Maybe Bush is Right On

Intellectual Conservative ^ | 30 January 2004 | Raymond Green

[softengine]

Much has been said about the Bush administration’s handling of sensitive issues to conservatives like illegal immigration and entitlement spending. The criticism is both broad and intense, coming from traditional allies and longtime foes. Though the criticism coming from opponents is severely hypocritical, it scars no less.

Conservatives are consistent in their disparagement of excessive government spending and amnesty programs for illegal immigrants. This, however, leaves no one to thoroughly explain Bush’s policy strategy because his adversaries stringently attack for the sake of power regardless of policy. Though I don’t personally condone the liberal approach of the current administration’s handling of these specific policies, I do understand the strategy involved.

As conservatives, we must force ourselves to look at the big picture. Our country faces a crippling moral dilemma; the tort system cost our economy an estimated $233 billion in 2003; we desperately need a national energy policy; we need to continue reducing the overwhelming tax burden in our country; our intelligence gathering methods must be vastly overhauled and improved; it is critical that the defense of this country continue to be improved and grow; and we must continue to fight the war on terrorism as we currently are or we will find ourselves in the same war on our soil in coming years. This is a minor explanation of what the macro picture currently looks like.

We can safely assume atheists will continue to embrace – and even encourage – the degradation of morality and religion in this country; trial attorneys will never propose tort reform; environmentalists will not support any realistic energy policy; those dependent on government subsidies will fight any tax cut; and liberal anti-military, anti-intelligence, anti-war, special interests-appeasing politicians will put our country at great risk if left in charge of such issues. These people are Democrats and for this reason alone it is critical that Republicans maintain control of Congress and the White House. Fortunately, this isn’t where supporting the Bush administration ends.

President Bush and company have trademarked setting traps for Democrats. He trapped Democrats into supporting the war by initiating the debate just before elections and trapped Democrats into making the capture of Saddam Hussein an issue. He trapped Democrats into opposing an entitlement to seniors and he, not Howard Dean, forced the Democrats further to the left. Bush has taken Democrats’ issues from them and set the stage for an election based primarily on national security – not a Democrat strong suit.

So we come to Bush’s base supporters. Needless to say, we are not happy – but we must be smart. I pose the following questions to ponder: (1) Will excessive government spending and entitlement programs ever be reformed with Democrats in office and (2) Does politics end when Bush’s term ends? The answer to both is obviously no. The end goal is to place Republicans in Congress strategically to outlast Bush. Bush has been accused by allies of repeating his father’s mistakes. I strongly caution against trying to use a slight majority in Congress to overhaul our country in one term – we’ve seen what that brings before.

Our country faces a number of critical issues we must address in coming years. The easiest to fix is (a) excessive government spending and (b) illegal immigration – if, and only if, Republicans are in office. Excessive government spending can be weaned down over time with a Republican majority in Congress (and it will in due time). Illegal immigration can be solved with technology, a slight bump in spending, and a determined Republican president. Neither, however, can be fixed unless steps are taken to regain a firm control of Congress and overall politics.

Do I agree with amnesty or excessive spending? No; quite the contrary. But I disagree with – and to a great extent, fear – the radical agenda of the left. It will, and has already begun to, destroy this country. It is critical we take control and if a bump to the National Endowment for the Arts silences a few artists, amnesty shuts a few radical Hispanic groups up, and a prescription entitlement makes a few seniors happy, so be it. These policies may not make an overwhelming difference in polls or make many people vote for Bush who wouldn’t have otherwise, but they change the image of Republicans and set the stage for a long-term Republican takeover.

Right or wrong, that is the Bush strategy. Choosing not to vote for him on these specifics simply counts as a vote for his opponents. He may be taking his voter base for granted; however, he may just be assuming we’re smart enough to figure out what is going on. Politics will outlast President Bush; he simply hopes it is politics dominated by Republicans who can eventually take on the issues we are forced to swallow at present.

[nopardons]

Fresh...here's a slap in the face for you.

THWACK !

