GOP slams Bush policies at retreat

The Washington Times ^ | 2/6/04 | By Ralph Z. Hallow and James G. Lakely

[Sabertooth]

Oh, the "true conservatives" learned a LOT from 1992 et seq.

What did the big picture realists learn, exactly?

They learned that being a minority malcontent is financially profitable with an extreme left-winger in the White House.

It doesn't pay NEARLY as well without said lefty extremist.

Follow the money...

OK, but can you give me a hint?

Is it hidden under the tinfoil?

[Sabertooth]

And had your buddies bothered to F***ING VOTE FOR BUSH ON ELECTION DAY, Bush would've gotten the popular vote.

Cuss words and caps. Hard to argue against that.

Anyway, I voted for Bush.

Those votes were already alienated. Sorry, your side sat out one election too many.

We all stayed home? All of us?

You don't need or want any of our votes?

[Tauzero]

"You bushbots can't have it both ways."

Now, now, bushbot's a harsh term.

How about something less inflammatory, like, say "Stan".

[chris1]

The presdient has the ability to set the agenda. So far, the agenda he has set mostly revolves around trying to take away issues from democrats by being only a little less worse than them. But do you see demos acting like they have been preempted? They are complaining and we still get saddled with entitlement program that no one really wanted. Most of these issues are fabrications. For example, the drug program was not an emergency situation. But, a few people complained and cried, and we got stuck with an insane program that most don't need. Oh yeah, we took an issue away from the demos. I'm sorry, but this kind of politics stinks! No ownder 50% don't vote.

[FreeReign]

Reagan's first first three budgets were roughly the same or even higher as a percentage of GDP compared Bush's.

Reagan increased military spending by $806 billion over the course of his Presidency, or did you forget about the spectacular success of outspending the Soviet Union into dissolution? On the other hand, this is what happened to discretionary (pork) spending, as compared to GWB:

The comparison chart you use for discretionary spending is misleading. By definition, discretionary spending means spending that is done at the power or right of one's own judgment. The starting point for discretionary spending every fiscal year is -- zero. There is no mandatory aspect to it. Thus the level of spending in the previous year is irrelevant and the percentage change in discretionary spending from the previous year is also irrelevant.

What is relevant;

Discretionary spending in Reagan's first budget -- FY 1982 -- was 10.1% of GDP. Non-DOD discretionary spending as a percentage of GDP in Reagan's first year was 4.4%.

Discretionary spending in Bush's first budget -- FY2002 -- was 7.1% of GDP. Non-discretionary spending as a percentage of GDP for Bush's first year was 3.7% and that doesn't even include increased Homeland Defense type spending which is higher under Bush than it was under Reagan.

[Bikers4Bush]

"If he feels my stance vis-a-vis John Warner is incompatible with the goals of this forum as he has expressed them in his posts, then he certainly is capable of letting me
know, either through a warning or by stronger action. But that is for him to decide, not you."

Where did Sabertooth ever say that it was up to him to decide if you should be here?

And what is it with you and fabricating statements that people never made or better yet pinging others to your defense when you're getting creamed in an honest debate?

Are you so unable to debate that you need to make up comments or call on others to get you out of the verbal messes of your own making?

For crying out loud I thought this kind of garbage was left behind in middle school.

[Bikers4Bush]

Office Space, I love that movie.

[taxed2death]

You are 100% correct in your post #195. I've blasted Dane with the REAL facts, yet he just continues repeating lies like "taking jobs that Americans don't want".......What a freakin' waste of bandwidth....

REAL businesses are dropping like flies in my state....due to the influx of illegals....the only businesses who are benifitting from this influx now are Law businesses....

American Citizens, who chose to obey laws and hire other American Citizens are being driven out of business at an alarming rate....Danes "solution" is to $hit all over these Americans and say, "to hell with you"...we'll make illegals, legals...well, some Americans Don't like living 15 to a house and working for 4 bucks an hour!!!

[WRhine]

They either turn out their base, or they turn off their base. All the folderol about "Congressional hypocrites" and "electing Democrats" aside, if the GOP hierarchy keeps thinking and acting like it's the base's fault instead of their fault (and the fault of their idiotic anti-conservative policies and proposals) that the GOP loses elections, they'll turn off their base for good, and all this discussion about whether the base turns out for the Republican ticket will be a fond dream.

I don't see the Republican Party faring too well in your scenario. If shunning conservatives is what today's GOP is all about then they will lose more than just the conservative vote over time. There are millions of moderates in the party that indirectly benefit from the conservative influence in the party. Without that influence the GOP will move so far left it will alienate even the so-called moderates. At that point there will be virtually no difference between the parties.

