Like rats from a sinking ship


PDA






Balog
February 10, 2004, 03:38 PM
Taken from http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040210/pl_nm/campaign_bush_base_dc_1


Bush's Political Base Seems Restive, Anxious


By Alan Elsner

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Some of George W. Bush's conservative political supporters are increasingly restive and anxious about the president's economic policies as well as his attempts to justify the war against Iraq (news - web sites).


Popular conservative television news anchor Bill O'Reilly, usually an outspoken Bush loyalist, said on Tuesday he was now skeptical about the Bush administration and apologized to viewers for supporting prewar claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.


"I was wrong. I am not pleased about it at all and I think all Americans should be concerned about this," O'Reilly said in an interview with ABC's "Good Morning America."


Pollster John Zogby said Bush was on the defensive with some polls showing him slightly behind Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites), his probable Democratic opponent in the Nov. 2 presidential election.


"The president is on the ropes right now. The question is, how will he adjust? Right now, the issues are not in his favor. Many Americans still think the economy is poor and his rationale for the Iraq war seems a little thin," he said.


"Bush's greatest asset was his unimpeachable integrity in the eyes of most Americans. But with no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, that integrity has been chipped away and right now some large lumps are falling off it," Zogby said.


Bush's White House interview on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday was designed to calm some of these doubts. But while some pundits gave Bush good marks for his performance, some prominent conservatives were not impressed.


'TIRED AND UNSURE'


Peggy Noonan, a speechwriter for former President Ronald Reagan (news - web sites) and for Bush's father and an outspoken conservative commentator, said: "The president seemed tired, unsure and often bumbling. His answers were repetitive, and when he tried to clarify them he tended to make them worse. He seemed in some way disconnected from the event."


Conservative columnists George Will and Robert Novak and former Republican congressman Joe Scarborough, now a cable TV commentator, have also recently criticized Bush's fiscal programs and his attempts to explain them.


Such doubts, if they persist, could spell trouble for Bush's re-election campaign. But conservative political consultant Keith Appell said Bush would soon be able to unify and energize his base.


"The White House has had a string of misfires but I believe they will soon regain their stride. This last month has been a wake-up call, but maybe that's what they needed," he said.


In the past month, Bush's State of the Union Address and his initiative to send manned spacecraft to Mars failed to generate much enthusiasm. Conservatives and liberals both criticized his budget for failing to seriously confront the country's growing deficit problem.


On Monday, Bush delivered an economic report to Congress promising to create 2.6 million jobs this year. Last year's economic report predicted that 1.7 million jobs would be created. Instead, there was a net loss of 53,000.


"Congress has the power to censure the president -- to formally reprimand him for betraying the nation's trust. If ever there was a time for this, it's now," the group said in a statement posted on its Web site.


Democrats hope they can plant seeds of doubt now. "If you can create a drumbeat of criticism in February, it's easier to make the case when it really counts in September and October," said Democratic consultant Jennifer Laszlo.


But Brown University political scientist Darrell West said he expected Bush to recover. "It's damaging when your friends criticize you in public, but by November they will all be supporting Bush," he said.

If you enjoyed reading about "Like rats from a sinking ship" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
fix
February 10, 2004, 03:43 PM
Democrats hope they can plant seeds of doubt now. "If you can create a drumbeat of criticism in February, it's easier to make the case when it really counts in September and October," said Democratic consultant Jennifer Laszlo.

It is for this reason alone, I have made up my mind to ignore (and in some cases stop participating in) all the Bush bashing with my fellow conservatives.

glocksman
February 10, 2004, 03:58 PM
But Brown University political scientist Darrell West said he expected Bush to recover. "It's damaging when your friends criticize you in public, but by November they will all be supporting Bush," he said.

