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.

[NYC GOP Chick]

Hey! The rumpkissing was directed toward her, not you! ;)

[hoosiermama]

I'm sure she meant "OH GREAT ONE" as an honor not an invalidation....Only the Bushbots attack and insult people.

OTOH she has been trying to explain that she really didn't mean what she said she meant when she didn't mean it......

Chicago Lady I finally figured out what you were trying to say, but you were not communicating very well....

The term "the worse of two evils" is the problem it means different things in different parts of the country....For example how do you pronounce The word dead....To some of us it's dead, to others if deaduh and to others its dayuuduh. Depend on where you're from!

[gatorbait]

Unfortunately, the rules set in place MANY moons back virtually assure the scenario Da Podman sets. I am none too thrilled with the Medicare thing , eitherbut having looked at the Dems' "idea" and their continuous screeching, I'd say it is mild. My hope,Kit and pod, is that our congressional types get off their hams, and do their duty(Damn, what a thought! ) Anyway,the Medicare thing has to be adressed and now, it appears to be . I think the 33% increase was known and timed to appear now .I also think that the House Republicans knew it too(Think Tom DeLay) Kind of a warm ,fuzzy feeling knowing the Hammer will be the guiding light .

[gatorbait]

This rumpkissing has GOT TO STOP!!!

She can anytime she wants...hush!

[NYC GOP Chick]

Dream on...

[hoosiermama]

GUtzuntite (or however you spell it) How about God bless you!

[NYC GOP Chick]

Either is fine, thank you. :)

[gatorbait]

Dream on...

I never said it wouldn't be mutual

[chicagolady]

If a person wants to interpret

The lesser of 2 evils is evil still....

Meaning Bush is evil, that is a persons perogative.
Thank God it's a Free Republic.
____________________________________________________________
Maybe Bush is Right On

Posted by chicagolady to Tamsey
On News/Activism 02/01/2004 4:08:15 PM CST #368 of 407

I do not believe on supporting Bush on issues I do not agree with him on!

It is more of an "Issue Statement" Not a Bush statement.

---

Post Reply | Private Reply | To 366 | View Replies

Maybe Bush is Right On

Posted by Tamsey to chicagolady
On News/Activism 02/01/2004 4:04:32 PM CST #366 of 407

I am not calling Bush evil. That is what you read into a simple statement!

You're simple statement was pretty clear... you said the lesser of two evils was evil still.

What did you mean then?

____________________________________________________________


What part of It is Not a Bush statement don't folks understand.

It is not a Bush Statement.
It is not a Bush Statement.
It is not a Bush Statement.

[NYC GOP Chick]

LOL!

[hoosiermama]

"It is not a Bush statement but an issues statement":

IOW. When Bush has a policy that I do not like I can choose it or be left with the liberal alternative..... The third possibility, which I would prefer is not available therefore I'm left with chosing between two possibilities that are not to my liking.


Is this what you meant?

[Tamzee]

Twilight Zone music cued...

Imagine if you will... a thread on Free Republic where right-wingers weren't proposing that we put Kerry in the White House on purpose.

;-)

[hoosiermama]

Had an interesting discussion today with two eighty year olds.....The both think that whomever is currently at the top of the "D" candidate list will be open for attack...That by the convention no candidate will have enough votes on the first ballot for confirmation. A floor fight will ensue. Then HRC will be nominated to save the day and unite the party......

Wonder how people will vote then?

[sauropod]

Oh man! I will be driving my friends and neighbors to the polls! Beating them like a rented mule.

Just say NO to Her Heinous.

[hoosiermama]

Do you really think Kerry is any better? I think he's worse.

[hoosiermama]

ThTo: honeygrl
"Bush needs to move back over to the right a little if I'm going to be motivated to vote for him."
Any person claiming to be conservative who is not motivated to keep the Democrats out of power after knowing EXACTLY what they will do with it if given the opportunity, has a real problem with reality. They're either political martyrs, have not been paying attention to what the Democrat candidates have been promising they will do if elected, or are ignoring (or are totally or willfully ignorant of) the history of the last seventy years, or are incredibly dense or insane, or have a morbid desire to toil their lives away in the misery of a Liberal Hell! Any person who would support a third party candidate who has absolutely zero chance of winning even one state or even a single electoral vote is so politically naive and devoid of the brainpower that The Creator so graciously endowed upon them, that it's not even worth wasting pixels on.

And I can tell you, that I probably won't be wasting very many more pixels on people who are coming to FR to trash and bash our candidates and or to trash and bash and drive away the very posters I'm trying to attract. If the intent of third party supporters is to cause as much hell and discontent on our forum and to inflict as much damage to FR as they possibly can, well, I can assure you we will have many fewer third party posters left on FR very soon. The LePur colony can have them. Thank you very much.

It might be different if there was a primary involved. These kind of battles need to take place as part of the process of selecting the best person to run. In this case, there will be no primary. God willing and barring any major disasters, George W. Bush will be the candidate. So it will either be Bush or one of the Democrats that gets elected. No one else stands a snowball's chance in hell. And I've given every person on this web site plenty of advance notice (I've been saying it for the last three years) that FR will NOT be used to help replace Bush with a Democrat. Period. End of story.

Again, if that is your intent, leave now or get yourself banned later. Excessive and repetitive attacks on our candidates or our posters will not be tolerated. Try your luck at DUh or LibertyPost. In presidential politics, they are interchangeable.


712 posted on 02/01/2004 6:55:33 PM EST by Jim Robinson (I don't belong to no organized political party. I'm a Republycan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 669 | View Repliesought everyone should read this:

[Tamzee]

Then HRC will be nominated to save the day and unite the party......

Now that would make people get off their prissy too-pure-for-Bush duffs and VOTE :-)

[kitkat]

*** 

;-)

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

Okay by me, S.P. Enjoyed talking to you.

---

[sauropod]

De nada.

[sauropod]

Kerry is not totalitarian in the same sense as Her Shrewness.

She is utterly ruthless. BTW, a new book on her is coming out by R. Emmett Tyrrell. Its called "Madam Hillary" and if his stint at writing Boy Clinton was any clue, it should be a humdinger!