word. It was coined by the Progressives (formerly communists/socialists) as a derogatory term for their opposition.
Would everyone please refrain from using this racist, bigoted word?
It is a very offensive word.
Sadly, after the Election of “04, I thought we would then fight a more agressive war. I thought, wat’s to stop Bush from doing just that? Who knows, but it sure wasn’t more agressive.
I would encourage everyone to watch “Obsession”, it truely is eye opening. The Glen Beck special was also. Hope you caught it. This is the only war in my memory where 90% of the people have not seen with their own eyes, the true nature of this enemy. It should, and COULD, be on every Nightly “News” cast, but it is not. This Enemy is more leathal, and brutal than the Nazis. But not many people know this, I think because of a near total media black out of the truth. This black out has lead to an erossion of support of Bush, The War, and Reps. in general.
I think it’s inexcuseable, and it enrages me. I now have my eyes wide open as to the threat that is out there. Obsession opened my eyes more than anything I’d previously seen or read.
Enforcement
Coulter’s articles are archived at Townhall.com. She did good work on the Venona Cables and an excellent job dispelling Max Cleland as a ” hero who left limbs on the battlefield in Vietnam”
Please review her work on Roberts, Alito, and her articles calling for sitting out the 2006 elections to “teach a lesson”. She’s big friends with Bill Mahr, Why?
Excellent post Mr. Strata.
Politics is the art of the possible. The right wing purists who allowed the left to get back in power rather than support the president’s rather stunning accomplishments in the face of domestic and foreign opposition 24/7 will soon rue their foolhardy decision.
Less said the better about the NRO and Weekly Standard bunch. They’re far to brilliant to hang out with us conservative low brows.
Has anyone ever seen loathsome Bill Kristol and the equally loathsome Michael Kingsley in the same room? I believe they’re either one in the same person or barring that, evil twins separated at birth.
Steve
Conservatives are for smaller gov’t. This is what makes the actions of some “conservatives” all the more despicable.
Here’s a question
Why was Newt Gingrich for the prescription drug legislation?
Welcome Erp,
And you can call me AJ if you wish. No formalities here at the Strata-Sphere. There is a saying amongst us southerns regarding the elitists from the big cities. For 100’s of years the elitists have fallen for the same old trick of the southern drawl. They fall for it everytime. You’d think with all that brain power they would stop assuming a “y’all” was a sign of low IQ!
anti-herman
How do you know? “She’s big friends with Bill Mahr, Why?”
I’ve seen her on Bill Mahr’s show only once and I didn’t see any ‘friendship’, they eached tried to stab the other.
Does she say they’re friends?
Bill O’Reilly said on Letterman that they are friends, even bowl together. but that’s NOT true. He said it in jest.
Thanks, I’ve read most of those archived columns in the past.
You asked this:
Why was Newt Gingrich for the prescription drug legislation?
Because a drug bill was GOING to be put in and the Repubs wanted to get credit for it rather than letting the dems get credit.
If he had not supported it, he would have been stabbing GWB in the back.
Great post and linking again today.
I think we must have our voice heard some how and someplace. One problem is labels. I used to shun the words Moderate. Now I am not so sure. Moderate used to mean something different than it used to. Now it seems that pro-life Republicans can safely take that term on. For what is moderate today is just plain ole comon sense conservatism.
A few thoughts-
As to the complaining on the Prescription Drug benifit- Sorry folks it was a little bit more than stealing a issue from the Dems. When I hear that I think people havent talked to old people about having to pay the heat bill or paying their prescription bill instead. Its serious and it affects real people. If there was another conservative alternative to it I was hearing about or one that was promoted much. HEalth care is a issue period
I am glad you highlight populism. I can’t believe all this anti free trade and protectionism garbage I hear. It is going so unchallenged. IF you look at the extremist groups that are trying to be the Republican and conservative voice they shall this view. Go to the kooky League of the South, the racist Council of Conservative Citizens , or most Hardline immigrations sites. They are the ones spreading the conspiracy theories of the NOrth Amerrican Union and the Amero and the horrible Interstate that the conspiring George Bush is building. Before you think thats meaningless Tom Tancredo himself jumped on all that Art Bell Conspiracy BS. However we ignore it. There is quickly becoming a unhinged wing that is gaining influence. Why?Because its never answered.
AJ, excellent
“For 100’s of years the elitists have fallen for the same old trick of the southern drawl. They fall for it everytime. You’d think with all that brain power they would stop assuming a “y’all†was a sign of low IQ!”
Yep, and also ‘y’all’ only applies to 2 or more persons, not just one as used by the yankees.
I always said, we talk slow because we are thinking about what we say before we say it. Yankees talk fast and say it before they think about what they are saying to better display their ignorance.
Proud to be 100% born and raised Southern.
Erb
Has anyone ever seen loathsome Bill Kristol and the equally loathsome Michael Kingsley in the same room?
I can’t agree with that statement. Kristol may be a disappointment, but he is no Kingsley.
In O’Reilly talk, Kingsley is a Secular Progressive and a threat to America. You can’t put Kristol in that category.
S-P’s think America is NOT a noble nation and is flawed and needs major change.
Kristol is Not in that category. Kingsley is.
Mel Martinez has a 100% rating with the conservative union doesn’t he?
I do not understand the knee jerk need to bitch about everything.
I have empasized Bush’s sellout of the conservative base on immigration. But more than 50% of conservatives poll as
opposing Bush’s failed war on Iraq. Strata seems not to notice
this component of Bush’s 31% approval rate and the election
repercussions.
Enforcement
I believe she is friends with Mahr because in an interview, she said they were great friends. Also, I hope you have concluded that my knowledge on Ms Coulter’s writing is based on reading them on a weekly basis vice MSM interpretation
Now let’s get to presciption drugs.
Your answer is perfect in that perfectly reflects the answers expected from the MSCM (Moonbat Stream Conservative Media). It’s all politics and they will sell out our “principles” for votes.
Here’s the answer:
We currently have a Soviet style single payer system that will go bankrupt. If you ever hope to privitize (meaning smaller gov’t) you have to transition from Soviet medicine to private insurance.
(This is what Newt was talking about in the infamous “wither on the vine” speech.)
Please note that we currently have HSA’s (Health Savings Accounts) to provide the mechanism for this (Enacted under the traitor Bush).
Newt is also smart enough to realize that choice and flexibity will come through the presciption program with private insurance to follow.
Over time we have people saving for their golden years health insurance, we can have an IRA system with gov’t oversight.
Do you think this will mean smaller gov’t?
There is the fundamental diffence. Conservatives come up with solutions to transition out of Medicare. Moonbats fixate on “gov’t spending”.