I wouldn't bet on this.
You can only stab me in the back so many times before I say 'screw you', and vote for someone else. And GWB is about at that point now.

boofus
February 10, 2004, 04:15 PM
My test will be whether another AWB oozes its way out of the leftwing sewer and whether the junk lawsuit ban passes. If W blows those 2 tests then I'm voting libertarian and just ignoring the new AWB.:cuss:

Henry Bowman
February 10, 2004, 04:23 PM
I think that the pundits are overlooking the backlash effects (by the conservative base) of Bush's proposed immigration policy. The appeal to a few hispanic voters is far outweighed by the departure of the base, and now those in the center who can't remember that the war in iraq was not based on WMDs (as the media has convinced us it was).

Bob Locke
February 10, 2004, 04:49 PM
The appeal to a few hispanic voters is far outweighed by the departure of the base, and now those in the center who can't remember that the war in iraq was not based on WMDs (as the media has convinced us it was).
CIA DIrector George Tenet seemed to think that it was largely based on the possibility that Iraq had WMD's at its disposal. He was pretty careful with his words the other day, though. Sounded like Slick Willie to me.

But this presents no problem for me as I didn't vote for Bush before and have zero intention of voting for him this year either.

Selfdfenz
February 10, 2004, 06:57 PM
"Popular conservative television news anchor Bill O'Reilly, "

after that comment I didn't expect too much insight-wise and I wasn't disappointed.

S-

Standing Wolf
February 10, 2004, 07:24 PM
I'm waiting to see. So far, I can't tell the Republicrats from the Democans even with a score card.

Thumper
February 10, 2004, 07:35 PM
I can't tell the Republicrats from the Democans even with a score card.

Well, here is the Assault Weapon Ban scorecard for you in black and white. Maybe this will help the politically challenged:

http://www.awbansunset.com/senate.html

You will note that it's pretty cut and dried.

Gramps
February 10, 2004, 10:35 PM
Is saddam wasn't enough reason to crush that regime, there will never be a good reason, barring hundreds of thousands of dead Americans in the streets of a major city in the homeland. Come on folks, dubya acted right when we needed it. Good will conquer evil, but there is a price that we have to pay. No one likes it, but better we are confronting them in Iraq than here.

El Tejon
February 10, 2004, 10:52 PM
Gramps, good vs. evil? Hmmm, maybe. Kindly, Uncle Saddam was on probation and failed to account for his weapons and the judge violated his probation when the U.S. re-started its delayed offensive.

Bush did far more damage to himself with his signing of campaign finance reform, immigration and guns than America's enemies could ever do to him.

7.62FullMetalJacket
February 10, 2004, 11:55 PM
Thumper, I like the "broken gauge" graphics on the AWBSunset table :D

I think this is positive. The WH is feeling the heat from the homeland. All of these domestic issues can be corrected in the intervening months. A little Brasso will help to remove the tarnish.

Peggy Noonan may be on to something. GWB apparently is looking tired. I do not doubt it for a second. Can you imagine the strain of not only leading the most powerful nation in the world, but also dealing with the WOT and the 9/11 aftermath? And at the same time fighting all of the political battles at home, and abroad, ranging over many areas and issues? I think he needs to take a break, re-think what made him so trustworthy, shed the snake oil, and fire a few advisors. Re-staff with core believers and prepare for November.

I think that the man we saw after 9/11/2001 and in 2002 is exhausted and various elements in the cabinet are taking advantage. He needs to regain control of the ship.

Sodbuster
February 11, 2004, 12:23 AM
Hey! As a politically-challenged individual, I can't figure out why the 1989 ban wasn't on that website. Who was that guy, and which party did he belong to?;)

HunterGatherer
February 11, 2004, 05:31 AM
Bush did far more damage to himself with his signing of campaign finance reform, immigration and guns than America's enemies could ever do to him.Exactly.

Like rats from a sinking ship O'Reiley was never on board in the first place. He's just a R.I.N.O. wannabe with a journalism degree.

As far as WMDs go, Bush had the same intel that helped Klinton decide to sign: The Iraq Liberation Act
October 31, 1998

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

October 31, 1998

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT

Today I am signing into law H.R. 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998." This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers.

Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are: The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.

The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.

My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership.

In the meantime, while the United States continues to look to the Security Council's efforts to keep the current regime's behavior in check, we look forward to new leadership in Iraq that has the support of the Iraqi people. The United States is providing support to opposition groups from all sectors of the Iraqi community that could lead to a popularly supported government.

On October 21, 1998, I signed into law the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999, which made $8 million available for assistance to the Iraqi democratic opposition. This assistance is intended to help the democratic opposition unify, work together more effectively, and articulate the aspirations of the Iraqi people for a pluralistic, participa--tory political system that will include all of Iraq's diverse ethnic and religious groups. As required by the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY 1998 (Public Law 105-174), the Department of State submitted a report to the Congress on plans to establish a program to support the democratic opposition. My Administration, as required by that statute, has also begun to implement a program to compile information regarding allegations of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes by Iraq's current leaders as a step towards bringing to justice those directly responsible for such acts.

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 provides additional, discretionary authorities under which my Administration can act to further the objectives I outlined above. There are, of course, other important elements of U.S. policy. These include the maintenance of U.N. Security Council support efforts to eliminate Iraq's weapons and missile programs and economic sanctions that continue to deny the regime the means to reconstitute those threats to international peace and security. United States support for the Iraqi opposition will be carried out consistent with those policy objectives as well. Similarly, U.S. support must be attuned to what the opposition can effectively make use of as it develops over time. With those observations, I sign H.R. 4655 into law.

WILLIAM J. CLINTON

THE WHITE HOUSE,

October 31, 1998.(which had unanimous consent in the House BTW)

So the BS about WMDs is just that. People seem to forget that we are talking about the same C.I.A. that didn't see the U.S.S.R. going belly-up.

George Will has made some valid points. As much as I like President Bush, he is not above criticism. And if he thinks he can give medicine away, my right to speak during elections away, my damn birthright of being American away, and limit what kind of guns I can own, all while expecting my continued support, then he must be on crack.7.62FullMetalJacket Some very good points. I certainly hope you are right. I don't think Peggy Noonan would have said those things if they weren't so. The Republican party should remember who they are, and what they are, and they better get to it.

ThreadKiller
February 11, 2004, 09:29 AM
I don't like the left leaning domestic policy as of late. I am hoping that most if not all, go down in flames. Regardless, I will vote for W come November.

Al Queda wants a man like Kerry in the White House. I will not help put him there.

Selfdfenz
February 11, 2004, 11:24 AM
"And at the same time fighting all of the political battles at home, and abroad, ranging over many areas and issues?"

..and way to many of them self inflicted problems....

Bush probably is tired. He looks it.

If GW stays the course with some of these wrongheaded domestic policy issues of his he may get a good long vacation in the very near future.(support for AWB, illegals, blown budget, Patriot Act but to name a few)
His re-election is far from a done deal.

S-

Kim
February 11, 2004, 10:52 PM
As a woman who belives the 2nd amendment is scared as the rest of the BOR ,I find that my love of that amendment is under assault by the left of center politicians. NOW can scream and minorities can keep hypeneating their names to gain power but I am an AMERCIAN period. Before race,gender,age,or sexual orientaion and until my rights strickly delineated in the BOR are upheld by our courts I could give a damn about the petty rights that are not delinated in the BOR and Constitution. I believe in freedom First and this is something the left of Center will never grasp. Because Freedom also means the right to private property such as earned wages. Such an anti-maxist idea. They see they have lost in the globilization of capitalism which is a idea of individual freedom so they are now trying to embark on controlling that in the Keyoto Treaty, International Minimun Wages ( foreget sovernity of a Nation ), gun control laws, International rights of women(international abortion rights) rights of children(more socialist ideas) etc. I am sick of group politics of the left-----women vs men, children vs parents, rich vs poor, ethinic vs ethnic group ets. :banghead:

7.62FullMetalJacket
February 11, 2004, 11:03 PM
Kim

Welcome to THR ;)

Enlightenment is a beautiful thing.

