Skip to comments.
Choice and Accountability: "Bush has redefined conservatism." (Barone)
U.S. News & World Report
| 12/15/03
| Michael Barone
Posted on 12/07/2003 1:43:00 PM PST by bdeaner
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140, 141-157 next last
To: steve50
Miriam-Webster defines a "lie" as "an untrue statement with intent to deceive."
In other words, Bush did not lie during his campaign, because he did not intend to deceive. He later changed his mind. That's the difference.
If I tell someone I am going to Burger King for lunch, and I sincerely believe I am going to Burger King, but later I decide to go to Wendy's, that does not mean I lied. It means I changed my mind. See the dif, bro?
101
posted on
12/08/2003 11:49:41 AM PST
by
bdeaner
To: bdeaner
I don't accept klintoonian word parsing, even from a republican.
102
posted on
12/08/2003 12:20:37 PM PST
by
steve50
("There is Tranquility in Ignorance, but Servitude is its Partner.")
To: steve50
If it makes you happy to believe Bush lied, good for you. I don't agree. I think you have a peculiar way of defining a lie. I would accept it, though, if you said he didn't keep his promise on that campaign issue, which is true. I'd also ask you to consider whether or not you can think of even one politician who kept every single one of his campaign promises. I can't think of any.
103
posted on
12/08/2003 12:33:20 PM PST
by
bdeaner
To: The_Eaglet
"
...I'm looking for Constitutionally conservative alternatives."
For president? You're naive if you think any third party candidate can get elected, and the two mainstream parties won't give us true conservatives. The people won't stand for it. They want their entitlements, and politicians are only to happy to pander to them. Do you really think a candidate who says "I'm going to take away your medicaid" can get elected? He'd be tar-and-feathered first. Sure, a conservative candidate and a conservative government are we we all want. That's why we're Freepers, but you might as well wish for the moon.
To: bdeaner
It is a step in the right direction, even if some of the details have been missteps.
It is one reason I have been so staunchly supportive of the guy.
The only thing he has done so far which has really caused me to howl was signing CFR.
105
posted on
12/09/2003 4:02:01 PM PST
by
William McKinley
(Dean's a little teapot, short and stout. When he gets all steamed up, hear him shout!)
To: steve50; bdeaner
It isn't parsing; there is a real and substantive difference between lying about something and changing one's mind.
It is clear that Bush did the latter; or at least, to me it is clear.
I am still pretty steamed about it. Changing one's mind is fine and dandy; circumstances change and it is always good to constantly re-evaluate the territory.
What I don't like is the reason he changed his mind on it. It was for political expediency, and I am not sure at all it is going to give him (or conservatives) the political boost for which he was hoping.
106
posted on
12/09/2003 4:04:33 PM PST
by
William McKinley
(Dean's a little teapot, short and stout. When he gets all steamed up, hear him shout!)
To: sinkspur
Ah, but if you let the voters have choices in their government services, and they keep choosing the smaller, more efficient ones, then you have shrinkage.
107
posted on
12/09/2003 4:25:49 PM PST
by
William McKinley
(Dean's a little teapot, short and stout. When he gets all steamed up, hear him shout!)
To: IronJack
OK, I am.
Frankly, I don't see a tremendous difference, outside of which things they talk about in speeches.
They both expanded military spending.
They both cut taxes.
And they both accepted government growth to accomplish some of their other priorities.
Take away the waxing philosophic, and I see very similar approaches to governance.
And I happen to appreciate the efforts of both.
108
posted on
12/09/2003 4:29:32 PM PST
by
William McKinley
(Dean's a little teapot, short and stout. When he gets all steamed up, hear him shout!)
To: bdeaner
Quote in title should read: "Bush has
redefined conservatism". Important distinction.
I do hope Barone is right about SS reform. President Bush's proposal is inadequate but better than nothing.
