Conservatives Should Support the President Now and in November Because…

Jewish World Review, January ^ | January 13, 2004 | Martha Zoller

[quidnunc]

…They Asked for His Kind of Leadership

You hear it in the coffee shops all over the "red areas" of the map. Everyone knows that is where the real politics is discussed in America. Conservatives are asking themselves, "What was the President thinking?" They might be talking about No Child Left Behind, or steel tariffs or the signing of many less than conservative bills.

In the coffee shops in the "blue areas," liberals don't sit around much. They are too angry and busy to stop for a while but many are thinking that President Bush is the most conservative president in years, since "oh, my God, Reagan," and he must be stopped.

Both of these assessments cannot be true and after spending years looking at politics, I took my first serious stand on a candidate in 1968 at the tender age of 9, if both sides are mad at you, you are probably on the right track. So why should conservatives and moderates support the President, now on issues and later this year at the ballot box?

-snip-

Based on the history of this President, we better not count him out till we see how things unfold. He is what conservatives asked for in a President. He cut taxes, got our economy going again and lives and breathes the safety of this country and the people in it. When it is all said and done, George W. Bush does what he believes is right for the American people and he is willing to stand on his record in November.

-snip-

[Nanodik]

So many misconceptions. Lets pick them apart, one by one: No, the country can't afford to have a Democrat selecting the next 5 Supreme Court Justices (who will be retiring in the next 5 years).

If idiot Bush can't get a federal judge appointed with majorities in both houses, how will a Dem get one appointed with a Rep congress? I guess the Reps would have to actually like the nominee, but that of course would necessarily mean the nominee would be "conservative". The last Bush gave us that bastion of judicial restraint, Justice Suter.

Bush has banned Partial Birth Abortion

Personally, I can't even imagine what kind of f^&%ed up person would actually preform PBAs. That aside, abortion will continue until it is addressed at the constitutional level so the fact that PBAs can no longer be performed is little consolation to the other babies that will be killed via some other method.

Bush is building our national missile defenses, something that Al Gore was against, as if defending the U.S. from rogue nuclear missile attacks was somehow a *bad* idea

I am operating off the assumption that the Reps will retain Congress, so the Reps can pass funding for missile defense. You think any politico worth his salt would veto such a thing? Politicians like to get elected. A veto of missile defense would practically get him tossed out on the spot.

I didn't see Clinton or Gore cutting income taxes

To borrow a Clinton election phrase, "it's the spending, stupid". Cutting taxes now and running a deficit means that we will have to pay those deferred taxes in the future with interest. It's kind of like Christmas shopping with your credit card. You feel good when you are doing it, but with the bill comes the hangover.

regime change in the Middle East

Call me greedy, but I am an America first guy. Let the Arabs do their own regime change.

dishonest, intellectually, to try to claim that there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats.

I have made the argument and so have more notable "conservative" authors. Fundamentally, the biggest difference seems to be foreign affairs but I think once a Dem gets in office, he/she will suddenly express the need to 'engage' in other countries affairs. It's not so much the go / no go argument as "how do we make the world better for Arabs, Palestinians, Africans, etc. etc." The difference is in the details and quite frankly I don't care about those as I am not interested in changing any of those places.

the whole "libertarian" viewpoint is impractical

A couple of centuries ago, it created the most powerful nation the world has ever seen. Practicality seems to be in the eye of the beholder. Don't blame libertarians if they don't want to vote for the RP's brand of socialism. If the RP gives me a reason to vote for their candidate, I'll do so.

nonsensical beliefs such as fully Open Borders

I disagree with the LP on this. It is one of the few items I disagree with the LPs on.

Libertarians don't even want a standing Army, Navy, Air Force, National Missile Defense, or Marines

Actually, the founding fathers were the ones who did not want the feds to have a standing army. That is why the constitution prohibits funding of the army to exceed 2 years in length. Personally, I have no problem with the navy as the constitution mandates one. Marines are just a part of the navy, so they are good. I would personally make the air force part of the navy to avoid any constitutional issues.