Thumper
February 11, 2004, 11:07 PM
Yep, plus she's a Doctor! ;)

Kim
February 11, 2004, 11:25 PM
Yep I'm a female and a physician and single. Yaaahooo. But I have standards(Don't most women----although I saw a female patient today that was bumed out that she was going through a divorce. When she told me it was her 9th and she thought men just did not appreciate a good woman I thought----poor insight) I said maybe you should consider not getting married again. :rolleyes:

RightIsRight
February 11, 2004, 11:25 PM
O'Reilly is not a conservative. He is a populist who sways like a thin branch in the wind of public opinion.

Thumper
February 11, 2004, 11:27 PM
Yep I'm a female and a physician and single. Yaaahooo. But I have standards

Crap...stupid standards.

Kim
February 11, 2004, 11:51 PM
I agree O'reiley is a populist(chicken in every pot)guy. He really does not understand the 2nd amendment. He thinks well if I have a registerd 6 shooter I'M O:K. I want to grab him by the neck and bring him down to my place and sit him on the ground and say watch this bud. I can just see his eyes bug out as a female comes out of her house with more firearms than he has ever seen and the ammo to make them work along with the reloading appratitus to be self-sufficient (which I believe in).:D

Shooter 2.5
February 12, 2004, 12:00 AM
John Kerry voted with the Gun grabbers on each and every one of the 20 gun rights votes listed in the Brady Campaign scorecard.

Here are the issues:

Final Passage of Campaign Finance Reform (107th Congress, 3/20/02): H.R. 2356, The Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act. A YES vote supported the Brady Campaign/Million Mom March position. The bill passed by a vote of 60-40 and was signed into law by President Bush on March 27, 2002.

Lautenberg/Kerrey Amendment to S. 254, The Violent and Repeat Juvenile Offender Accountability and Rehabilitation Act of 1999 (106th Congress, 5/20/99): Senators Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Bob Kerrey (D-NE) offered a revised version of Senator Lautenberg's original gun show proposal that had failed on 5/12/99. The revised version required background checks for gun show sales but streamlined paperwork requirements for gun show vendors. The amendment passed 51-50 with Vice President Al Gore casting the tie-breaking vote. A YES vote supported The Brady Campaign's position.

Hatch/Craig Amendment to S. 254, The Violent and Repeat Juvenile Offender Accountability and Rehabilitation Act of 1999 (106th Congress, 5/14/99): After a number of Republican Senators expressed misgivings about the just-passed Craig Amendment, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) felt compelled to offer a slightly amended version. However, all the loopholes in the original Craig amendment still existed in the new Hatch/Craig amendment. The amendment passed 48-47. A NO vote supported The Brady Campaign's position.

Craig Amendment to S. 254, The Violent and Repeat Juvenile Offender Accountability and Rehabilitation Act of 1999 (106th Congress, 5/12/99): Immediately following the tabling of Senator Lautenberg's amendment to require background checks on all purchases at gun shows, NRA Board member and Senator Larry Craig (R-ID) offered his sham amendment that made background checks at gun shows voluntary, dismissed any civil liability actions pending at the date of enactment, allowed gun show dealers to effectuate the transfer of a firearm in any state, and reinstated the exception in the Brady Law for pawn shop redemptions. The amendment passed 53-45. A NO vote supported The Brady Campaign's position.

Lautenberg Amendment to S. 254, The Violent and Repeat Juvenile Offender Accountability and Rehabilitation Act of 1999 (106th Congress, 5/12/99): This amendment, offered by Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), would have required the extension of Brady background checks to all firearms sold at gun shows — no exceptions. A gun show was defined as any event where 50 or more firearms are offered or exhibited for sale, transfer, or exchange; or at which two or more persons are offering or exhibiting one or more firearms for sale or transfer. A motion was offered to table (to defeat) the amendment. That motion passed 51-47. A NO vote supported The Brady Campaign's position.

