Replies

For better or for worse, we got what we voted for.

I can't argue with that. And many of us were sounding the warning back during the 2000 campaign - that Bush was leading down the path to big government and socialism. My point is that the GOP cheerleaders were assuring us that it was all a ruse - just campaign talk to get elected. Then we'd see the real Bush, by golly!

Well, we've seem him, all right. I thought there were full of it at the time and said so. I wish I had been wrong, but it turns out I was right. Believe me, it gives me no pleasure to assert that. But I do so to warn people for the future. If you want limited government, you are not going to get it from Bush and Co. You are going to get government growing at a rate equal to or possibly greater than what you would get from the Democrats.

Oh, the spending might be a bit more in line with where you would like the money to go. Fewer gay, left-handed, transexual performance artists, and more BATF officers. But does that really make that much difference?

As for the often-cited Supreme Court factor, two of the people who voted for this CFR travesty today were placed on the court by Reagan and Bush the elder. So I suppose your odds of a conservative justice are somewhat better than with a Democrat, but how much better? Will Bush cave again when the time comes to fight for a Supreme Court nominee that might actually make a difference? My money is on caving. (Again, I'd love to be proved wrong.)

Now, some on this forum are all about winning. They seem to think we're playing some kind of football game, where it just matters that our side racks up a higher score. I no longer argue with them. They are enjoying the game, so they might as well have another bag of popcorn, sit back and keep cheering.

But for those who really want to see our country change direction, it's pretty clear that the Republicans are not going to be a vehicle to make it happen. Yes, they may slow our slide to socialism in some respects, but they offer no prospect of a reversal, at least not in the Bush era.

Now you may argue that this is the best we can get, and you may be right. But can you at least understand why we search for an alternative, even though that alternative carries the risk of inadvertantly giving control to Democrats?

We are Americans. We didn't to where we are by saying, "Well, this is as good as we can get, so let's just be quiet little citizens and settle for this." No, we got to where we are by being cussed, contrary individualists, who insisted on a different kind of government from the rest of the world.

Some of us still are that way. We've always been a minority, but now it's unfortunate that we're in such a small minority that we can't seem to be effective. But, by G*d, that doesn't mean we can't keep trying! And that doesn't mean we have to settle for the likes of Bush and his slow-go socialism and his carelessness about eroding our Constitutional freedoms.

I'd rather go down fighting than say to my sons in thirty years, when they are living in a country with 70%+ of their income taxed, and laws against any serious political discussion so that it's impossible to displace power-hungry incumbent legislators, that "Well, I thought we'd get here a little slower with the Republicans."

Thank you for taking the time to write me this thoughtful and reasoned reply.

Many times I am turned off by anti-Bush posters at FR due to responses such as your earlier, "Bush.. so much for conservatism.... Harrumph!!" type reply. This reply really made me think and begin to re-evaluate my take on the President.

I must admit to be an active follower of politics, and mostly because I am fascinated by the give-and-take manuevering that is the game of politics. Yes, like you mention in your post, it is largely a game to me, and maybe that's the problem.

I think that a lot of the time, I tend to get sucked into an "us-versus-them" type mentality in analyzing current events and politics. I honestly try to not be for something just because a Republican is behind it, or against a position merely because a Democrat is praising it. Unfortunately, many times I do get pulled into this mode of thinking, where a Republican -- largely President Bush -- can do little or no wrong. No, obviously this is a gross over-simplification and I'm generalizing here. I don't agree with everything the man does, and I certainly have some policy differences with him.

The problem is that I can see how viewing this whole thing as a game is a dangerous viewpoint. It's really the challenge of viewing things in the context of the application of values rather than the winning of short-term politcal battles. However, I still believe that the Republicans generally have a better, more positive, and more productive agenda for this country than do the Democrats. Because of this, I tend to put on my rose-colored GOP glasses when I analyze things. I know this isn't a good thing to do, but I guess it's human nature.

The intent of my original post was to put President Bush into context by illustrating that many policies that he is now implementing -- prescription drugs under Medicare, for example -- were fully and repeatedly described in his campaign and presidential debates.

What you've left me to "chew on" is that while the country will turn into a better direction (in my opinion) under the Republicans than the Democrats, is that direction really the best we can hope for, or the best we should hope for?

In 2000-2001, disappointments with the Bush administration were going to be smoothed over, "just as soon as 2002 comes, we'll get the Senate firmly in GOP hands again, and we'll make some real progress."

Now, 2004 is looming, and we're told that larger gains in the Senate and the re-election of Bush is all we need to reach the "promised land." I for one will be watching and listening to President Bush next year and carefully listening to what he has to say, because he's a man I take at his word and I trust that what he outlines in his campaign is exactly what he intends to do. The question that will remain for all of us is whether or not his goals for the nation are the same as our own.

Thanks again for the post; you really made me think, and a good exchange of opinions.. A perfect example of the greatness of FR!