Posted on 01/29/2004 5:54:35 PM PST by Jim Robinson
see #139 and get over the hurt feelings. JimRob has laid it out nine ways to sunday, SUPREME COURT is why they should grant their vote again. Withhold it, sit home, and watch that institution become packed with the YOUNGEST leftwingers they can dredge up.
With all due respect, my FRiend, no spending can be excluded if spending restraints are to be successful. Mind you, I believe defending our Country from enemies here and abroad is the Federal Guv'ment's primary responsibility, and I believe this argument can be won in the public square. But spending restraints must encompass ALL spending, with a Super-Majority (67%) required to override said restraints. You can still have yer $75 Billion extra fer Defense, but it must be within the parameters of the overall budget, IMHO.
FReegards...MUD
Dubyuh's proposal for privatizing Social Security would be a great step in the Right direction...every bit as important as the Welfare Reform Act of the mid-90's...MUD
I, for one, have never disputed Dubyuh's bravery...but I will challenge his judgement if he insists upon growing the Federal Leviathan at a rate that allows Clinton to paint himself as a Fiscal Disciplinarian.
"More than likely, it will just tick him off. That is even MORE impressive than his honesty."
Dubyuh needn't get ticked off at his base if he wants to win the '84-style Landslide Election that is his fer the taking next November!!
FReegards...MUD
DITTOES!!! The RespectableRightWing can hold sway next November!!
FReegards...MUD
Please excuse me fer readdressing this issue...another thing that needs to be killed is this whole concept of "emergency spending" fer things like FEMA!! We've gotta $2.3 Trillion Federal budget...that should cover next summer's Drought-du-Jour or the 5-8 hurricanes that the east coast is sure to encounter next early autumn. Excluding anything from overall budget restraints is forfeiting this most important issue to the relentless BigSpenders!!
FReegards...MUD
We'd be selling ourselves short if we were to assume that all those who are expressing exasperation at Dubyuh's BigSpendingProclivities were lost as potential DubyuhSupporters next November!! Many conditional BushBackers feel betrayed when we read how Dubyuh has outspent Clinton's DemonRAT Congress of '93-'94...sure, we realize that Dubyuh was confronted with a recession when he entered office in '01, and then we had to gear up fer a War on Terror in the fall of the same year. But that doesn't have anything to do with Bush's proposal to make rewcord-setting increaes in funding to the NEA or his willingness to enact Teddy Kennedy's Education program or the latest Omnibus Spending bill!! Curtailing Federal spending is at the very heart of all Reagan Republicans' makeup, IMHO!! And Dubyuh can pick up the mantle, and the RightWing will be there in droves when he does!!
FReegards...MUD
I doubt that you really want an empty, meaningless exchange among posters whose primary purpose is to see who can make the most henious and pejorative remarks, scream the loudest about how much he/she hates the left and the Democrats, or who can raise the most vociferous articulation of the evil that lurks across the aisle and in the country's majority party.
FR applaudes itself as a forum for the exchange of such wisdom as the posters may possess or wish the share and as a place where the issues de jour can be explored and dissected while being subjected to a high degree of critical analysis.
To be sure, that elevated goal was within reach a couple of years ago but somehow slipped away. Unfortunately the level of insight and applied knowledgeable exploration has too often devolved into a dark cheering section that places greater value on strict adherence to the harshest, most pejorative expression of devotion to whatever rational is this week's explanation of fault, failure or weakness. It's the same sort of ill-conceived loyalty and unwillingness to point out our own defects that brought down armies in history that refused to change to correct their faults, governments that ignored the realities and hewed only to their most fervent wishes, and the defeat of nations, like WW II Germany, whose General Staff was either too fearful of the boss to tell him the truth or too secure in their comfortable position to risk demotion (or worse).
Your purpose is a worthy one which I support. But to castigate those who disagree with your every wish, whim and opinion is contrary to your expressed goal. Regretably, I suggest that such a policy is a gilded invitation to obscurity and irrelevancy.
My best to you...........Middie
The latest figure being bandied about is 1%...
"...we're willing to let the White House into the party even if they showed up late."
Heck yeah, I want to be an enthusiastic supporter of Dubyuh's domestic agenda, just like I already am an enthusiastic supporter of his Foreign Policy!!
"BTW, Slim, you know that if the conservatives weren't preparing a real bloodbath for the RINOs, there would never have been any cutting back from 4% growth to 0.5% growth as just happened in the last week. And there would have been no proposal to impose these spending limits."
It needn't be a bloodbath, my FRiend...I want the BigSpending RINOs to lay their cards on the table and stand up strong fer their DemonRAT-lite proclivities!! When we knock them off their pedestals, I don't want there to be any dispute that they got what was coming to them!!
"Anyway, the history of past spending limits is a little sour but not entirely bad."