Kohl Amendment to S. 254, The Violent and Repeat Juvenile Offender Accountability and Rehabilitation Act of 1999 (106th Congress, 5/18/99): Senator Herb Kohl (D-WI) offered this compromise amendment, along with Senators Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and John Chafee (R-RI) requiring that any handgun sold or transferred by a licensed dealer must be accompanied by a secure storage or safety device. This compromise amendment, however, contained no standards for the safety device to be sold and offered immunity from civil liability to anyone using a secure gun storage or safety device. The amendment passed 78-20. A YES vote supported The Brady Campaign's position.

Schumer Amendment to S. 254, The Violent and Repeat Juvenile Offender Accountability and Rehabilitation Act of 1999 (106th Congress, 5/14/99): Senator Charles E. Schumer (D-NY) amendment to ban the unlicensed sale of guns on the internet by requiring websites clearly designed to sell guns to be federally licensed firearms dealers and to comply with all such federal laws. A motion was offered to table (to defeat) the amendment. That motion passed 50-43. A NO vote supported The Brady Campaign's position.

Feinstein Amendment to S. 254, The Violent and Repeat Juvenile Offender Accountability and Rehabilitation Act of 1999 (106th Congress, 5/13/99): Senate Dianne Feinstein(D-CA) amendment to ban the importation of large capacity ammunition feeding devices (over ten rounds), prohibit the transfer to and possession by juveniles of semi-automatic assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices, and to enhance criminal penalties for transfer of handguns, ammunition, semi-automatic assault weapons, and large capacity ammunition feeding devices to juveniles. A motion was offered to table (to defeat) the amendment. That motion failed 39-59. A NO vote supported The Brady Campaign's position.

Feinstein Amendment to FY1999 Departments of Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations (105th Congress, 7/28/98): Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) offered an amendment that would ban the importation and sale of high capacity ammunition magazines (over ten rounds) that had previously been grandfathered in the Violent Crime Control Act of 1994. A motion was offered to table (to defeat) the amendment. That motion passed 54-44. A NO vote supported The Brady Campaign's position.

Lautenberg Amendment to FY1997 Department of Defense Authorization (104th Congress, 6/27/96): Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) offered an amendment that would have blocked the $76 million transfer of guns, ammunition, property, and cash to the newly-created "Corporation for the Promotion of Rifle Practice and Firearms Safety." During the debate, Senator Larry Craig (R-UT) moved to table (to defeat) the amendment. Unfortunately, Senator Craig's motion passed by a vote of 71-29, thereby killing the Lautenberg amendment. A NO vote supported The Brady Campaign's position.

Final Passage of Crime Bill (103rd Congress, 8/25/94): Vote on final passage of the crime conference report. A YES vote supported The Brady Campaign's position to pass the crime bill which included the ban on semi-automatic assault weapons. The conference report passed 61-38. It was signed into law by President Clinton on September 13, 1994 (P.L. 103-322).

Final Passage of Brady Bill (103rd Congress, 11/20/93): Passage of the Brady Bill, as amended. A YES vote supported The Brady Campaign's position. The bill passed 63-36. The conference report between the House and Senate versions eventually passed by voice vote on November 24, 1993, and was signed into law by President Clinton on November 30, 1993 (P.L.103-159).

Metzenbaum Sunset Amendment (103rd Congress, 11/19/93): Amendment sponsored by Senator Howard Metzenbaum (D-OH) to delete from the compromise Brady Bill language that would sunset the waiting period in five years whether or not the national instant check system was operational. A YES vote supported The Brady Campaign's position to delete that language. The Amendment failed 43-56.

Mitchell Preemption Amendment (103rd Congress, 11/19/93): Amendment sponsored by Senator George Mitchell (D-ME) to delete from the compromise Brady Bill language that would preempt all state and local gun laws when the national instant check system went into effect. A YES vote supported The Brady Campaign's position to delete that language from the bill. The Amendment passed 54-45.

