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

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

[Pagey]

Thank you, I needed (and saved) that list and shall commit that to memory.Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill (who preserved the New Deal and the Great Society and even admitted that "I've been one of the big spenders of all time," but I digress)and the democrats controlled the house, how was R.R. supposed to control spending? GWB simply stole the democrats thunder by giving more away than they could ever have imagined. While I may not be entirely happy about it, at least he stole their issue, one-upped them and I can laugh at and watch their party slowly spiral into the ground.

[Texas Federalist]

"(Joined the Constitution Party on 12/9/03 and it feels soooo goooood.)
Ah. Not a conservative, then."

Kent, meet Southack. Southack . . . Kent. You both may have met before in the happy little fantasy land you both inhabit on lollipop lane where enacting a $7 trillion Medicare entitlement, extending child credit tax cuts to people who don't pay taxes, supporting the assault weapons ban, and increasing the size of the federal government by 25% in 4 years is "conservative".

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

You both may have met before in the happy little fantasy land you both inhabit on lollipop lane yapyapyap blahblahblah.

Go back and (re-)read posting #32, please.

Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

[billbears]

-Banned Partial Birth Abortion

He did that all by his lonesome did he? Mind you the PBA doesn't do anything but it makes for good press eh? As for the others I consider to those to be of less importance than unconstitutional massive spending packages my eventual grandchildren will be paying. But you keep calling Bush conservative. And black is white. Red is green. And pigs can fly.

[Southack]

Likewise, President Reagan didn't ban Partial Birth Abortion. Bush did.

"Your point being? How does that have anything to do with how conservative Bush is in relation to Reagan?"

Nothing is more conservative than being and acting pro-life. Bush banned Partial Birth Abortion. Reagan didn't. That makes President Bush's presidency more conservative than Reagan's, and that's what it has to do in relation to Reagan vs Bush.

President Reagan didn't kill the U.S. - CCCP ABM Treaty.

"Because he couldn't. What's wrong with you?"

What's "wrong" with me is that I've actually *read* the literal text of the U.S. - CCCP ABM Treaty, and that treaty had a clause in it allowing either the U.S. or the CCCP to withdraw from the ABM treaty by giving the other party 6 months notice.

So President Bush gave the Ruskies six months notice and now we are out of it.

Reagan was great, but he never had the courage to give Gorbachev those six months notice of our intent to withdraw from that treaty.

And your bizarre claim that Reagan somehow "couldn't" do what Bush just did just goes to show that you know nothing.

[Texas Federalist]

Reagan's party never controlled both houses of Congress. Bush has no excuse.

[Trust but Verify]

Love your tagline.

Does the Constitution Party have a political forum like FR?

If so, why aren't you there instead of here?

If not, why don't you start one and take some of these other whiners with you?

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

He did that all by his lonesome did he?

He's the one who ramrodded it through, yes. And real conservatives rate Protection of the Unborn fairly highly on their lists of "to-do" things, quyite frankly.

Real conservatives know that. Without having to be told on a public message board forum, I mean.

Mind you the PBA doesn't do anything but it makes for good press eh?

Put down the crack pipe, and back away slowly. It's currently be fought for at the judicial level, even as we speak... and NOT by any of the sunshine lollipop "conservatives" of the "Constitution Party," either, I might add. (It takes real conservatives to get down and fight in the trenches, rather than sniveling and bellyaching, you see.)

As for the others I consider to those to be of less importance than unconstitutional massive spending packages my eventual grandchildren will be paying

Your gross misunderstanding of the full ramifications (and realities) of conservative theory and practice has been rendered well and truly transparent by this point, yes, I agree.

But you keep calling Bush conservative. And black is white. Red is green. And pigs can fly.

Don't fret. The only other party with a prayer in hell of winning in '04 is running a real, actual, no foolin' former abortionist, who wants to raise taxes again to Clinton-era levels. You'll like that a good deal better, I shouldn't wonder.

[Southack]

"where enacting a $7 trillion Medicare entitlement"

Here's the telltale trait of propaganda and propagandists: they won't use real numbers.

In this case, the Medicare Reform Law of 2003 authorizes $39.5 Billion per year flat rate for each of ten years. Any other spending would have to have other, *additional* legislation passed.

In the meantime, no fewer than 6 Privatization options were legalized for Medicare in this law.

Opponents, however, have to fabricate numbers in order to try to scare people away from Privatizing Medicare. These agitators throw out multi-Trillion dollar numbers even though such spending hasn't been legally authorized, and even though such "extrapolations" (to be kind) don't take into account the Privatization of Medicare in the next ten years to any sensible degree.

So here's an easy mental test to determine if *you* have been duped into being such an agitator: simply ask yourself if you can convince people that it is a bad law based upon the legally authorized $10 per American per month actual figure (i.e. $39.5 Billion per year).

If you can't, then you are a propagandist. If you can, then you are sincere.

Should I hold my breath?

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

quyite = quite

[Southack]

"What does that even mean? So Federal factories--that don't even exist--have to abide by Kyoto? Kyoto was not enacted by executive order."

On the contrary, it means that federal agencies, such as the Department of Defense, had to compel private contractors to abide by Kyoto restrictions in order to win government contracts.

[gramho12]

Reagan's party never controlled both houses of Congress. Bush has no excuse.This reasoning does not fly. There were far more conservative democrats back then that voted on the issue rather than just partisanship. The RINOs in office now cannot be counted on to vote the party line.

I am not quibbling over Bush vs Reagan, who is better or more conservative. 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.

[Texas Federalist]

If you made any lasting points it might be worth reading post #32.

-- Banned Partial Birth Abortion

. . . and stated that we are "not ready for" a comprehensive ban on abortion

-- Killed the Kyoto Global Warming Treaty

-- Killed U.S. involvement in the International Criminal Court.

Yeahhhhhh! You get two points.

-- Signed 2 income tax cuts ---- 1 of which was the largest Dollar value tax cut in world history

Any moron with an elementary knowledge of economics knows that the real tax rate is measured by spending. A tax cut coupled with a spending increase is just a tax increase postponed with interest. Are you one of those people who buys a TV from Circuit City with no payments for 12 months and thinks you got it for free?

-- Reduced taxes on dividends and capital gains

See last post re: tax cuts.

-- In process of eliminating IRS marriage penalty.

You only get .10 points for that. "In the process?" Come on.

Care to address the $7 trillion Medicare entitlement, extending the child tax credit to people not paying taxes, his refusal to call for the end of affirmative action in his amicus brief in the U. of M case, support for the assault weapons ban, support for granting amnesty for all illegal aliens, the largest farm subsidy bill ever signed, steel tariffs . . .

Speak now Kent, voice of the sheeple!

[Southack]

"How? Reagan didn't veto a PBA ban, it never got to his desk. So for you to say Bush is more conservative than Reagan because Bush signed a bill that Reagan never could have is... well... freaking dumb."

What I said was that President Bush was more radical right than Reagan, and that President Bush's *Presidency* was more conservative than Reagan's because Bush actually banned Partial Birth Abortion and killed the U.S. - CCCP ABM treaty. Reagan was great, but he did *neither* of those hyper-Conservative things, for whatever reasons.

[dmanLA]

Bump...

[Texas Federalist]

This is a conservative forum, not a republican forum. Therefore, YOU shouldn't be here. Maybe you can start FreeRepublican.com