Let Bush Be Bush: "Mr. Bush is Mr. Reagan's Heir"

American Enterprise Institute ^ | 12/17/03 | Michael A. Ledeen

[rdb3]

I just don't buy the idea the god-like status that some conservatives have for Reagan in that they ignore legislation that Reagan signed that does not support their theories.

Amen to that.

[rdb3]

Bush has a majority of his own party in control of both houses.

Looking at the Senate, your assertion is correct counting the number of R's versus the number of D's. However, would you call it a true majority with the likes of Specter, Snowe, Chaffee, and Collins on your side? To me, with four of these squishes on your side, your majority is marginal to say the very least.

I'd be completely in agreement with you if the Pubs held a majority of the Senate in direct proportion to the majority they hold in the House. But, again, 51-49 with four question marks is shaky.

[Richard Kimball]

So, like who were you before you were banned last time?

[Richard Kimball]

Thanks. GWB isn't perfect, but if anyone thinks they're going to get a more conservative candidate in, they're dreaming.

[RJayneJ]

Thanks for the nomination! };^D)

[Fledermaus]

Maybe not CFR, but he would have signed the Medicare drug bill. But probably with more reform.

It does contain HSA accounts, used to be MSA accounts, for all and I believe this provision alone will do more to privatize Medicare than the Congress can do.

Read it.

[Fledermaus]

But Reagan had a Democratic controlled House and marginal Senate... Bush doesn't.

But the 51-48-1 Senate waters down the GOP controlled House.

If the GOP gets 5-6 more Senate seats in 2004 to 56-57, they BETTER deliver or go back to minority status.

And once they have a 56-57 seat majority, Bush should lean HARD on Snowe, Collins and Chaffee, the three Muskateers of Shame. I'd be happy to see our majority dropped to 53-54 in the Senate and kick them out of the caucus being as worthless as they are.

[Ben Ficklin]

Yes, I misunderstood and noticed my mistake while reading one of your subsequent posts. Sorry about that.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

Ledeen ping

[NMC EXP]

The American Enterprise Institute Institute extolling the virtues of an "agressive foreign policy" i.e. exporting democracy and nation building at the point of a bayonet. No surprise here.

The American Enterprise Institute is the premier neo-conservative think tank and is all for the "permanent revolution".

Trotsky would be proud.

Regards

J.R.

[ModernDayCato]

Good morning. Didn't read your response because it is largely predictable. I also went out and did some research last night and found that I'm in good company with my concerns, including the Heritage and Cato Institutes and several prominent conservatives.

So we'll see, won't we? I'll bookmark this thread and let's compare notes in 2008.

[ModernDayCato]

As a conservative (I guess) in New England I'm used to the condescending, spin-filled responses that were included in your last post...I'm just not used to getting them from my side of the aisle. Just like your 'list', your statements only tell half the story. Here's one:

Bigger government? If by bigger government you mean borrowing money to defend our nation from the nuclear missile attacks of rogue nations, then Yes.

This is just spin, spin, spin, and you've bought it.

SPIN: "The president has provided strong leadership to make sure we are doing what it takes to win the war on terror, our nation's highest priority, while holding the line on spending elsewhere in the budget," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said this week.

TRUTH: But when a White House official presented this analysis to a meeting he attended recently, "I nearly laughed out loud," said Heritage's Riedl. He calculates that 55 percent of all new spending in the past two years, or $164 billion of $296 billion, is from areas unrelated to defense and homeland security. Unemployment benefits are up 85 percent, education spending up 65 percent. "It's really an across-the-board thing," he said. This has led federal spending to top $20,000 per household in today's dollars for the first time since World War II -- a jump of $4,000 in the past four years.

Discretionary spending, which grew 2 percent annually during Clinton's presidency, has grown at 6.5 percent under Bush. And federal spending as a percent of gross domestic product, which decreased under Clinton, has edged back up to 20 percent under Bush.

Again, I invite you to sit down with me after the second Bush term is over and we'll put together an analysis.

And as far as your opinion being the majority, what difference does that make? Are we mob rule all of a sudden? I think I'm in pretty good company: Paul Weyrich, Bruce Bartlett, The American Spectator, Steven Moore, The Wall Street Journal, Ron Paul, The Heritage Foundation, Dick Armey, Trent Lott, Don Nickles, Grover Norquist. And that's just from one article:

Oh, I forgot...we're all wrong, and we've all committed ideological heresy because we don't agree with you and refuse to spin the facts the way you (and the Bush administration) have.

When I first found Christ the world became very different to me...there was a realization that I wasn't OF the world, and that there was really nothing I could do, that things were going to come to pass regardless. And that I was in a very small minority that would constantly have to defend my beliefs and my principles.

So I largely keep my mouth shut most of the time and let the other side rant on and on. Once in a while I make a few points which are never refuted (sort of like on this thread).

What I see among the most zealous of you is the same almost religious fervor that I see in liberals, particularly Dean supporters.

I grabbed 'In His Own Words' this morning and read a few chapters. To say that W has the depth of Reagan is a joke. I think that W has the same brass b-lls that Reagan had (which I admire), but I think it ends there.

Oh, and how dare you and your cronies slam any of us for who we choose to vote for or not vote for. For now we're still free to vote our conscience, so I'm going to. What's the difference between voting for a third party and casting a vote that will be cancelled out by some yuppie housewife in her SUV with a old Nader bumper sticker on the back?

As I said privately to someone this morning, if I'm wrong it's no big deal. What about you?

[Texas Federalist]

"I have to go bang my head against the wall for a while to punish myself for posting to this thread. I need to stop wasting my time."

I wish I had the same good sense as you.

[ModernDayCato]

We all think that we should try just ONE MORE TIME to get them to at least consider our POV, but it's never going to happen. I guess we can take solace in the fact that we're in good company. I wonder if the rest of those guys are banging their heads against the wall too.

[Texas Federalist]

"We all think that we should try just ONE MORE TIME to get them to at least consider our POV, but it's never going to happen. I guess we can take solace in the fact that we're in good company. I wonder if the rest of those guys are banging their heads against the wall too."

I already tried the argument. I'm sure you can imagine the result.

In court, when a witness is saying something completely illogical, the best way to handle the situation is usually to question him in a way that allows him to realize his error and correct it. Sometimes, when a really thick-headed witness comes along, you want to bang your head against the wall when he won't come around. The best way to handle that situation is to let him make make outlandish statements in front of the jury to expose him as the buffoon he is. I think that's the best you can hope for here.

[alwaysconservative]

You are FANTASTIC!!! Your posts are the most comprehensive, clear-eyed lists of President Bush's accomplishments, and I always savor them. I always look forward to reading them. THANK YOU!!!