Maybe Bush is Right On

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.

So to answer your silly assed picknose missive, Yeah. I'm proud of myself now.

So you want to throw all that effort overboard now, do you? Willing to go AWOL in the turning point of this fight? Have you learned so little from Rush, whom we both appear to hold in such high regard, or will you simply let your bottom feeder’s-level perspective stand to validate your perceived need for self-importance here?

You need a politician to “owe you” something for your vote, so you’d better have a hope that he can deliver something more than just a feel-good, preaching-to-the-choir, rabble-rousing homily. I’ll admit, it’s easy to become beguiled by them.

Your third party trolls are mostly a lot of talk and fund raisers, knowing, of course, that they’ll never see real action. They become sounding boards for whiners, knowing all along that they’ll never have to personally face the fire and produce something of value to advance conservatism. But they’ll be the first to sit around and congratulate each other for their mistaken value of collective non-effort. You may not have a chance of accomplishing anything, but boy you’ll vote for the “feel-good” solution. And the Dems are just as happy for you to vote for that solution too. Oh yeah, YOU’LL teach your side a lesson, or two, and at the same time lose what little credibility or conservative credentials you thought you had to start with.

We could get into pissing matches about who’s been in the fight longer and drop our theoretical conservative drawers just to see who’s bigger, and run down the litany of “pedigrees,” but judging by what you wrote I already have a 25 year head start on you. It would be unfair to you, and it would likely just be a bore for everyone on FR to have to read, like what you posted last time.

Pick somebody other than Bush to vote for in 2004 and I'll just leave you to pick your own nose and reserve my thanks for those that can be counted on and will vote for Bush.

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.

You overlook the multiplier affect. Just too few enough conservatives carried the water in 1986 (an off year election), and this caused the larger conservative momentum Reagan had built to become stalled.

One major result of handing the Congress back to the Dems? The 1986 two tiered 15%/28% Tax Reform Act was for the most part undone by 1990. Bush II is making up ground with welcome tax reductions, but although 35% top rate is down from 39.1%, it is still a far cry from Reagan's 28%. All this ground to make up, because conservatives stayed home in 1986 out of apathy, or out of their mistaken notion that Reagan just wasn't conservative enough for their liking. Yep, it's all Bush's fault now, is it? He's just not "conservative enough" or we'd have the 1986 Tax act provisions back by now, blah, blah, blah....(/sarcasm)

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.

Hey the Constitution party people have already abandoned the Republicans, and strategically that's all the Dems need. Of course they'll spend their time wooing the Greens. Look what the malcontented Green vote did for Dems in FL back in 2000. Dems still have to work for Green votes. Constitution Party yahoos have already surrendered and/or become otherwise nutralized by their own choice!

Big champions of the conservative cause, they are indeed.

The Snidely Whiplash snickering you hear in the back bench is just the Dems helping the Constitution Party adherants feel even better about their "pricipled" decision, while they laugh all the way to the ballot box.

The Constitution Party = one of the largest pools of vote-suppressed non-votes that the Democrats don't even have to spend a dime to cultivate, or to work for, or owe anything to after the election.

Maybe that sucking sound Perot used to say he heard was the kind of people who proved to be his followers, then Buchanan's "Brigades", and now Howie Phillips' "Contitutionalists."

You overlook the multiplier affect.

Are you talking about future elections? If .0000001% isn't going to have any effect on the outcome of this election, then it won't have an effect on the outcome of subsequent elections either.

If you're not referring to future elections then you may need to elaborate a bit, because whether or not somebody votes CP will have no effect on how anyone else votes (or doesn't vote).

Bush II is making up ground with welcome tax reductions, but although 35% top rate is down from 39.1%, it is still a far cry from Reagan's 28%. All this ground to make up, because conservatives stayed home in 1986 out of apathy, or out of their mistaken notion that Reagan just wasn't conservative enough for their liking. Yep, it's all Bush's fault now, is it? He's just not "conservative enough" or we'd have the 1986 Tax act provisions back by now, blah, blah, blah....

Actually it's not the modesty of the tax cuts that's the problem, but their temporary nature. As it is, it will result in no long-term reduction of government growth. What will be growing right along with it is the national debt. And then at the end of that period, taxes will rise automatically without the politicians having to take any heat for it, and tax cuts will be thoroughly discredited in the public mind for having allegedly piled on all that debt.

Yes, I know the President has been calling for making the cuts permanent, but as long as he continues to spend like a drunken sailor he's not likely to get very far with that call.

