Wednesday, October 05, 2005
This just in: Bush annoying...Conservatives?
The idea that Mr Bush's conservatism was a campaign feint, designed to motivate the "base" and avoid the electoral consequences that felled his father's re-election, is gaining some currency among some religious conservatives, who wonder whether they were hood-winked by his evangelical rhetoric.
"I have increasingly over time become dubious about Mr Bush's desire to materially alter the impact of Roe v Wade", said one leading religious conservative. "He has offered good rhetoric about every child to be welcomed as an abstract principle, but he has never come out and said it should be reversed.
"He has played the social conservatives like a violin. It is a faux pas by social conservatives that they have aligned themselves with the party and a personality in a way that was unhelpful. They have accepted rhetoric in lieu of results. The movement has a measure of accountability."
As I said above....tasty (for DFLers). This is an issue shared by Minnesota Republicans at the top levels of government on down - Tim Pawlenty made a blood pact with the Taxpayers' League, Mark Kennedy has pandered to social conservative groups for years - and for what? They have gone about their business holding the reins of power, giving tax handouts to corporate clients, supporting failed national economic policies, dropping the tax hammer on middle class property owners, and ignoring the wishes and goals of those who supported them and got them into office.
This, as I see it, is the main difference between DFL and GOP candidates as distinct groups in 2006. DFLers on state-wide and congressional ballots shouldn't have to pander to groups they will later ignore in order to get a few thousand more votes. DFL campaigns are right in line with the goals our candidates will pursue once in office. With a strong message and effective work in the field, DFL candidates from Tim Walz in the 1st CD to the many running for Governor and US Senate, can show voters that we are progressive and that progressive policies work for all Minnesotans.
Plus, at least we have the chutzpah to call a statewide fee charged on goods or services a tax.
What was he thinking, anyway?