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.

[KriegerGeist]

George W. Bush is a 'New World Order' CFR type like his father and believes in nation-building as if everyone wants democracy. They don't. Islam does not even consider it in allowed in their religion...only theocracy.

He was (and is) for the 'North American Union' which explains his immigration policy. Would like a union of Canada, U.S. and Mexico. There is a lot more, but he was not nor is not a Reagan Conservative. BUT, he was not alone in the blame. When there was a Republican majority in both House and Senate, we believed there was a golden opportunity to make real lasting change. The RINOS numbered high enough so that in truth, there never was a majority. I can list enough from that time to prove it: Snowe, Collins, Warner, Jeffords, Chafee, Specter, McCain, Hagel, Lugar, DeWine, Lott... Much of the good bills from the House were never passed because of the Democrats and the RINOS who were Democrats with Republican Disguise killed them.

If there had been a true Conservative majority, then perhaps something like the FairTax would be the law, health savings accounts would be in place, real Social Security / Medicare reform could have taken place and proved to those on it they would not lose out, energy bills for new nuclear plants, or drilling domestically or new refineries and more... That could have been a shut-out for the liberals for perhaps out lifetime.

True Conservatism works every time, but it has yet to be tried since Ronald Reagan.

[djsherin]

Bush was a budget hawk? Sorry if I can’t take that seriously.

Spending was already out of control. But I agree Obama is going to make things much worse.

[lonestar67]

Actually, the United States was hit by a terrorist attack in September of 2001 that knocked down the two largest buildings in the country.

What ensued was an effort to secure the country from a global threat unlike any we have seen before. That resulted in increased spending for homeland security and defense spending.

The one down side of that spending is that it allows fools to pontificate on the reckless spending of the Bush adminstration.

Had the nation more appropriately been pocked with craters for its various major cities, we probably would not have to listen to fools complainging that spending is far below GDP percentages of the Vietnam war or World War II.

In regard to the bailout, I am not aware of any shareholders opposed to the bailout of their banks.

[lonestar67]

Clinton cutting defense creates illusions that Bush is a big spender.

Its just not true when you account for our nation being at war.

Of course, we are not really at war. ACtually those terror attacks are just elaborate hoaxes perpetuated by the gvoernment. But if they were real, then the spending of the Bush administration would appear relatively inexpensive compared to the wars in Vietnam and Europe.

[rabscuttle385]

What ensued was an effort to secure the country from a global threat unlike any we have seen before.

To hell with the Islamists. They can be dealt with fairly easily.

The bigger problem is the creep of control-freak Government worldwide. One instance of Bolshevik Communism was defeated when the USSR fell in 1991, but forms of government antithetical to human freedom and liberty continue to flourish worldwide. Even here in the United States, the original Republic has been perverted into a Socialist monster by both Democrats and Republicans.

That resulted in increased spending for homeland security and defense spending.

Sure, the solution to government failure is to throw more money at the problem and hope it goes away.

In regard to the bailout, I am not aware of any shareholders opposed to the bailout of their banks.

Did I say banks? I said "publicly-traded companies."

Try this on for size:

Shareholder sues AIG over U.S. government bailout
NEW YORK (Reuters, Nov. 5) - A shareholder claimed in a lawsuit that American International Group (AIG.N) violated her rights by accepting the U.S. government's $85 billion bailout in September in exchange for a majority stake in the insurer.

[lonestar67]

I see no evidence that the Islamists can be dealt with easily. On that point I think we profoundly disagree and I can see why you think the spending under Bush was frivolous. I am seriously thinking the Bush adminstration should have allowed the nation to be bombed. What you are saying is so profoundly irrational.

Honestly, seeing how Warren Buffet, George Soros and a strong majority of 200k > income earners endorsed and voted for Obama, I think they have been invovled in the current tanking of this economy. I think Bush was trying to fight them off in defense of the public. We do have collaboration of an ultra elite set of Anti Americans with anti americans outside the US. Its hard to understand why an AIG shareholder would prefer to see the company go bankrupt unless she is part of the effort to collapse our economy.

[bronxboy]

No election is perfect. However, no there was no fraud. We lost the Midwest...where jobs are going bye bye thanks to free trade and the auto industry is on life support. If Pres. Bush allow the big three to fail after Obama has made it clear he wants to help, God help the GOP.

[bronxboy]

No election is perfect. However, no there was no fraud. We lost the Midwest...where jobs are going bye bye thanks to free trade and the auto industry is on life support. If Pres. Bush allow the big three to fail after Obama has made it clear he wants to help, God help the GOP.

[huldah1776]

How much did the major natural catastrophes cost the Feds at this time, too, including 9-11?

[Gondring]

ROTFL!

Your attempt to portray this all as "defense spending" doesn't hold water. Take out Defense and Homeland Security, and President Bush still increased domestic spending faster than even LBJ!

During President Bush's forst 5 years in office, the increase in his spending was greater than Jimmy Carter's entire ending federal budget!