Hey the Constitution party people have already abandoned the Republicans, and strategically that's all the Dems need.

Really? All the Democrats need is for the Republicans to lose one millionth of a percentage point? I think they might need to rethink their strategy a bit.

Look what the malcontented Green vote did for Dems in FL back in 2000.

Yes, and look at how the Dem-allied media egged them on. Any wild guesses at why they did that in what they knew would be a close race?

Are you talking about future elections?

No. Dissaffection at the top of the ticket often translates to races at the bottom.

Actually it's not the modesty of the tax cuts that's the problem, but their temporary nature.

Both are of concern, neither is any less serious than the other. Let the Democrats take back power and watch tax cuts scheduled to expire in 2010 find themselves expiring MUCH sooner. Vote for Republicans and the liklihood of preservation of these and institution of other cuts is far more probable. But you already knew that, of course. As obvious as that is on its face, it should require no further explanation.

Yes, I know the President has been calling for making the cuts permanent, but as long as he continues to spend like a drunken sailor he's not likely to get very far with that call.

Bush doesn't spend money. Congress spends money. Look it up.

Really? All the Democrats need is for the Republicans to lose one millionth of a percentage point? I think they might need to rethink their strategy a bit.

You've again missed the point. See below.

Yes, and look at how the Dem-allied media egged them on. Any wild guesses at why they did that in what they knew would be a close race?

538 Green votes (the liberal "self-righteous" who didn't think Gore was liberal enough) who abandoned the Dems in 2000 in FL cost Gore the vote in FL, and the Presidency with it. If you didn't think every vote counts, think again.

Failure to vote at all is automatically the equivalent of a vote for the winner by default, because the potential voter did nothing to oppose the winner.

Failure of the conservative voter to vote for the Republican candidate, regardless of the name of alternative step-child party he does vote for, has supported the Democratic opponent by default, because his vote has mounted no credible opposition to the Democrat and has offered no held or support to the Republican.

Some on FR are willing to fall on their CP sword, out of a misplaced sense of "principal." They are of no more value to what will be victories in coming years than deserters are to the winning forces on any battle field.

Deserters in battle are typically shot when caught. In a "kinder, gentler" sense, however, I'll be content to just welcome them back to the fight when they finally screw their heads back on straight, quit sniping at the quarterback, and tame their passions to fight with a more mature perspective which retrains their eye to focus on the ultimate prize.

Dissaffection at the top of the ticket often translates to races at the bottom.

You're not making sense. How someone chooses to vote in a presidential race in no way constrains him in how he votes in other races. It's no problem at all for him to vote CP for president and GOP for Congress.

Let the Democrats take back power and watch tax cuts scheduled to expire in 2010 find themselves expiring MUCH sooner.

I wasn't aware that the President had the power to unilaterally order tax hikes. But you seem to be the constitutional expert around here.

Vote for Republicans and the liklihood of preservation of these and institution of other cuts is far more probable.

What's even more probable, given current trends, is that whether a Republican or a Democrat is in the WH, federal spending will continue to rise, and with it will rise the political difficulties inherent in trying to make those cuts permanent. That is, unless the Republicans receive a certain amount of "encouragement" to maintain their proper commitment. Is there a risk stemming from this encouragement? There's always a risk with everything. It's just that there's a much greater risk that, left to their own devices, the Republicans will do what I described, with the outcomes that I described.

Empty assurances as to what they might do have little meaning when juxtaposed against what they actually are doing.

Bush doesn't spend money. Congress spends money. Look it up.

I took your advice and this is what I found:

From Article II, Section 3: "[The President] shall from time to time give to the Congress Information on the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient"

So, any wagers on what some of these recommendations have been from him? He shares the responsibility for the excessive spending.

You've again missed the point.

The chances of another election as close as 2000 are infinitesimal. If the Democrats are depending on the Constitution Party to turn the election in their favor, and if the CP has as little support as you say, then the Dems simply have very bad strategy. The only other conclusion is that they view the CP as a threat, not an asset.

538 Green votes (the liberal "self-righteous" who didn't think Gore was liberal enough) who abandoned the Dems in 2000 in FL cost Gore the vote in FL, and the Presidency with it.

Now you're missing my point. I asked you a question: Why did the media give Nader so much publicity when they knew the election would be close? I think that once you arrive at an answer, you'll find it instructive.

You're not making sense.

Clearly, you do not understand the relevance of the positioning of candidates as they appear on ballots in polling stations.

