Posted on 01/30/2004 5:51:44 AM PST by beaureguard
After all, it is conceivable that some future congress can actually do something to turn back the obscene spending increases we've seen out of George Bush. Not likely, but conceivable. It is far more likely, however, that if we see an appeasement-oriented Democrat take the reigns next year we'll see not only the same level of spending (if not worse) but a weakened posture against Islamic terrorism that will end up costing us lives .... thousands of lives, perhaps tens of thousands.
The bottom line here is that no matter how disgusting Bush's spending might be, no matter how offensive it might be to his core conservative base, there is no Democrat running in this race who would spend any less. Every single Democrat running for congress has a new-spending agenda that ranges from a low of $169 billion a year for Joseph Lieberman, to a high of $1.3 trillion a year for Al "The Liar" Sharpton. Now it's true that every single one of these candidates promises to raise taxes on the evil, ugly, nasty, putrid rich by overturning Bush's tax cuts, but that would only put about $135 billion back in the budget (and that's not counting any reduction in tax revenue caused by the resulting economic slowdown). So each and every Democratic candidate would increase the budget deficit. The frontrunner, John Kerry, would increase the deficit by about $130 billion a year.
So ... a classic damned if you do, damned if you don't situation here. Vote for Bush and you get runaway government spending, but you also get a strong defense and an aggressive war against the Islamic terrorists who want to kill as many Americans as they can, on our own soil if possible, and to destroy the American way of life. Vote for a Democrat and you get the same runaway government spending, but as an added bonus you get the appeasement of our enemy, instead of its destruction. Vote for Bush and you get some appeals court judges who actually have an appreciation of our Constitution .. plus runaway spending. Vote for a Democrat and you get activists judges who will use judicial fiat to enact the leftist agenda ... plus runaway spending.
I understand the strong impulse to punish Bush for his free spending ways by withholding your support in November. The price for sitting on hands could be huge. It could be another terrorist attack on American soil, this time with tens of thousands dead. It could be higher spending, a bigger deficit, and a slowed economy brought on by higher taxes. It could be the end of a dream of Social Security reform ... and the list goes on.
And then ... there's always the hope that in a second Bush term he could actually start dancing with who brung him.
Sometimes the truth hurts. I really dislike liberals but I do find many "conservatives" to be embarrassing in their lack of maturity. You know the type I mean. Those that accuse Bush of committing a capital crime?
If someone had told me on 9/12 that we would have ousted the Taliban, taken down the regime of Saddam Hussein, sending weapons inspectors into Libya and possibly Iran, I woud have had a hard time believing it.
And lest we forget, the Presidents primary function is Head of State and our representative to the rest of the world AND Commander in Chief.
The Senate and Congress (as many members as there are) should focus on domestic issues rather than our war against terrorism. (which Dubya' has done a great job in keeping it outside our borders)
Dubya' has given back to the office of the Presidency a respectful representation of our country to the rest of the world which was lost in the 8 years before his tenure.
Great article by Neil!
I agree completely.
I already know what kind of character the Dim candidates have, and I don't want to gamble our nation's defense on them. As I've said before, I'm pretty sure that Lieberman wouldn't be an appeaser, and gets it on defense, but because of that fact, he doesn't have a chance.
And who wants Her Heinous skating in as a semi-incumbent in 2008?
This was so good, I wanted to highlight it.
True. Do we want the second attack on NY or DC or LA or SF or the heartland to be during - and due to - a Democratic appeaser's presidency?
I remember very clearly the immediate weeks after 9-11 - every morning I woke up, checking to make sure everything was still standing. We didn't know WHAT would happen then.
That was a good post.
Leaving Iraq will not eliminate the terrorist threat in the world - PLEASE tell me you don't believe that!
La Femme Nikita bump.
Yes, the RATS will do everything possible to protect the terrorists' constitutional rights--even as they start suicide bombing Cleveland.
Really?
Does all the "homeland security" and new oppressive regulations and huge expensive "war on terror," do one thing to eleviate the last 9-11? Do you think this is all to prevent another 9-11? Weren't they already supposed to do that? What makes you think, just because they passed a lot of oppressive laws and spent a lot of money they are going to be any more effective stopping the next one?
Americans really are suckers.
Hank
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.