Dole/Metzenbaum Amendment (102nd Congress, 6/28/91): The amended Brady Bill, calling for a five business day waiting period before the purchase of a handgun. This compromise amendment also provides $100 million to the states to update their criminal history records. A YES vote supported The Brady Campaign's position. This amendment to the Senate Crime bill (S. 1241) passed 67-32.

Schumer Amendment to Fund Gun Buybacks (107th Congress, 8/02/01): H.R. 2620, the Veterans Affairs, Housing, and Independent Agencies appropriations bill for fiscal year 2002. Senator Charles Schumer offered an amendment to allocate $15 million out of the Public Housing Drug Elimination Program so that the Department of Housing and Urban development could continue to fund community-based gun buyback programs. The vote was on a motion to table (to defeat) the amendment. A NO vote supported the Brady Campaign/Million Mom March position. The motion to table passed 65-33.

Durbin/Chafee Amendment to FY1999 Departments of Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations (105th Congress, 7/22/98): Senators John Chafee (R-RI) and Dick Durbin (D-IL) offered their "Child Access Prevention" legislation as an amendment. This legislation, often referred as "safe storage," requires adults to either store loaded guns in a place that is reasonably inaccessible to children or use a device to lock the gun. If a child obtains an improperly stored, loaded firearm, the adult owner is criminally liable. A motion to table (to defeat) this amendment was made. The motion to table passed 69-31. A NO vote supported The Brady Campaign's position.

Smith Amendment to FY1999 Departments of Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations (105th Congress, 7/21/98): Senator Bob Smith (R-NH) offered an amendment that would weaken the National Instant Criminal Background Check Systems that is scheduled to take effect on December 1, 1998. The Smith amendment, offered with the strong support and encouragement of the National Rifle Association, prohibits the Department of Justice from charging a user fee for background checks on handgun purchasers. It also requires the F.B.I. to destroy immediately any records relating to an approved handgun transfer. The Smith amendment passed 69-31. A NO vote supported The Brady Campaign's position.

Craig Amendment to FY1999 Departments of Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations (105th Congress, 7/21/98): Senator Larry Craig (R-ID) offered a meaningless amendment that would require that gun stores have trigger locks in stock and available for sale. This Craig amendment vote was immediately prior to a stronger Boxer/Kohl amendment that would require that all handguns sold in the United States be sold with a child safety lock. The Craig amendment passed 72-28. A NO vote supported The Brady Campaign's position.

Boxer/Kohl Amendment to FY1999 Departments of Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations (105th Congress, 7/21/98): Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Herb Kohl (D-WI) offered this stronger version of the previous Craig amendment requiring that all handguns sold in the United States be sold with a child safety lock. A motion was made to table (to defeat) the amendment. The motion to table passed 61-39. A NO vote supported The Brady Campaign's position.

Feinstein Assault Weapons Amendment (103rd Congress, 11/17/93): Amendment to Senate Crime bill, proposed by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) to ban the manufacture, sale and possession of 19 powerful assault weapons. The amendment specifically lists 650 sporting rifles that would not be affected by the ban. A YES vote supported The Brady Campaign's position to include the amendment in the crime bill. The Amendment passed 56-43.

The Real Hawkeye
February 12, 2004, 12:01 AM
I voted for G.W.'s father the first time, but not the second, because he revealed himself to be a wishy washy moderate liberal internationalist. I think it's going to be dejavu all over again.

I am a conservative, but keep finding myself compelled to vote libertarian for president because it is rare when an even mildly conservative presidential candidate is offered to me as an option. I voted for Reagan twice, G.W.'s father once (voted Libertarian the second time he ran), skipped Dole (voted Libertarian), held my nose and voted for G.W., but will almost certainly vote libertarian next time. Aren't there anymore Ronald Reagans out there? I miss the 80s.