I wasn't aware that the President had the power to unilaterally order tax hikes. But you seem to be the constitutional expert around here.

If you'd have read more carefully before posting you'd have noticed that I said Democrats, not just "President."

I see. You trust the Democrats more than you trust the Republicans, and it is a greater risk to vote for Republicans. And on top of that you think you have a chance of "encouraging" Republicans by NOT voting for them. Bilge. Empty assurances as to what they might do have little meaning when juxtaposed against what they actually are doing.

I took your advice and this is what I found:

From Article II, Section 3: "[The President] shall from time to time give to the Congress Information on the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient"

Ever try pay for something with a recommendation? What demoninations are your recommendations calculated in? How many of your recommendations must I use to pay for a cup of coffee and a bagel in the morning? What is the current exchange rate of your recommendations at my local Dunkin Donuts?

Any recommendations you've made for considering voting CP over Republicans have garnered no currency with me and only have a measureable value amongst those with a self-congratulatory sense of their own ideals. Hence, it is of little surprise that promotion of the CP outside of it's intellectually inbred circles typiclly has no value anywhere else.

So, any wagers on what some of these recommendations have been from him? He shares the responsibility for the excessive spending.

Back to basic 9th grade Civics class for the answer: The President proposes, Tom Delay "hammers" out what monetary form those recommendations will take and Denny Hastert decides what bills actually make it to the floor of the House. The big picture is that Bush has neutralized the issues of value to the opposition and done so quite successfully. maybe very few if any "big ticket" or controvesial (e.g., immigration details) items even see the light of day ultimately, but he's neutralized the attempts by Dems to make them lighting rod issues.

Any president can propose a big picture vision for all it is he wants. Micro managing minutiae over which he has no spending authority only diminishes him a la Jimmy Carter. The levers of spending are not manned by him. The way you post you'd think like-minded conservative Texan Tom Delay and Bush don't strategize and talk to each other. That's where you are demonstrating that you and other CP proponents either can't or are simply not thinking strategically.

Interesting you would say that. After the historic Reagan landslide in 1984, the Republicans lost the Senate in 1986. Who'd have guessed it? Now you think the Dems view the CP as threat to themselves?? I will waste no more time or band-width on repeating something I have already discussed thoroughly enough already (see post 144).

You think philsophical disunity only effects the Republicans? I revel at every vote the Greens get the same way the Dems revel at every vote the Constitution Party gets. You mistakenly think the Dems have every liberal media person in the pocket. Some of them would just as soon vote for a Communist, or failing that, one of their philosophical step-brothers named Nader.

Is this clear to you now?

Clearly, you do not understand the relevance of the positioning of candidates as they appear on ballots in polling stations.

Whatever "relevance" you're talking about in no way changes the validity of what I said. People can vote CP for president and GOP for Congress - period.

If you'd have read more carefully before posting you'd have noticed that I said Democrats, not just "President."

If you'd have read more carefully before posting you'd have noticed that the Presidency is the subject of our discussion. The fact that you maintain the mistaken notion that voting CP for president somehow affects congressional races, doesn't mean I do.

You trust the Democrats more than you trust the Republicans, and it is a greater risk to vote for Republicans.

Totally wrong. Nowhere did I say that.

And on top of that you think you have a chance of "encouraging" Republicans by NOT voting for them. Bilge.

If, as you say is true, the threat of voting CP presents a risk to a Republican politician, he'd be foolish not to take it into account. How he actually does respond is of course impossible to predict for certain, and known only to him.

The big picture is that Bush has neutralized the issues of value to the opposition and done so quite successfully.

And how exactly has he done this, if as you say he lacks the constitutional power? You're basically trying to argue that he can take the credit for doing something, but not the blame for doing the exact same thing.

Interesting you would say that. After the historic Reagan landslide in 1984, the Republicans lost the Senate in 1986. Who'd have guessed it?

Congressional politics is very different from presidential politics. In any case, my point remains that it's impossible to say for certain when a presidential election is going to be hair-thin close, so if the Democrats are depending on that to happen, they're exercising bad strategy. To say, therefore, that they consider the CP their allies isn't borne out by their actions.

You mistakenly think the Dems have every liberal media person in the pocket.

Not at all. But what's clear is that the media are liberal, and what's equally clear is that they know very much how to keep liberalism in charge, even when ostensible liberals aren't in charge. They're not stupid, otherwise they wouldn't have been able to maintain their power for so long. They know what they're doing. They weren't making a mistake by supporting Nader.