Forget privatizing Social Security, you all scream, you want to disband it immediately (a political non-starter). Ditto for privatizing Medicare.

I would take this as an intermediate step. So why don't your Republicrats, now that they have congress and the prez, put forth a bill? No, we got even more of the same old crap with that drug bill. When are you going to learn, pal. The RP doesn't actually mean this sh!t, they just say it to make you feel good when you vote for them.

Libertarians, for you attempt to trick us with your grand ideas and psuedo-conservative rhetoric at times, yet your every action saps our strength and reduces our ability to enact the real changes required to take back this great nation

That's funny. Most of the time you Bushbots are telling us we are a bunch of inconsequential whiners. I don't see what the LP is doing to keep Whore-Hay Bush from enacting some real "conservative" changes. They sure have not managed to keep him from pushing his socialist agenda through.

[Doninnj]

rubbish

[FreeReign]

The welfare state today is no higher as a percentage of GDP then it was during any of Reagans 8 years as president.

Source?

CBO Jan. 2003

CBO Jan. 2004

[Nanodik]

rubbish

Great comeback! Hope that one did not send you paging through the dictionary. You are obviously a man of high intellect and letters!

[Doninnj]

First of all Nanodik, I don't have to respond to each of your rants.

The fact of the matter is, people like you are just as contemptible as the left wingers who wouldn't support a pro life candidate.

Thank God most conservatives are not as narrow minded as you.

[Nanodik]

Thank God most conservatives are not as narrow minded as you.

You're right! Most of the "conservatives" here are very open-minded. So open-minded their brain fell out.

[Doninnj]

Brilliant!

Shall I attribute your eloquency to your Libertarianism or your Canadian heritage?

[Nanodik]

Shall I attribute your eloquency to your Libertarianism or your Canadian heritage?

Libertarianism. The sarcasm is distinctly Canadian though.

[Doninnj]

LOL

Nice chatting with you.

At least you have a sense of humor.

One more thing.....

When election day comes around, swallow your pride and vote for the best man.

He is George W. Bush.

[Southack]

I didn't see Clinton or Gore cutting income taxes

"To borrow a Clinton election phrase, "it's the spending, stupid".

You've completely missed my point. I was pointing out *differences* between Republicans and Democrats. Remember, your claim was that there wasn't much difference between them.

And I disagreed with your claim by having the courtesy of posting specifics.

Republicans have cut income taxes. Democrats have opposed such income tax cuts.

Republicans have passed the first ever ban on Partial Birth Abortion. Democrats have opposed that ban.

Republicans have funded and implemented our national missile defense system. Democrats have opposed our national missile defense system due to it being in violation of the U.S. - CCCP ABM treaty.

This is not to say that there aren't *more* and better things that Republicans could do on each issue above, but rather, it is to say that there are tangible areas of valid differences between the two major Parties on issues that matter.

OK, so you oppose the Libertarians' promotion of fully open borders to unlimited immigration. You also support actually having a national missile defense system, a Navy, and a Marine/Naval "air force". You even support the current baby-step plan of privatizing Social Security incrementally so that it can eventually be a non-governmental program.

That's great! You've just endorsed most of what Bush has been doing, saving semantic changes in the Marines/air force.

Which is decidedly *NOT* where the Libertarian Party stands, by the way.

Something to think about...

[Nanodik]

When election day comes around, swallow your pride and vote for the best man. He is George W. Bush.

Not a chance. But to show you I am a pragmatist where it counts, I have $20 riding on his reelection.

[Southack]

...sb...save FOR semantic changes in the names of the Marines/Air Force...

[Nanodik]

Republicans have cut income taxes. Democrats have opposed such income tax cuts

Let me give you an economic theorem: deficits = deferred taxes. If we are going to spend, I would prefer to pay the bill myself rather than pass it on to my kids and grandkids. If I had it any other way I would be no better than the greedy-geezers I rail against.

