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.
And so it goes.......................
http://www.whitehouse.gov/espanol/index.es.html
Good luck with your "conscience" vote for Mickey Mouse (or whatever candidate will come in with roughly the same share of the vote total as Mickey). a vote for Mr./Mrs. 0.000001 percenter... What a joke. Save your gas money instead.
Ah yes grasshopper, you have a solution. It will raise the cost of all goods transported by road and rail, will lead to far greater layoffs than we have now with oil at $30 a barrel, and give the democrats a great issue, a recession to beat republicans with.
Better to design a policy that floods the market with oil, and move away from electricity generated by oil with nuclear plants for example. Consider althernative sources of power if they actually can compete in the marketplace without subsidies and tariffs. Now thats an energy policy we can succeed with. Possibly oil from Iraq? Why didn't I think of that?
You have GOT to be kidding! Or suffering from a major brain infarction. You really think Algore would have done anything against Al Qaeda? He would have MAYBE launched another missile at a camel and then 'entered into a meaningful dialogue to alleviate the fundamental causes of justified rage against the United States.' Afghanistan would have received a 'poverty alleviation program' so they could happily fund more terrorists to strike at Washington DC, Chicago, and L.A.
NO DemoRat would have done what was right - they would have shuddered at a bad poll result and looking bad in front of the UN.
The Democracy will not follow, they are tribal, socialists and love the Ruskies and French
Maybe, maybe not. If the U.S. doesn't abandon them, you might be surprised. Democracy is catching...at least they have a better chance than if we had done nothing.
Bush also has a huge deficit, and allows our jobs to be exported (even Clinton only exported a small percentage.) What jobs Bush doesn't ship Reality check - a President doesn't have the power to "export" jobs; he can't write out an executive order to send 1,000 jobs Delhi. The Free Market determines where jobs go - the old laws of supply and demand have more influence than a President could dream of having.
he will make their kids legal, mock those who did thing legally; permite the White House (www.whitehouse.gov) to be in English and Spanish - an insult to those who speak American or learned to speak American
Anyone born in the U.S. is a citizen - it's been that way since the ratification of the Constitution.
Immigration is tough issue and at least Bush has put an idea out to start getting a handle on an issue that has been a utter failure for decades. No matter how much people scream, it's not amnesty but it could and should go farther than it does. Let's see what Congress does. Pressure on the Reps is what to do since they make the laws, not Bush - who I have yet to see one bilingual proposal from.
has failed to end abortion Pres. Bush has done more in this area than ANY other President. He deserves a great deal of credit of taking a firm stand on a divisive issue. Remember, one of his first acts as President was to rescind the Clinton permissiveness in Federal funding of abortions.
can't get his judges appointed and takes crap by allowing the minority Degenerats to be in control
Again, the President nominates and the Senate confirms. It is up to the Senate leadership to fight with the Rats to get things through. Yell at Frist about it - that's all Bush can do.
I am beginning to believe the Democrats - bush is stupid.
Not surprising - you're displaying about the same level of comprehension as a DemoRat. Perhaps you'll be more comfortable at a Kucinich rally.
Pres. Bush hasn't been the line by line perfect conservative but he has shown a strong intelligence and acumen in very difficult political situations. At least he has been able to discern the nuances of how the government and politics in Washington work.
This is what is happening with Bush and the Republicans in charge:
However, Cato's fiscal analyst Veronique de Rugy notes: "The current president easily eclipses his father on federal spending growth." De Rugy and Cato researcher Tad DeHaven calculate that in real, or inflation-adjusted terms, non-defense discretionary outlays will rise about 20.8 percent in George W. Bush's first three years in office (through FY2004). That growth far exceeds the 11.6 percent growth in the first three years of former President Bush's administration. Indeed, the current president's three-year real increase exceeds Jimmy Carter's term (13.8 percent), Ronald Reagan's first term (-13.5 percent), Reagan's second term (-3.2 percent), Bill Clinton's first term (-0.7 percent), and Clinton's second term (8.2 percent). See table for details.
Gridlock sounds pretty good until a real conservative can be elected in 2008.
The much delayed omnibus appropriations bill for 2004, scheduled for a vote in the Senate this afternoon, looks set to cap the first term of the most profligate Administration since the 1960s.
The bottom line is truly shocking. Passage of the omnibus bill would raise total discretionary spending to more than $900 billion in 2004. By contrast, the eight Clinton-era budgets produced discretionary spending growth from $541 billion 1994 to $649 billion in 2001. Nor can recent increases be blamed on the war. At 18.6%, the increase in non-defense discretionary spending under the 107th Congress (2002-2003) is far and away the biggest in decades.
Let's see....over 40 years of Congressional control by the DemoRats, the 60's, the fact that societies change over time no matter what, and the real biggie - the President is NOT the Lord High Priest of the Church of Moral Perfection.
LOL
Do believe we have a few followers present with us tonight!
Listen, can't you hear their praises laments?
Then, Dubya was elected:
However, Cato's fiscal analyst Veronique de Rugy notes: "The current president easily eclipses his father on federal spending growth." De Rugy and Cato researcher Tad DeHaven calculate that in real, or inflation-adjusted terms, non-defense discretionary outlays will rise about 20.8 percent in George W. Bush's first three years in office (through FY2004). That growth far exceeds the 11.6 percent growth in the first three years of former President Bush's administration. Indeed, the current president's three-year real increase exceeds Jimmy Carter's term (13.8 percent), Ronald Reagan's first term (-13.5 percent), Reagan's second term (-3.2 percent), Bill Clinton's first term (-0.7 percent), and Clinton's second term (8.2 percent). See table for details.
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.