Here are some key excerpts:
Most people saw the handwriting on the wall for a Democratic takeover of the House of Representatives. As for the Senate, it is almost impossible to tell the difference between Democrats and Republicans, so who controls the gavel is of little consequence.
Hear, hear! Why bother with two parties when they both look so much alike these days, let's have one party called the Repubrocrats and save some confusion.
George Bush's neocons have all but decimated whatever genuine conservatism remained in the GOP, and they did it on the backs of the faithful conservatives still in the party.
God Bless those true conservatives who actually make decisions based on principles that "pseudo-conservatives" only talk about.
That President Bush has fired Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld signals a significant policy reversal for Bush. As late as the day before the election, Bush said emphatically that Rumsfeld would stay until the end of his term. But the day after Democrats seized the House, Rumsfeld was fired.
'Nuff said.
It does not take the gift of prophecy to predict that Rumsfeld's successor, Robert Gates, will almost certainly assent to some form of an American troop withdrawal from Iraq. The Republican Party now understands that if the war in Iraq continues as it is into 2008, the GOP will be murdered at the polls, and the Democratic nominee (whoever he or she is) would most certainly win the White House. In other words, President Bush and Republicans are about to engage in the biggest "cut and run" strategy you have ever seen.
I hate the idea of leaving the people of Iraq in the lurch, but could Chuck be right that Republicans will cut and run to because it is politically expedient? Will the Democrats comparison of Iraq to Vietname turn out to be painfully accurate?
I, here and now, predict that the GOP nominee for president in 2008 will most definitely be a pro-choice "moderate" who will enthusiastically embrace the Bush/Pelosi doctrine of open borders and amnesty for illegal aliens, as well as Bush's goal of establishing a North American Union. I also predict that he will most certainly endorse civil unions for same-sex couples.
Sounds incredible, but plausible doesn't it? Again, I hate the thought of this happening, but we as citizens need to face facts and use the power of our vote to change the course of this country. It sounds rather idealistic, but if Americans truly had the courage to vote in a candidate from a viable third party, I believe it would do wonders for our political system. At the very least it would rattle Democrats and Republicans out of complacency!
This pathetic loyalty to the GOP for some "lesser of two evils" mantra is so utterly bankrupt that only the most apathetic lackey could continue to embrace it.
Harsh but true. Voting against the candidate you dislike instead of for one you know can do the job is exactly what conservatives criticized the Democrats for when they voted for Kerry is it not?
It is time for the end of politics as usual and only you and I can make a real difference.
UPDATE:
Former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani has taken the first steps in a possible bid for the 2008 Presidential nomination by forming an exploratory committee. The purpose of such a committee is to gauge the appeal of a potential candidate without officially putting your name in the hat and being subject to campaign rules.
The odds are against him getting nominated because of his stance on abortion rights, same-sex marriage and gun control, issues that are important to conservatives who he would have to win over to get the Republican ticket.
He definitely fits the bill of a moderate conservative nicely though. He became enormously popular in 2001 as Mayor of New York for his handling of the 911 attacks and for the drop in crime rates in that city during his two terms there. I don't believe this is enough to overcome his liberal leanings, however.
Let's hope he doesn't get too far.
5 comments:
Yeah, we ("conservatives")can make a difference, but the idea that the GOP would ever nominate a pro-choice candidate is beyond ludicrous. I mean, the GOP had to know that they would lose the House and possibly the Senate eventually, but there's no reason to turn your back because we're not talking about a landslide here. Basically the Dems have been given a 2 year window to either put up or shut up so the pressure is really on them, meanwhile Bush still has the power to veto and McCain beats Hillary in all polls. The GOP should've went on the offense with their plan, remind people how well the country is doing, the economy, etc., instead they played right into the Dems hands (defending Iraq all the time) which is why they have no one to blame but themselves--personally I lay the blame mostly on Mehlman, thank goodness he's out.
This has nothing to do with losing the House or Senate, and everything to do with the current administration not representing me. Sure, the economy is good, but what has been done about the immigration issue? How about abortion? These are issues that are important to me.
Howard Phillips, Chairman of The Conservative Caucus, articulated well in a recent newsletter why Conservatives feel disenfranchised by their party:
"• advocacy of amnesty for illegal aliens,
• failure to enforce existing immigration laws which require penalization of corporations which hire illegal aliens,
• promotion of a North American Union (NAU) scheme to merge the United States with Canada and Mexico,
• historically high subsidies to Planned Parenthood,
• appointment of open homosexuals to key positions,
• massive expansion of the Federal role in education,
• increased funding of the United Nations,
• expansion of foreign aid,
• failure to move forward deployment effectively of a ballistic missile defense,
• budget busting expansion of non-defense Federal spending and massive increases in annual deficits and the overall national debt,
• trade policies which have undermined America’s manufacturing base and placed millions of American jobs at risk,
• approval of anti-family FDA policies such as authority for the distribution of RU-486 and over-the-counter sales of "morning after" contraceptives,
• approval of threats to U.S. civil liberties, including elements of the Patriot Act,
• signing into law the McCain-Feingold election regulation bill in clear violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution."
Bullfrog
That first quote was from me. Either way, we differ on immigration because I dont think that Bush had any choice but to compromise and as far as amnesty goes it's the GOP's far-Right wing thats refusing the fact that Bush alone cant completely turn a problem (immigration) that's been going on for decades now. As for abortion I dont know what more Bush can do esp. with a Supreme Court that still leans Left, besides what he's doing already funding faith-based initiatives and abstinence-only programs. electing conservative judges, etc.
GG: Yeah, for some reason, when I switched to Blogger BETA, your post showed up as "Anonymous", weird.
I agree that immigration has been a problem for years and one president, or administration for that matter, can solve it. But the Bush administration has shown little interest in solving it. Bush firmly believes that some form of amnesty is a MUST if immigration is to be reformed, in spite of the fact his base does not support it. To make matters worse, the current administration is supporting things like the NAFTA Superhighway, which can only make the borders more porous, and this right under our noses without our consent.
Your point about the Supreme court is well taken, and goes to my point that even a Republican dominated administration cannot be trusted to represent true conservative values, including those judges nominated by Bush that you mentioned.
How long has the Supreme Court, the House, and the Senate been heavy on Republican votes? How much has been accomplished in terms of abortion, immigration, etc?
Post a Comment