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.
Yes. The poster made a comment, and you responded to it by declaring "checkmate". This ain't rocket science, bud.
My compliments to you on your imaginative theatrical writing style, by the way. You really know how to express your emotions. By all means, keep imagining I'm the one who's ego is bruised, when you're the one who had to retreat to your childhood to conjure up an image of some doll to get your aggressions out. I'm sure you wish you had that doll around now, since that's about the only thing you can tackle.
Like I said, our transcript speaks for itself.
I think what blinds them most is typically a single-issue, driving a self-importance pining in search of affirmation from other conservative bretheren. They sit around in self-validating in-bred little clotches and discussion groups, are often found publishing tin-foil rags which quote each other amongst themselves. A sense of objectivity is driven from their midst, which ultimately leads to self-contradiction, much like "inquest" has demonstrated here already. They ultimately suffer from a mistaken, unrequited, fringe-like "messiah" complex.
Study the type of person that makes up of the membership of the declining John Birch Society. CP-ers are dead ringers for this kind of mentality, and thoroughly useless to the cause of promoting conservative thought in the main-stream, because they don't want to be mainstream. Deep down inside they think they are better than Reagan-style conservatives. Again, it harkens back to that psycho-self-importance validation need again.
Their slogan might read something like "We know we're winning, because we're losing!" The good just becomes the enemy of the perfect, and CP-ers ultimately only excell at their own intellectual self-immolation.
Funny. I hear so many Californians complain about the government's refusal to stop the trespassing at the border, that I had come to see it as a "sensitive issue to American citizens". But what could I know, seeing as I don't see the wisdom of having the southwest converted into a multilingual multicultural third world barrio. Maybe Karl Rove can explain it, in espanol.
No passing grade for you. Try again.
-Your insistence that the CP represents a mortal threat to the Republicans, yet that the Republicans have no interest in wooing themYou just can't run from the truth, pal.-Your giving credit to Bush for co-opting issues of importance to the Democrats, but refusing to let him take the blame for the resultant leftward slide
-And most eye-poppingly, your citation of Bill Clinton as the best thing for conservatism, even better than Bush, while saying that Bush must not be allowed to be defeated, at all costs.
You're probably thinking of the 14th Amendment, created to give blacks the right to vote and to tie up loose ends in the Reconstruction as electors, un-Reconstructed rebels, Civil War debt, etc.
Previously to that, the U.S. followed jus soli rule of law which places citizenship upon place of birth, hence the "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President" clause of qualifications for President.
Someone born in New York in 1790 was a US Citizen by the legal tradition that birth determined citizenship. That is the understood legal foundation. The Constitution implicitly recognized two modes for citizenship - jus soli and naturalization, Article I, Section 8. Later amendments modified and spelled out aspects, including a limited jus sanguinis of those born to American citizens living abroad.
"The Constitution of the United States does not declare who are and who are not citizens, nor does it attempt to describe the constituent elements of citizenship; it leaves that quality where it found it, resting on the fact of home birth and upon the laws of the several States." opinion of the US Attorney General, 1862, quoted in A Treatise on American Citizenship, John Wise, 1906.
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.