Posted on 02/01/2004 4:16:04 AM PST by sopwith
Edited on 02/01/2004 5:25:18 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
Major liberal donors are demonstrating their willingness to fund a new shadow Democratic Party, according to reports filed Friday by a network of nominally independent organizations committed to defeating President George W. Bush in November. Meanwhile, a drive to bar their activities has gained strength. On Thursday, the legal staff of the Federal Election Commission proposed regulations that could stifle the groups' plans, with backing from Republican Party leaders and campaign watchdog groups.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsday.com ...
I think you really mean that he is detached from you, and people like you. If you can't even bring yourself to give him credit for the positive things he has done, it says more about you than it does about him.
Bush is conservative on most of the big issues but he is not -- and never claimed to be -- a fiscal hard-liner. That was what "compassionate conservatism" was all about.
In this connection, it is possibly important that Bush is not a career politician. If he were, he would probably have spent the 20 pre-White House years taking Republican blood oaths on balancing the budget and falling on his sword on tough votes. Instead, he broke into politics late and high, by running for governor during the boom/bubble years when projected surpluses dominated the debate. We are paying for that now, but Bush has not changed his spots.
Given the craven performance of the current Congress on spending issues, it is now clear who we must thank for balancing the budget in the mid-90's: Newt Gingrich and Dick Armey. The fiscal conservative wing of the party needs to regroup and get back into the saddle. We are going to have an interesting primary in four years.
I haven't read about it, but I will check. If I find anything I'll get back.
Thanks jmstein7.
Same here. Thanks
The argument that John Kerry would be worse is not sufficient.
In fact, one can make the argument that we are better off with divided government. If we are not going to make progress with Republicans in control, if the only thing we can hope for is to slow the decline, then give me divided government! Less will get done.
I believe we can do better. But we will not do better if G. W. Bush feels he can take his conservative base for granted. He is first and foremost a politician. If he is not under constant pressure from the base he will move to accomodate the Libs. You are not doing Bush or anyone else a favor by letting him get away with squandering the best chance to restore some of our liberty in decades.
Don't get me wrong. I will vote for Bush. But I am very disappointed that he and his Republican colleagues have not made any real progress. In fact, in many important ways they are implementing policies ( e.g. campaign finance reform, medicare, immigration) that we would all vociferously oppose if they were put in place by Democrats. This to me is definitely "getting screwed."
Glad to hear it, but why on earth would you do that, if you think he "governs like a liberal" and you say the argument that Kerry would be worse "is not sufficient"?
I think you generalize too much. In some ways, yes, he has governed to the left - but in other very important, very significant ways, he has governed to the right. Give him credit for that, okay?
But please indicate the "very important, very significant ways" you see President Bush governing to the right. (We are agreed on tax cuts, PBA and the war so please don't rehash these). I don't see it. I see occasional rhetoric to the right and significant policy moves to the left.
We are likely to see the high water mark of Republican control of the Federal Government in the next year or two. As it stands now, domestically the country will end up worse for it in absolute terms.
Please don't throw me the canard "that it would have been worse under the Democrats." By that logic the Republicans can never fail. Not even if they gut the First Amendment, enact massive expansions of the welfare state, open the borders, put milk-toast judges on the bench (or worse), institutionalize 1/2 trillion dollar annual deficits, etc.
If you agree that he sometimes governs to the right - and you indicate here that you do - all I ask is that you stop making declaritive statements like "He governs like a liberal." Or saying that aside from the war, the rest of his agenda "sucks".
I don't want to nitpick about every little thing. I am just asking you not to make general, sweeping, and completely inaccurate statements. Of course, if you are determined to, I can't stop you.
Perhaps a compromise is in order. I will generalize a bit less if you will provide a few specifics. I have provided several examples of very significant policy items that should greatly alarm small government conservatives. Can you provide similar examples of policy items that Bush and the Republicans have enacted that small government conservatives should be pleased with?
I didn't intend to sound like an elitist. I grew up poor but conservative (my dad was very conservative). When I said "people like you", I meant those for whom nothing is ever satisfactory.
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.