And yet, he claimed to be a conservative, smearing the term all the while.

And we see the results. For example...

Although this one ends a few years ago, the curve has kept going up at the same rate...

[Gondring]

discretionary spending

That's right. He locked us into a lot of spending, making it non-discretionary.

Pardon me if I don't cheer.

[CottShop]

This wasn’t a ‘repudiation’ of anything- it was the country feeling a financial crunch- getting scared, and whining for their momma to take care of them- ie: Big government paying for EVERYTHING- their mortgages, their healthcare, their taxes etc etc etc. Barack Obama played on the ‘redistribution’ feelings of the majority, and he won the election largely based on thefact that people have becoem LAZY and don’t want ot be responsible for anythign themselves anymore- they want big government to pay hteir way in life- plain and simple- a recent poll found that over 60% of the public thought the rich should pay more taxes to ‘spread the wealth’ (which of course hte government will be in charge of distributing)

Repudiation? No- It was a generation of spineless folks who have no sense of shame of self-worth and hwo want to lay in the cradle for as long as they can while big government bottle and spoon feeds them

[Gondring]

"Absent judicial intervention, the transaction approved by AIG's Board will be crammed down on the company's stockholders in violation of basic principles of corporate law [...]"

Hurray to Wilma Walker!

[ari-freedom]

yeah he really blew it there. Unlike many republicans, he actually opposed many of Bush’s spending programs but all was forgotten when he voted for the bailout. Especially since the senate version had more pork than the House version.

[ari-freedom]

we didn’t need
-the farm bill that reversed all the reforms of the 96 farm bill
-medicare prescription drug expansion
-no child left behind
-sarbanes oxley
-lots of other pork
-lots of easy money by the Fed because Bush wanted a weak dollar
Remember when Dole called for the elimination of 4 cabinet depts?

[ari-freedom]

I’m sure bush will bail out the Big 3. It is consistent with his “compassionate conservatism.”
And they will still fail.

[fortheDeclaration]

Amen!

[fortheDeclaration]

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

Amen.

What McCain and Bush showed was the ability to be on the wrong side on most issues.

They tried to force the American People to accept the Amnesty Bill and then the Bailout.

[fortheDeclaration]

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.

I am all for the WOT, but why should Defense spending have to increase to the extent that it did when we are fighting enemies without any Air Force, Navy or even Army.

Most of that money went into nation building, not Defense needs.

[fortheDeclaration]

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

The bailout was a scam that the President and McCain fell for.

[fortheDeclaration]

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.

Amen.

It seemed that after the Amnesty Bill was defeated by the GOP, Bush had no concern about keeping the GOP in power.

[fortheDeclaration]

That's right. He locked us into a lot of spending, making it non-discretionary. Pardon me if I don't cheer.

Wasn't that Rove's plan to keep the GOP majority, to outspend the Democrats?

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

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

Oh, well. Just so long as it's not 100%, then. < /sarc>

[djsherin]

You bring up a good point. If we spend this much on an enemy with no conventional forces and we already spend more than every other country combined on defense, how much will we be spending if we get involved in a war with another country that can actually fight back?

[Jim Noble]

The American people did two important things in 1994.

They sent a large GOP majority to Congress to abolish the Department of Education. And in California, a large majority voted to deny free money to illegal aliens.

The representatives they elected to accomplish these simple tasks spit in their faces.

When the shooting starts, the genesis of the coming war will be seen to be the repudiation of democracy by the knaves who were elected to do the people's business, and who failed.

[The_Reader_David]

Among the few things that suck more than socialism run by socialists is socialism run by ‘conservative’ Republicans.

[fortheDeclaration]

You bring up a good point. If we spend this much on an enemy with no conventional forces and we already spend more than every other country combined on defense, how much will we be spending if we get involved in a war with another country that can actually fight back?

I think many Conservatives have a blind spot regarding Defense Spending.

It is a legimate function of Government, but Defense Spending can bankrupt a nation like any other spending.

Since we are leading the fight in the WOT, we need to let our allies fund their own defenses.

[djsherin]

I can’t see the justification for keeping hundreds of thousand of troops across the globe, especially countries like Korea, Japan, and Germany. We’re going bankrupt and they are subsidizing all their industries.

[fortheDeclaration]

I can’t see the justification for keeping hundreds of thousand of troops across the globe, especially countries like Korea, Japan, and Germany. We’re going bankrupt and they are subsidizing all their industries.

I agree.

It is time to cut them loose.

[IronJack]

Dismissing [Obama's win] ... won’t get us to where we need to be in 4 years.

Preaching to the choir. But neither will allowing this myth of a "landslide" to propagate.

Let's take this as the object lesson it is: conservatives stay home and Republicans lose. If the GOP runs RINOs, conservatives stay home. If the GOP runs RINOs, Republicans lose.

Acknowledging THAT reality WILL get us where we want to be. If a loser like John McCain can come within six points of the New Messiah, think how well a candidate could do if he actually got some Republicans to vote for him!