You've just endorsed most of what Bush has been doing,

The most important thing to me is smaller, less intrusive govt. I don't see that as an endorsement of anything Bush has done. Can you tell me, beside ABM treaty and PBA, what I support that Bush is doing?

[Southack]

"Can you tell me, beside ABM treaty [withdrawal] and PBA [ban], what I support that Bush is doing?"

Bush is working on Privatizing 2% of Social Security as an "experiment." Should that experiment succeed, then we will Privatize more and more of SS until finally it is no longer a government pension plan. You seemed to have indicated above that you supported such an incremental plan. One would likewise presume that you support tax cuts (preferably with spending cuts, too). Ditto for your stance on limited legal immigration.

Same again for your support of a standing, professional (naval) military.

Let me tell you, if you walked in to any Libertarian Party official meeting with those views above, you'd be subjected to vicious rhetoric to the contrary.

[Southack]

"The most important thing to me is smaller, less intrusive govt. I don't see that as an endorsement of anything Bush has done."

Would you like to see such things? Seriously?

Bush ended the federal regulations that required Environmental Impact Statements from logging prior to building new logging roads as firebreaks. That's a less intrusive government.

Bush cut the red tape for introducing new Genetically modified food and seeds. Again, that's a less intrusive, smaller government.

Bush cut the CO2 regulations that were choking off the electricity surplus to California.

Bush stopped the new "ergonomic" rules that OSHA was about to implement that would have shuttered every home-based business in America.

But cut the double-tax on dividends. That's less paperwork and a less intrusive government. Ditto for Bush cutting our federal income taxes (e.g. initial refunds got mailed out without citizens even filing forms).

Bush has put some 700,000 federal jobs up for bid by private citizens/companies, too.

[Nanodik]

Bush is working on Privatizing 2% of Social Security as an "experiment."

Funny that he is working on privatization, but he somehow managed to steam roller drug benefits through. What is to experiment with? How would you only do 2%? I must admit, I have not see his "plan" but I guess that might have something to do with it taking a back seat to moving all of Mexico to the US and moving what's left of the US to Mars.

Let me tell you, if you walked in to any Libertarian Party official meeting with those views above, you'd be subjected to vicious rhetoric to the contrary.

Maybe, but I would agree with 98% of what the LP was trying to accomplish, which is about 96% more than I agree with Bush.

[Southack]

"Let me give you an economic theorem: deficits = deferred taxes."

That's a fine theorem, and there is much truth to it, but there is not so much truth to it that it is an economic Law.

For instance, you don't have to raise taxes to pay off deficits.

Technically, you could sell governmental assets to pay such debts (the U.S. federal government owns 1/3 of all land in the U.S., for instance).

Technically, you could lease governmental assets to pay such deficits.

Technically, you could reduce or constrain future spending in order to allow for such deficits to be paid.

Technically, you could run up the printing presses to pay such debts.

Technically, you could even default on such debts. Russia did in 1998.

Now granted, there are concerns with all of the above "solutions." I don't deny that fact. But nonetheless, those are valid *alternatives* to raising taxes to pay such debts.

And since there are alternatives to raising taxes in order to pay such debts, it does not follow that increased debts always equal increased taxes.

[Nanodik]

Would you like to see such things? Seriously?

Which is offset 10 fold by the things he has done to increase govt. Do we need to go over that list? I had high hopes for Bush after 9/11, but you point to a bunch of small moves on the plus side whereas all the big initiatives have been toward larger govt. Seriously, you want to compare red-tape on genetically modified seeds to the largest expansion of Medicare in a generation?

[Southack]

"Funny that he is working on privatization, but he somehow managed to steam roller drug benefits through."

Indeed. Bush's Medicare Reform carried with it no fewer than six Privatization options over the next ten years. For the paltry fee of $10 per American per month (i.e. $39.5 Billion per year for each of ten years), Bush bought Democratic acquiescence to the eventual Privatization of the massive Medicare program.

[Texasforever]

Which is offset 10 fold by the things he has done to increase govt

Was there a recent tax increase I missed?