109
posted on
12/09/2003 4:30:12 PM PST
by
k2blader
(Haruspex, beware.)
To: Veracruz
I've been following your posts, newbie. You aren't going to be long for this place if you continue this type of belligerent, over-the-top posting.
To: William McKinley
they both accepted government growth to accomplish some of their other priorities. Would it be "accepting government growth" if Bill Clinton had done the same thing? Would it be "other priorities" if Bill Clinton had authored the Patriot Act or the Department of Homeland Security?
Reagan tried to eliminate the Dept. of Education and the Dept. of Energy. Bush wants to expand the first and do nothing with the second. And then there's that pesky Homeland Security thing ... You know, the one that, if translated into German might sound an awful lot like Gestapo ...
It's okay if our rights are taken away by a Republican, 'cause we know he'll take good care of 'em.
To: bdeaner
I've come to the conclusion that the best description of Bush is not conservative but moderate. He's an old-time moderate, he holds some conservative views (i.e. taxes, judges,pro-life) and some liberal ones (medicare).
To: IronJack
Bill Clinton would never have come up with the Patriot Act. While he loved expanding his power, he was not big on doing things which actually improved our security. Basically, I am not opposed to the Patriot Act. It can be improved (I like Crapo's ideas) but by and large it was solid and very needed.
Bill Clinton also would have been loathe to sign major tax cuts. He never worked so hard in his life to find a way to do them, remember. Bush, who doesn't work quite so hard (if the myths of each man are true) managed to do so. Twice.
And Clinton would never have adopted the philosophy of injecting choice and diversity of approaches into the government monolith. The Democrats realize the risk to their baby; it is a pity that you don't.
As for your illusions to the Gestapo, you are now off in the same land inhabited by George Soros, Moveon, Howard Dean, and his fresh endorsee Howard Dean. I am sure that your adoption of the same demonizing language is coincidental, but it carries no more weight or accuracy when you throw it out than when they do. Try instead to be substantive.
113
posted on
12/09/2003 4:52:03 PM PST
by
William McKinley
(Dean's a little teapot, short and stout. When he gets all steamed up, hear him shout!)
To: IronJack
Er, his fresh endorsee, Al Gore.
114
posted on
12/09/2003 4:53:15 PM PST
by
William McKinley
(Dean's a little teapot, short and stout. When he gets all steamed up, hear him shout!)
To: IronJack
And it would sound more like Heimatsicherheit than Gestapo. But it really was a clever turn of a phrase by you. Quite witty.
115
posted on
12/09/2003 4:54:37 PM PST
by
William McKinley
(Dean's a little teapot, short and stout. When he gets all steamed up, hear him shout!)
To: Kay Soze
"Bush defies conservatism." bump
To: sinkspur
Governmnent has grown under every single modern-day president...
Ummm...the federal government has grown under every single president since George Washington except for the handful who died in office before having a chance to do much of anything (e.g., William Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor, Warren Harding).
117
posted on
12/09/2003 5:04:22 PM PST
by
Wolfstar
(Ronald Reagan — Freedom Man)
To: k2blader
Quote in title should read: "Bush has redefined conservatism". Important distinction.
Yes, I realized that error after I posted the article. Surprisingly, you're the first person to catch the mistake.
118
posted on
12/09/2003 5:07:06 PM PST
by
bdeaner
To: William McKinley
You have a good point there. Ultimately, though, it will hurt the Dems more than us, since they are more dependent on "soft money." Ultimately, the Dems shot themselves in the foot on this one.
119
posted on
12/09/2003 5:50:54 PM PST
by
bdeaner
To: bdeaner
They'll find ways around any restrictions, even if it comes to flat-out lawbreaking.
I think it was horrible legislation, which will in the end harm only the honorable candidates.
120
posted on
12/09/2003 6:06:59 PM PST
by
William McKinley
(Dean's a little teapot, short and stout. When he gets all steamed up, hear him shout!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140, 141-157 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson