Posted on 01/31/2004 6:27:08 PM PST by 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.
I am both. "Christian duty" was the same nonsense our RINO governor in Alabama gave last year for his massive proposed (and failed) tax increase. It's garbage. Using the force of government to compel people to do what you think are good works, at gunpoint, is NOT Christian charity.
Why are you complaining about medicare and your money when the government spends so much money on needless things--like aroma therapy, monies sent to the UN, monies sent to Palestine, monies spent in congressional salaries.
Huh? YOU are the one that brought up Medicare, IIRC. It's no worse, in my opinion, than any of these other things that you list (except for congressional salaries, which are at least constitutional, if inflated).
But your idea of doing away with medicare might be right but it is not done overnite.
I don't expect it to be done overnight. The U.S. has a responsibility to give the benefits to those from whom they've been withholding the Medicare premiums all these years. I'm willing to pay taxes to do that. But a massive spending increase is NOT incrementalism to the right but the left, I don't care how you want to spin it.
REmember, change takes time and unless you trust your president (which I know you don't) then you will not see the whole picture.
I used to trust the President. Go dig up my posts from 3 years ago if you doubt that.
Trust me, give an inch of medicare monies to private enterprise and not to government and then we will be heading toward less government.
Pure fantasy. In 1999, President Clinton proposed investing a significant portion of Social Security in private stocks -- are you telling me he was a proponent of smaller government?
And you really think that we as conservatives would do better with a democratic president. HUh!??
Only on some things, not on others. The issue of judicial appointments is certainly the biggest drawback of having a DemonRat president.
Support the president--keep him on tract with conservatism, but don't walk away into the open arms of the liberals. You only hurt yourself and me and the rest of us fighting to prevent liberal views.
Many here are fighting to prevent liberal Democrat views. They are prefectly happy to support liberalism if the proponent has an '(R)' next to his name.
Having said that, I understand the troubles that would result from an immediate dismantling of Medicare. But a gradual reduction I am in favor of. To start with, states are capable of picking up the slack, and constitutionally, it really is their role, not the federal government's. There are certainly other ways as well, as you suggested, that cuts could be initially targeted towards those who are healthy enough to bear them. But I don't think it needs to get any more complicated than that. "Retirement accounts" and various public/private partnerships that have been proposed will make things unnecessarily complicated, and ultimately will make it more difficult for the federal government to extricate itself from something it had no business being involved with in the first place.
And how soon you forgot it too.
I worked to help get His Slickness impeached. What have you done?
Quite the late starter, aren't you. Actually, I began in the conservative movement as a 6 year old kid passing out Goldwater bumper stickers in the 1964 election in stunchly Kennedy-enraptured Rhode Island. I've had the pleasure of being a living witness and participant in the long view of progress in the Republican conservative movement over the past 40 years.
Quite a number of us "worked to help" Clinton get impeached. Is there something extraordinary you'd care to share that you did personally in this regard? What have you done lately, besides making yourself little more than a useful idiot and malcontented pawn ideally suited to the divide and conquer strategy of the Democrats?
The shame is, that if you voted for anybody else except Bush 41 in 1992 (I wouldn't be surprised judging by the way you and others are down on Bush 43 on these threads)YOU helped "His Slickness" get elected, and I credit you for Clinton's being there in the first place.
Proud of yourself, now?
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.
That is a very honorable admission. Let's not forget Pat Buchanan's famous dissembling, Republican party rending non-campaign in 1992 too. I think it is poetic justice that he single handedly destroyed the Reform Party, and in spite of Buchanan's presence on the FL ballot in 2000, he failed to compromise Bush's ultimate victory.
Strategic conservative movement thinker you are not either, unfortunately.
Turning this ship of state around will take more patience than you and your lot of Constitution Party 0.0000001%-ers will give it.
Think: The Courts.
Your impatience would lose the entire prize, because you and your self-styled "purists" simply don't know the battles to fight, or what hills to die on.
You and your other malcontents are like a football lineman who refuses to block the opposing team because you don't happen to like the quarterback. So you rationalize to yourself, that you'd sooner throw the game and watch your quarterback get sacked by the other team, lose the game, and walk away from the game acting like you were the most valuable player.
As we witness conservative successes in 2005 and years to come with a stronger, better entrenched and better unified Republican Party, we'll not have any of you grousing self-styled "conservatives" to thank for any of it.
And maybe that will be just as well.
Actually, they (and you) are the ones worked up in the lather. I'm just bursting their self-delusional bubble, if the candidate they vote for for "conscience's sake" can only muster an infinitessimal level of support, and a Democrat wins for their having done so.
Their actions will only dilute the vote of those other basically like-minded individuals who if by sticking together can actually make a difference in bringing to pass the principals they all so "righteously" claim to champion and claim to hold dear.
You can take that point up with all your other disaffected "conservative" friends. The Dems never had better allies.
I voted for GHWB in '92. And '88. And Reagan in 1980 and 1984.
What have I done lately? Hmmm... help to put on counter protests against the ANSWER crowd, help to put on "support the troops" rallies in our nation's capital, attend Forest Service public hearings to try and stop bad environmental regulation (roadless area policy), attend rallies to show support for the Darby farmers, analyze a draft DEIS regarding the New River Parkway and handed a copy of that analysis personally to Helen Chenoweth Hage back when she was in Congress (it was also published here on FR), provide several pre-publication reviews of the book Natural Process: that environmental laws may serve the laws of Nature to the author...
My first political rally was the Judgment Day rally on the Capitol Steps in December of 1998. There were about 500 of us there. It was a major FR event. (Not quite the March for Justice, which I was prevented from attending by my ex-wife, but it was a be there or be square kind of event)Where were you?
I have been a conservative since about 1990 (I credit Rush for beginning that process).
So to answer your silly assed picknose missive, Yeah. I'm proud of myself now.
I don't know; you sounded pretty driven at #433. And over such an incredibly small percentage as you describe, which would have essentially no chance of affecting the outcome of the election one way or another.
The Dems never had better allies.
Uh-huh. Guess that explains why their media allies are giving the Constitution Party so much free publicity. Of course, we all know they'd never do that with the Green Party.
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.