A repudiation, but of what? [Big Government "conservatism"]

The Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Fort Worth, Tex. ^ | 2008-11-10 | Michael Tanner

[rabscuttle385]

Tuesday’s massive Democratic landslide cannot be seen as anything but a repudiation of the Republican Party’s tenure in power. Combined with the equally large Democratic victory in 2006, Republicans have now lost the presidency, more than 50 House seats, and at least a dozen seats in the Senate in just two years.

Pundits on both left and right are saying that this represents a final verdict on the Bush administration’s eight years in office.

But, how far beyond the Bush presidency does the voters’ desire for change go? If voters have clearly rejected Republicans, have they also turned against the whole idea of conservatism — at least as defined by a belief in limited government?

[rabscuttle385]

FTA:

When Bush took office, the federal budget totaled $1.9 trillion. This year it will top $3 trillion, with a deficit of nearly $400 billion. And that was before the massive bailout of Wall Street.

Under President Bush, domestic discretionary spending has increased faster than under any president since Lyndon Johnson launched the Great Society.

Not a single major government program or agency was eliminated.

. . . . .

This increase represents the largest five-year expansion of the welfare state since the Great Society in the 1960s. Spending on these social programs is up an inflation-adjusted 22 percent since President Bush took office...

. . . . .

By almost every measure, government grew bigger, more expensive and more intrusive under President Bush and the Republican Congress.

McCain may have rhetorically criticized government spending, notably earmarks, but he consistently backed bigger and more activist government, whether backing the Wall Street bailout or calling for a $300 billion bailout of delinquent mortgages. By most measures he supported only slightly less government spending than did Obama.

. . . . .

Polls show that Republican losses were heaviest among upscale suburban voters who tend to be economically conservative but socially moderate. These formerly reliable Republican voters did not suddenly decide that they wanted a bigger, more expensive and more intrusive government. Faced with the big-government status quo or big-government "change," they opted for change.

John McCain and George W. Bush lost this election.

But a rejection of Reagan-Goldwater style small-government conservatism?

Not in the least.

Thanks for nothing, RINO Socialists!

[rabscuttle385]

*Ping!*

[pissant]

McCain had an opportunity to really be a maverick and a fiscal hawk. Instead, he was the bailout’s biggest cheerleader.

[rabscuttle385]

*Ping!*

[rabscuttle385]

Mike Tanner is a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute in Washington, D.C.

FYI

[BufordP]

Eight Wasted Years ...Margaret Thatcher used to talk about the “ratchet effect.” When the Left gets power, she said, they drive everything Left; when the Right gets power, they slow the Leftward drive, perhaps even halt it for a spell; but nothing ever gets moved to the Right. U.S. politics in the 21st century so far bears out this dismal analysis. What does the Right have to show for eight years of a Republican presidency? I supported George W. Bush in 2000 because I thought he had a conservative bone in his body somewhere. I supported him in 2004 because I thought him the lesser of two evils. At this point, I wouldn’t let the fool park his car in my driveway. Bruce Bartlett was right, every damn word... Bill Gertz interview on Hannity and Colmes Gertz: Well he casts himself as a compassionate conservative and I argue that he's neither. That his administration is neither. He's done tremendous damage to the conservative movement...

[IronJack]

Tuesday’s massive Democratic landslide cannot be seen as anything but a repudiation of the Republican Party’s tenure in power

Yes it can. It can be seen as purely fictional. There IS no "massive Democratic landslide."

Obama won by 6 points.

Reagan '80 and '84 were landslides. Nixon '72 was a landslide. Democrats don't win in landslides. They squeak out a win, usually by stealing votes and always by lying through their whore handmaiden media.

Landslide? Hardly.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

"McCain may have rhetorically criticized government spending, notably earmarks, but he consistently backed bigger and more activist government, whether backing the Wall Street bailout or calling for a $300 billion bailout of delinquent mortgages. By most measures he supported only slightly less government spending than did Obama."

BUMPED for The Truth!!!