The devil's in the details, fer sure, but it's up to us to make sure OUR legislators put the appropriate teeth into the bill to make the spending restraints stick!! We can use past failures to guide us towards not making the same mistakes again!!
"Still, I want cuts this year, not spending limits that may or may not happen in some faraway Congressional session."
Can I quote you on that, Mr. President?! Means a lot coming from the man himself...LOL!!
"I'd say that the general of our army, Rove, is scurrying to get back in front of the army so he can 'lead' us. Just my opinion."
Rove's a political animal, a professional, if you will...you can bet he heard Limbaugh's condemnation on Thursday, and the general din of dissatisfaction coming steadily from the Right for quite awhile. We on the Right sincerely want Dubyuh to win in a landslide that has coattails that bring in another 5-6 Senators and 15-20 Congresspersons next November, but it ain't gonna happen if Dubyuh insists upon alienating his RightWing Base. If he and his advisors can get this thru their collective noggin, this Fall oughtta be quite rewarding fer all good Americans!!
FReegards...MD
Bush's budget was already in some trouble with top House and Senate budget folks. They didn't like the smell. He was already promising them behind the scenes that they could cut spending next year. But they weren't happy with that, nervous about the base. Still, they were willing to go along with it if there was no opposition.; )
Rove was strategizing, telling them that Bush would take all the heat off them by having proposed the budget and they'd get off scott-free with the voters. But they remember past elections and how conservatives ejected the Dims in '94 and they also recognize that Clinton got more popular and more secure in his position with the Congress in enemy hands.
Being smart politicians, they recognized that Bush may no longer need them at all after he is re-elected. And he'll be lame duck next year anyway so he'll be of less use to the GOP Congress than he has been up to now.
Now, add all that up, and you can see that the fury over this budget gave the House/Senate a good reason to do what they already wanted to do. So they called up Rove and politely told him the 4% increase version of the budget was DOA.
Rove, alarmed, cut it back to 0.5% but, given the level of anger over this from the fully roused conservative base (led by Rush and some neo-cons and with Liberty Caucus plotting at a private location), Rove came up with the idea of pledging these spending limits to try to placate the base and keep the GOP Congress from really hacking into this bloated budget. One of Rove's primary objectives is to make sure that Bush is seen as leading the party, not that the party is leading him and, to Rove, this leadership focus is politically more important than the actual size of the budget.
Seen in this light, the pledge for the spending caps is an attempt to persuade the GOP Congress to at least keep the 0.5% discretionary spending increase in and not cut it by more than that. More importantly, it keeps Bush 'leading' the party. Not being led by the Congress, or by Rush, or by the conservative base.
Smugness be damned, the fight's far from won!! We've gotta continue to raise holy hell 'cuz you know the Big-Spending Lib'rals will be!!
"In a budget this size, we're talking tens of billions, probably hundreds of billions of dollars over the next 5-10 years."
Yep...that's the main reason we gotta continue to insist that we address the outta-control spending in generalities, 'cuz otherwise the Lefties will deride every cut as "You're only saving $1 Billion here or half-a-billion there" when us lowly taxpayers know that $500 Million does actually natter!!
"That's pretty worthwhile if all we had to do was rattle their cages."
We must continue to rattle their cages...in fact, we oughtta be bracing ourselves to pick up the pace in said rattling, or else the pro-Big-Spending special interests will end up drowning us out in this debate!!
"As far as the real import of Bush's announced 0.5% budget increase, I think it shakes out like this: Bush's budget was already in some trouble with top House and Senate budget folks. They didn't like the smell. He was already promising them behind the scenes that they could cut spending next year. But they weren't happy with that, nervous about the base. Still, they were willing to go along with it if there was no opposition."
Even amongst the most loyal Pro-Bush folks on this Forum, I've detected a distinct displeasure with his willingness to grow the Federal Leviathan at such an undisciplined pace. Many have been unwilling to "undercut" a man they genuinely respect and want to see succeed, but they are still uncomfortable seeing BigGuv'ment grow soo fast under a Republican Administration.
"Rove was strategizing, telling them that Bush would take all the heat off them by having proposed the budget and they'd get off scott-free with the voters. But they remember past elections and how conservatives ejected the Dims in '94 and they also recognize that Clinton got more popular and more secure in his position with the Congress in enemy hands."
Rove may be too smart by half, IMHO.
"Being smart politicians, they recognized that Bush may no longer need them at all after he is re-elected. And he'll be lame duck next year anyway so he'll be of less use to the GOP Congress than he has been up to now. Now, add all that up, and you can see that the fury over this budget gave the House/Senate a good reason to do what they already wanted to do. So they called up Rove and politely told him the 4% increase version of the budget was DOA."
I pray you are correct in yer assumption, my FRiend. However, I believe it is more likely that the POTUS got a feel fer the general displeasure of the voting populace before the Congress even had the opportunity to weigh in!!