Kim
February 12, 2004, 12:25 AM
The problem with democrats in general is they do not believe in the 2nd amendment. There are a few who do but, those that are of the lefist bent who support the 2nd amendment have no place to go. However, they will not try to change their party and personally I don't think they can. Collectivism and the right to arms does not mix any more than oil and water. Now the question is what do those people care about the most. I think most know the answer=======maybe you can keep a shotgun but anything else forget it because socialized medicine is a must, keeping the children and grandchildren under the burden of SS and Medicare is a must, and Education although failing must be a federal problem, Gay marriage is now a civil right(more than the 2nd amendment is a civil right). Abortion is always a womans choice up to the day before birth(forget about the fathers rights he has none)-------When in hell is the 2nd amendment going to be declared a civil right much more an international human right recognized by the UN like the right to abortion. NEVER:cuss:

ThreadKiller
February 12, 2004, 12:31 AM
But could Ronald Reagan get elected in today's America? Gore did win the popular vote in 2000. I interpret this to mean that the majority of Americans (a narrow majority, but a majority nevertheless) want a "liberal" governing style. I don't think a true conservative stands a chance of being elected, on the national level anyway. :(

My polictical compass points towards the Libertarian camp, but they don't stand a chance of getting elected, so once again, I am forced to pick the lesser of two evils. This time in the form of George W. Bush.

Far too many Americans believe that there really is a free lunch. I don't know what it will take to bring 'em back to reality.

Balog
February 12, 2004, 05:49 AM
I think a lot of the problem is voter apathy. Whether this is caused by not finding an acceptable candidate (Bob Dole vs Slick Willie comes to mind) or thru simply not caring I dunno. Little of both I'd say.

The Real Hawkeye
February 12, 2004, 09:05 AM
Threadkiller, it is a common misconception (and faulty analysis) that a truly conservative candidate could not win in a national election. Reagan last ran in 1984 and not only won, but won in a landslide, both times. Then we have the 1988 election, wherein G.W.'s father was painted by the press as "just another Ronald Reagan" in terms of his political bent, this in the firm belief that America voted for Reagan twice only because he was a kindly old man, and not because he was a conservative (which the press was sure America hated). Well, it backfired. America, hearing that Bush would continue Reagan's policies, voted For Bush #1 in another landslide. Then reality set in. Bush was no Reagan, but a wishy washy liberal compromiser. The conservatives stayed home the second time, and we got Bill Clinton.

Now convinced that the lesson learned was that "conservatives" like George Bush (HUH?) couldn't win, The Republican National Committe put up a well known moderate against Clinton (while actively destroying the reputations of any conservative who ran in the primaries, so as to "save" this election), i.e., Dole. He lost big time (Americans will not vote for a Republican unless he is perceived to be a conservative). Then came G.W., who was painted by the press as too conservative, but kept sabotaging himself with the label "compassionate conservative." Well, conservatives don't like the implication that ordinarily conservatives lack compassion, so many stayed home, making it a squeaker for G.W. Had he been a Ronald Reagan style conservative, i.e., unapologetically conservative, he'd have won in a landslide victory, just like Reagan.

History seems clearly to show us the way, if we'd only look at it, but too many people keep repeating the mantra that "in today's America a conservative running for president cannot win." Well, I have news for you. We heard the same exact message from the liberal press constantly hammered into our ears when Reagan ran in 1980.

America is essentially a very conservative nation. Most Americans don't want the government shoving its nose into their business. Most Americans would rather be left alone by government. That message still sells if only someone would use it again. Reagan said, "I want to get government off the backs of Americans," and that was the essential message that put him in in two landslide elections. It was the popularity of this idea that put Bush #1 in in a landslide in 1988 (The press informed us he was going to continue the "failed policies" of Reagan. It backfired, and America ate that message up. America liked the "failed policies" of Reagan.). That was not that long ago, folks. We need a conservative who doesn't insult authentic conservatism with the smear "compassionate conservatism," impying that, ordinarily, conservatism is lacking in compassion. By golly, with friends like that, conservative Americans don't need enemies.

Airboss
February 12, 2004, 09:26 AM
This will say it all::barf:

If you enjoyed reading about "Like rats from a sinking ship" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!