Whatever "relevance" you're talking about in no way changes the validity of what I said. People can vote CP for president and GOP for Congress - period.

Since you evidently don't understand voter habits very well, we'll just have to leave that issue aside for now.

I preface the following scenario by saying the electability of any third party -- liberal or conservative -- to the Presidency at this time is a metaphysical impossibility. You don't appear to realize yet that a CP President needs political allies. He can't sit in the office and govern by Conservative diktat and idealism. Were he to be elected, he would need to have allies to get anything done. Perhaps you think those allies will be......Republicans? Don't be so sure.

Tell me why Republicans elected to office would support a turn-coat?

Neither you nor I believe a CP candidate can win anyway, so as you throw away your vote this Novemeber, I hope you're happy with the functional aid and comfort you personally lent to the enemy. When GWB wins, your presense at the celebration with the better reasoned and more strategically thinking conservatives will certainly not be missed.

Sorry, while you're just plain wrong on so many levels already, we'll just focus on one fundamental point that continues to escape you here. The discussion is not only about the Presidency and you're a fool if you think that somehow all you need is the Presidency to move the country to a more conservative political philosophy and posture. Even Reagan needed at least one helpful chamber in the Congress to make his plans into legislation and then passed into law. Unlike any of the no-name CP midgets that you'd suggest to replace Bush, Reagan had real political stature.

"Conservatives" of your ilk abandoned the Reagan team in the midterm elections of 1986, and it appears you're prepared to do it again.

You must think that a CP president can rule like a king vested with divine rights or something similar and impose conservatism with a wave of his hand. That's just a whole lotta CP wishful thinking, not Constitutional reality, despite the name they choose to call themselves.

Totally wrong. Nowhere did I say that.

Yes you did:

"What's even more probable, given current trends, is that whether a Republican or a Democrat is in the WH, federal spending will continue to rise,...." There's always a risk with everything. It's just that there's a much greater risk that, left to their own devices, the Republicans will do what I described, with the outcomes that I described.

= Republicans are the greater risk and therefore by extension a greater threat than the Democrats. Will you now enter a contorted intellectual flip and try to say at the same time that you trust Republicans more than Democrats? You can't philosophically have it both ways and remain intellectually or philosophically consistent.

But that's the inherent problem with the CP option: it is strategically speaking both intellectually and philosophically at odds with the long term promotion of conservative priniciples of which they claim to be the purest of champions.

Sure, he'll take it into account on one level, but if you support him actively chances are stronger that he'll pay closer attention to what you have to say. And I don't just mean with words. Plenty of armchair whining conservatives out there who never worked in a campaign or ponied up some $, but they are the first to bitch. I'll assume that you are reasonably intellegent and that this doesn't require a whole lot of further explanation. Failure to support the philosophical team to which you ascribe is passive support for your philosophical opponent, and support just the same from which your opponent derives a real benefit.

Bush has neutralized the issues of value to the opposition. You are again showing that you don't understand the process. Constitutional power granted to the President doesn't have anything to do with the skill that a person who holds that office has to be able to nutralize his opponents issues. Two totally different things.

Congressional politics is very different from presidential politics. In any case, my point remains that it's impossible to say for certain when a presidential election is going to be hair-thin close,

"Your point" remains? From your last post: "The chances of another election as close as 2000 are infinitesimal...."

How many more times will you contradict yourself on this thread? The siren's song of CP-think leaves its defenders, adherents, and dazed acolytes phiosophically confused. And that in itself is a victory for the Dems. Your posting is an example of the inherent danger of what are the conservative neutralizing results of immersion of ones-self in CP-think.

Nader's candidacy subverted the strength of the Democratic vote, and some in the media were too stupid to realize that. These are the kind of boobs in the media industry who supported Eugene NcCarthy in '68, Shirley Chisholm in '72, and Kennedy in '80. They turn to Nader's Green because Gus Hall's Commies are no longer on the ballot. These idiots are of no help to the socialist vision of Dems any more than the CP are of any help to the cause of conservatism. Don't you get it yet?

While they may be conniving, you'll notice that liberals aren't at all that smart, nor skillful in the execution of what one might term "plots." Bill Clinton is the actually the Republicans secret weapon and he will single handedly do more to damage his party than any other Republican or Karl Rove could even think of conspiring to do.

Your statement reminds me of Christians that make Satan out to be bigger than he is to the point that they become deceived into thinking his power is greater than God's Himself, and they as Christians subsequently become ineffective in the practice of their faith.

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.