[hoosiermama]

"By 1992, we ended up with Bill Clinton"

You neglected to mention the spoiler, Perot (C), Is there a reason for the omission? (BTW I voted for him. AS an adult, I take responsibility for putting Clinton in the WH..... Unlike the liberals who blame everyone else. I am truly sorry for my action.)

[sauropod]

< secret stash behind the woodshed ;-)>

[sauropod]

LOL! At least you've got a sense of humor!

[chicagolady]

Please check your medication! If you want to pick a fight then say so. I am telling you that I did not refer to Bush as evil, but you insist to make it an issue.

I did not think Bush was evil when I worked on the Bush campaign and took some leadership as an Election Volunteer Coor. with the NRA for Illinois and when I went to 2 Inaugrual Balls either. I put my time and money where my mouth was.

Some people just like to talk, some people like to take action.

Armchair warrior I am NOT.

[hoosiermama]

Ahaaaa ;^) Now we all know where you hide your "stash"!

[NMC EXP]

"The lesser of two evils is still evil."

That is a logically accurate statement.

The question is does Bush's socialist tendencies make him evil?

Probably not in the Biblical sense.

Given the fact that so many prefer to quibble over semantics rather than debate the issues why not say:

"The lesser of two socialists is still a socialist."?

Regards

J.R.

[Tamzee]

You made the statement and can't either back it up or admit it was wrong.... I guess it's much easier to attack and insult people who call you on it.

Kudos for working on Bush's campaign the first time around... just don't make the assumption that you are talking to someone who hasn't put as much time or money into conservative causes as you have.

[kitkat]

***What I mean is, that say Grandma has 40k to her name. She goes in a nursing home.

The current rules require that she completely impoverish herself before they pay a dime.

IOW, not a thing to kids, charities, etc.***

Awww, now Sauropod. COM'ON! LOL! You can't be really saying the following:

1..Let's say that *I* have 40K and go into a nursing
home.
2. I give my kids the 40K.
3. The taxpayers (you, too) pay for my nursing home care.

I wouldn't do that, and I don't think you would, either. Why should my kids get the money, and the taxpayers pick up the bill?

(You don't mean it, I KNOW you don't)

[chicagolady]

You made the statement and can't either back it up or admit it was wrong.... I guess it's much easier to attack and insult people who call you on it.

can't either back it up or admit it was wrong....


You are the one who is attacking and insulting even after I tried to explain to you what you read into my statement was not accurate.

Try leading by example Oh Great One.

[sauropod]

;-)

Let's just say the answer would take a long time to discuss and would involve complete reform of the health care industry.

[cyncooper]

Hello...I just wanted to say there is nothing wrong with someone on a thread clarifying that they did not press the abuse button, whether you have absolved them or not. They just might want to state it for the record.

I know I would have in this situation.

[sauropod]

I guess the beer tabs looking like a trail of breadcrumbs was a dead giveaway ;-).

[gatorbait]

< secret stash behind the woodshed ;-)>

Be right over.

[NYC GOP Chick]

Thank you for summing up how those of us who have become disillusioned have been feeling, especially when we express our legitimate concerns about the man whom we've worked hard to elect and support for so long.

Of course, h, I disagree with you re: voting in November, but I can certainly understand why what you're planning sounds good to you. At some point between now and then, I may even debate it with you, but totally respect what you're saying.

[cyncooper]

lady...I commented on your curious use of the "lesser of two evils" phrase, too, and your cupcake analogy.

You must have had SOME reason for bringing it up.

The word evil getting flung about inappropriately is bound to raise hackles, I think might be the lesson.

[cyncooper]

And you are accusing someone of attacking and accusing when she has done no such thing?

What a goofy thread.

[Tamzee]

There was no "reading" something accurate or not in your statement, it was one line and very clear.

Me attacking and insulting? You're projecting.

You've backed off from referring to Bush as evil so I'm satisfied, it's bad enough to see that at DU... toodles.

[cyncooper]

Cue Twilight Zone music and get out the Devil's food...

[sauropod]

Oh stop it.

This rumpkissing has GOT TO STOP!!!

;-)