Rove, alarmed, cut it back to 0.5% but, given the level of anger over this from the fully roused conservative base (led by Rush and some neo-cons and with Liberty Caucus plotting at a private location), Rove came up with the idea of pledging these spending limits to try to placate the base and keep the GOP Congress from really hacking into this bloated budget. One of Rove's primary objectives is to make sure that Bush is seen as leading the party, not that the party is leading him and, to Rove, this leadership focus is politically more important than the actual size of the budget."
You could be right, 'cuz when yer talking about a $2.3 Trillion budget, you'd be hard-pressed to make the case that any budget priority is "under-funded"!! As to the PowerOfRove, it'll be interesting to look back a genertaion from now and discern exactly how much power the dude has over Dubyuh, but I'm much more inclined to think President Bush can read the tea-leaves himself and sees that losing the RightWing will never serve his ultimate purposes!!
"Seen in this light, the pledge for the spending caps is an attempt to persuade the GOP Congress to at least keep the 0.5% discretionary spending increase in and not cut it by more than that."
You are a cynical one, my FRiend...LOL!! Dubyuh's not his daddy, despite recent evidence to the contrary!!
"More importantly, it keeps Bush 'leading' the party. Not being led by the Congress, or by Rush, or by the conservative base."
Hoo cares who gets credit fer it as long as fiscal discipline is instituted?!
FReegards...MUD
Let's not be overly simplistic, mi amigo, Dubyuh's the Leader of this Party and it takes guts to contradict him on anything!! When Dubyuh asks fer a huge spending increase on the Natioal Endowment fer the Arts, it takes real discipline fer Congressman to say, "Heck NO!! The Federal Guv'emt has no bid'ness serving as primary patrons fer the Arts!!" And when Dubyuh asks fer huge expenses on Federal subsidies fer Farm programs, you gotta be real comfortable with yer stand against supporting agrarian unproductivity to say NO to the leader of yer Party!! Dubyuh's the key to turning this around, although I agree that we must continue to lobby our own personal Congressfolks to the best of our ability!!
"Bush doesn't enter into it either way..."
Puh-SHAWWW!! Of course he does!! Bush is the Leader of the Republican Party and his preferences hold sway with every Congressperson who wants to raise funds fer his reelection!! You KNOW that, and any argument to the contrary is an insult to my intelligence, my FRiend!!
"(but he is a good war president and commander)."
He most certainly is...
"Our spending beef is with Congress. They're the ones writing the hot checks. The Founders gave them, not the president, the federal checkbook."
Ultimately, I reckon yer right, but Dubyuh holds the ultimate cards as his veto requires a 2/3rds majority to override, which means he would need 100% of DemonRATS and some one-third of RINOs to override Dubyuh's wishes. Plus, Dubyuh's got the bully-pulpit working fer him, his power to influence the GOP should not be under-estimated.
"As for the rest of your remarks, I'd like to see us pass a reduced federal budget (with or without spending limits), get it out of the way and settle back to shoot Dims like ducks in a row in November. But one thing at a time. None of this Congress throwing money at people who hate you to pander to them and spending like drunken Dims and then trying to cuddle up to the conservative base for the election."
Panderin' won't work against these HATERS on the DemonRAT Left, Dubyuh ought to just hold tight to RightWingPrinciples and we'll all be happen come next November...MUD
IMHO, overconfidence betrayed Dubyuh's daddy in '92, and Bush the Younger would be selling himself short if he were to fall prey to a similar mistake this autumn...MUD
1. JimRob, = ex-Dem? 2. Opposing Dems 3. All States Campaign
For those people who left the Democratic Party, I'm interested if they first made any effort to try to change the Party before they decided to leave?
1. - During the gov. recall, I remember seeing a post where Jim Robinson said that he was a former Democrat. I thought it would be interesting to have a little more info on that, in his own words.
2. - To All: Here on FR, there are many who oppose and even despise the Democrat Party, their leaders, and most or all of what the Democrats stand for. In speaking out against bad policies and bad leaders, it needs to be done in a way to educate and persuade Democrat voters to change the way they think and vote. Democrats need to find good leaders and change many of their policies; or, Democrat voters need to be encouraged to abandon the Democrat Party at the ballot box.
3. All States Campaign - The current Democrat candidates are not suitable to serve as President. The few others who are commonly mentioned as being interested and 'waiting in the wings' - they are likewise not suitable to be President. I would like to see a prominent Democrat leader renounce many of the policies of the Democratic Party, and be a leader for important change. California and the western states needs a 'favorite son' candidate. All states need an alternative to the current Dems on the ballot.
If I understand the election code, then here in California we have until Feb. 17 for someone to register as a write-in candidate.
Are there any of the primary states that have "None of the Above" on the ballots?
Visit FR's Golden Gate.
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.