[word_warrior_bob]

John Fund estimated in his book that Democrats cheated to the tune of 4-5% in 2004. I would put 4-5% as a minimum for 2008, who knows who really won.

I do know if we don’t get election reform we’ll have to win in a landslide to even win any more.

[rabscuttle385]

The Juan McCain Truth File. "I have great respect for Al Gore." —John McCain, October 2, 2008 FR Keywords: mccaintruthfile, mcqueeg, mcbama Please tag all relevant threads with the aforementioned keywords. This can be a very high-volume ping list at times. To join the ping list: FReepmail rabscuttle385 with the subject line add  mccaintruthfile. (Stop getting pings by sending the subject line drop mccaintruthfile.) Republican Commissar’s Warning: By joining this ping list, you may be subjected to the delusional rants and ramblings of McCainiacs, of "moderate" Republicans, of pragmatic conservatives resigned to voting for the lesser of two Democrats, and of countless GOP shills who simply want to meet a new overlord.

[saganite]

They squeak out a win, usually by stealing votes and always by lying through their whore handmaiden media.

A six point win is beyond sqeaking out a win and beyond stealing the election. Although not a landslide it represents a substantial victory and a challenge to conservatives. Dismissing it won’t get us to where we need to be in 4 years.

[djsherin]

Yep, it blew his “maverick” label right out of the water.

[org.whodat]

By most measures he supported only slightly less government spending than did Obama."

I doubt the slightest part In the long run he will support 100% of obammas legislation.

[lonestar67]

Bolten : In the last budget year of the previous administration (2001), discretionary spending unrelated to defense or homeland security soared by 15 percent. With the adoption of President Bush’s first budget (2002), that growth rate was reduced to six percent; then five percent the following year; and four percent for the current fiscal year.

President Bush massively increased security spending to defend a nation of ingrates against terrorists who really do want to kill us all. He cut the discretionary program growth considerably.

He has been a budget hawk, Now, you reactionaries will get to see how government spending can really get out of control.

[edcoil]

“Republican Party’s tenure in power”

There has not been a “Republican”n Washington DC since 1994.

[rabscuttle385]

He cut the discretionary program growth considerably.

And then he signed Medicare Part D into law.

I won't even start on how he signed the recent bailout into law.

[lonestar67]

Conservatives have had their chance to rally around the President on things like Social Security.

They picked their battles and chose to back stab him on Iraq, Immigration, and Social security.

The conservonativists are getting their just desserts now. The EVil Bush will be gone soon and all of you who are so smart in voting for Obama and the Democratic Congress will show us your pure genius.

Personally, I will see it for the bad deal it always was.

As one President against a legislative branch responsible for the budget, there was little more that he could do. His budget directors did a good job of holding the line against further increases. History will judge this well.

Defense spending is the primary basis of spending growth under Bush. People opposed to it need a check up for their patriotism.

The bailout is a loan. It will be paid back. I would be fine if it were off budget.

[bronxboy]

Nonsense-We lost and we lost big. if we deny this then we are doomed to lose again. We must figure out why we lost and improve our electability.

[rabscuttle385]

As one President against a legislative branch responsible for the budget, there was little more that he could do.

The Republicans retained control of Congress for most of the 2000-2006 time period. If Bush, as the head of the Party, was unable or unwilling to restrain fellow Republicans in Congress from going on wild spending orgies, then his leadership is worth squat.

The bailout is a loan. It will be paid back.

Sure...taking equity stakes in publicly-traded firms against the wishes of shareholders is equivalent to giving them a loan.

[word_warrior_bob]

So there was no fraud by democrats this election? It was totally a one-man, one vote election?

We lost because we had a RINO run a horrible campaign and he took the bait on the bailout nonsense, it’s not very complicated.

John McCain and his people were in a foxhole with 50 Caliber Machine Guns, rocket launchers, and grenades at his disposal.

McCain decided, no, no, don’t use any of that stuff, let’s throw rocks.