| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 01/24/2004 6:45:19 AM PST by Lead Moderator, reason:
This thread has degenerated into a flamewar. No more replies. Sheesh. |
Posted on 01/23/2004 5:23:57 AM PST by Apple Pan Dowdy
I thought President Bush's State of the Union address was fine. It wasn't outrageously long. He drew a bright line between himself and his critics on the war in Iraq, the Patriot Act, Social Security Reform, etc. He delivered it well, and the nudity was tasteful and integral to the plot.
As luck - or bad timing - would have it, I was invited to Manhattan to address the New York State Conservative Party right before the president addressed the nation. It seemed only fitting since the subject of my speech was the conflict between Bush's "compassionate conservatism" and traditional conservatism. You see, conservatives in New York City have suffered more and for longer than conservatives in the rest of America. Trust me, I grew up on New York City's Upper West Side. We felt like Christians in Ancient Rome.
Well, after three years with George W. Bush at the helm, many conservatives are starting to feel like we've been sent to the catacombs. Don't get me wrong. Out in real America where most Americans - liberal and conservative - don't focus on politics every day, Bush is still doing very well. And, even among conservatives, Bush has considerable political support. But among ideological and intellectual conservatives, emotional support for Bush is starting to ebb.
I can't point to anything scientific. But if you pay attention to what conservatives are saying at meetings and in magazines, on the Web and at the think tanks, as well as what readers, friends, colleagues and sources say, there's a definite undercurrent of discontent with the president.
For some it started with his plan to offer amnesty-lite to illegal immigrants. For others, it's his fence-sitting on gay marriage. For others, like me, it was his signing of the campaign finance reform bill even though he thought it was unconstitutional. Or maybe it was his support for steel tariffs. Or the farm bill. I forget.
Anyway that doesn't matter. What unites pretty much all of these grumblers is a deep sense of, well, disgust with how much this administration is spending.
When it comes to taxpayer dollars, this is the second most "generous" administration in American history, second only to that of another Texan, Lyndon Johnson. There may be good aspects to George Bush's "compassionate conservatism," though on the whole I never liked it, but it's clear that compassion doesn't come cheap at the Bush White House, on whose watch overall spending from 2001 to 2003 grew at 16 percent and discretionary spending went up 27 percent. That's double Bill Clinton's rate.
Bush's defenders are eager to point to the war on terrorism as an excuse for increased spending. Fine. But that's only a small part of the story.
Under Bush, spending on education has gone up 60.8 percent, on labor 56 percent and on the Department of the Interior by 23.4 percent . The price tag for the president's Medicare plan alone starts, but won't end, at $400 billion. The farm bill was a pork horror show, pure and simple. More people work for the federal government now than at any time since the end of the Cold War.
Brian Riedl of the Heritage Foundation sums it up this way: "Overall for 2003, the federal government spent $20,300 per household, taxed $16,780 per household, and ran a budget deficit of $3,520 per household."
The reason most Americans haven't heard a lot about all this is twofold. Conservatives have stayed relatively quiet and liberals have controlled the anti-Bush microphone.
Democratic presidential candidates and interest groups have been screeching that the president is gutting education and abandoning the elderly. Obviously this is nonsense on tall stilts, since Bush is spending a lot more on both than Bill Clinton ever did.
In fact, on Medicare and education, for example, the Dems think Bush is being stingy. And a study by the National Taxpayers Union found that each and every one of the Democrats running for president have plans that would raise the deficit even more, from $169.6 billion under Joe Lieberman to - get this - $1.33 trillion under Al Sharpton.
Conservative opposition to such overspending is more complex than the media and the left think. Some just don't like red ink. Others think big government erodes freedom and traditional arrangements. Others believe it slowly inoculates the citizenry to greater levels of social engineering.
Whatever the reasons, conservatives - as opposed to partisan Republicans - have sincere misgivings about the kind of presidency Bush is conducting. A lot of compassionate conservatism is smart politics for the Republican Party, and some of it is even good policy. And, yes, conservatives understand that the GOP is practically the only place they have a real impact in electoral politics.
But I'm not sure George Bush understands how much he is asking from those who brought him to the dance.
Well, there's your first problem. You can't "reason" with a liberal.
Turn the question on him. What does "need" have to do with anything? That's what we have been trying to explain to you by analogy, and you're not getting it.
Overlooking of course statements made to that affect by one of his press secretaries and some commentary by the President himself as already stated earlier in this thread.
You predicted that Bush would push for a hyper-AWB.
I am going to remind you of that when this session of Congress is over and he didn't do it.
And I will expect an admission that you are stupid.
I am bookmarking this thread for future reference.
He SHOULD have honored the Texas Constitution and the US Constitution by instituting Vermont/Alaska style concealed carry. It would've fit perfectly with the spirit of individuality and self reliance that have been halmarks of the Texan mystique. But NOOOOO, we had to have background checks. An all day class. Renewal fees. Restrictions and a whole host of bureaucratic nonsense just to exercise a basic HUMAN RIGHT.
Anyone thinking Bush was on the average a "pretty conservative guy" to begin with was not paying attention. He IS however, extraordinarily honest. If he says he will re-sign an AWB bill, then he will. Period. It won't matter what kind of letter writing campaign we engage in. He doesn't govern by the poll numbers.
At least I can respect his honesty and integrity. Now if he would just READ the GODD@MN Constitution...
WASHINGTON -- …..“Bush recently reiterated his support for extending the assault weapons ban -- just about the only gun-control measure he favors -- but the president hasn't said whether he would back the permanent extension sought by gun-control advocates.”
From Senator Feinstein’s web site, April 16, 2003:
“Washington, DC - U.S. Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY) welcomed the announcement that President George W. Bush supports the reauthorization of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, which is set to expire in 2004.”
From evervigilent.net, November 13, 2003:
“During his 2000 campaign, candidate Bush voiced his support of the assault weapons ban that was passed during the Clinton administration. The federal law is scheduled to expire on Sept. 13, 2004, and Bush, speaking as president, has already stated that he supports its reauthorization.”
“Some have tried to excuse the president's position by arguing that he is merely telling people what they want to hear, stating publicly that the ban is a good thing while remaining confident that renewal of the ban will never even make it through the House of Representatives. That may offer some comfort to disgruntled conservatives, but it is important to remember that 38 Republicans voted for the ban in 1994 and 42 voted against its repeal in 1996. That doesn't bode well for freedom-loving Americans.”
“Don't be surprised in the coming months to see the Bush administration pushing for a renewal of the assault weapons ban by promoting it as an effective tool in our fight against terrorism.”
I think there is good reason to be concerned.
Well, how high-minded of you to continue your attempts to educate me. I'm sorry that you have had to waste your time on some-one who just "doesn't get it."
Is Jonah a mole?"
Yeah, Jonah Goldberg is a "snob" and spy for the DNC for sshhh...Pointing out the obvious.
BTW, is there such a thing as a cliff so high that some of you lemming-bots wouldn't leap from?
Now, I admit that should be reason enough... but it's not...the debate continues, and I am finished. So... I thought I would ask. Next thing you know I'm a squishy Bushbot, gun snatching, pant-peeing weenie.And all the while, the same people calling you a squishy Bushbot gun snatching pant peeing weenie will be complaining that the Bushbots are stifling all dissent.
It is really a fascinating process to watch.
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.