[votelife]

a lot of the House is afraid to go against W. If they tee him off, he might not fundraise for them. Or if they go agains the White House, they might not get promoted in the House leadership bc they'll be breaking party. It's time to see the House revolt and push Bush to the right!

[AntiGuv]

Fortunately, the rhetorical games didn't prevent you from understanding the point of the chart any more than they will prevent understanding on anyone else's part..

Now, real discretionary spending increased by only 2.8% in Reagan's first three years while it has soared 23.8% in GWB's first three years. The nonmilitary portion fell 13.5% during Reagan's first three years versus a 20.8% increase in Bush's first three years. Even the military spending rose only 19.2% in Reagan's first three years as compared to 30.1% during the comparable part of Bush's term.

And we aren't even touching entitlements yet where Reagan actually proposed and enacted numerous spending reductions, mainly by slowing growth rates, while Bush has strongarmed a huge, unfunded expansion of Medicare through the Congress.

The other point you ignore is that Reagan's first two budgets were actually the endgame of Carter malaise with the accompanying spike in unemployment benefits.

[tioga]

-my daughter works in JC

Almorabi spotted in Iraq after JC crash

[hchutch]

Again, you seem to insist that John Warner get a pass because he acted out of "conscience".

In Virginia, the 1994 Senate race WAS a debacle due to John Warner's actions. Actions for which you insist I excuse and that he pay NO PENALTY for. You get all upset when *I* am ready to make Warner pay for HIS disloyalty.

I find your comments towards me somewhat hypocritical. Particularly since you yourself have posted that Rosario Marin would not get your vote if she were running against Barabra Boxer in the general election?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1066925/posts?page=9#9

You ask me to forgive John Warner's disloyalty to a conservative nominated by the Republican party for a seat in the United States Senate. Yet should Rosario Marin win a PRIMARY ELECTION among Republicans in the State of California and therefore become the Republican nominee, you refuse to support her over a disagreement on an issue.

You really have NO grounds upon which to criticize my refusal to support John Warner. You will in fact, indirectly elect a Demcorat on far shakier grounds than those I have cited against Senator Warner. So, who is really being hypocritical here? The one who will not support a backstabber and being upfront about his refusal to do so, or the one who demands I overlook the backstabbing and who appears ready and willing to do some backstabbing should a primary not have a favorable outcome?

[hchutch]

You still refuse to acknowledge your actions have the potential to indirectly elect Senator Kerry.

Why don't you shut up about honest debate until you are willing to be honest?

[Petronski]

"Shamnesty"

Oooh. I like it. Is that yours, or whom should I give credit?

[BigSkyFreeper]

This entire congress has shown itself to be craven cowards.

That's what it can't be stressed enough that we should be focusing our anger at Congress, rather than the President. Do we want to get rid of a President who's doing what's right for America, or keep the cowards in the Congress? It's stupid to think that we need a Democrat White House just to put the cajones on the Republicans in Congress.

[Bikers4Bush]

My actions are going to be determined by whether or not the administration get's it's collective head out of it's butt.

If they get Kerry elected it's because they chose to I will be voting for the most conservative candidate.

The GOP controls it's own fate, instead of pandering to the left it should start pandering to the right.

So there's your shut up.

[uncbob]

May I also remind you that most of the hard/tough campaign work in republican elections is done by motivated conservatives at the grassroots level—not the country club set. Truth is most RINOs are terrible at campaigning. They feel they are above knocking on doors, working the telephone banks and putting up the signs.

Very true and also remind him that the VAST MAJORITY of these conservatives are NOT members of FREE REPUBLIC and any insults generated here are NOT going to be heard by them

[NittanyLion]

I am unaware of any litmus test on being a conservative or not. However, if you really think I don't belong here, you can always hit the abuse button and report me to the moderators.

I never said you don't belong here, but let me tell you what I do think. I think the bickering on this site has become so nasty and personal that people like yourself are condemning actions they'd normally support, simply because their Internet adversaries are on the opposing side.

I'm certainly not suggesting this is limited to you, or to Bush supporters. It's on every side of this issue. Your post is just the latest manifestation I've seen.

[BigSkyFreeper]

Real businesses in this state are dropping like flies because of the unfair tax system, so they move somewhere where they don't get penalized for having a brick-n-mortar institution. Blaming illegals is rather shortsighted.