Posted on 02/11/2004 11:00:20 AM PST by Lando Lincoln
While President Bush may not be a conservative’s perfect president, the alternative should shake any discontents to active support of the President.
As a conservative, I agree with most of the criticism that has been leveled at President Bush amongst Republicans and conservatives. While I support the President’s foreign and defense policies, I think that the Administration has tried to do the impossible—preempt the Left on their own issues. Republicans were not put on this earth to increase the size of government, create massive new programs like Medicare, spend billions of dollars on AIDS in Africa, fund the UN renovation, expand the Federal role in education or pursue a reckless policy of granting amnesty to illegal foreigners working in the US. None of these initiatives by the President will, in the end, take votes from the Democratic core base. Democrats are much better and far more willing to outspend any Republican program that expands the Welfare State. The strong suit of Republicans is limited government, lower taxes, individual responsibility and strong national defense. Karl Rove may be right that some of the President’s big government initiatives may neutralize some independents. In any case, conservatives could have hoped for much more in a Washington where Republicans control both the White House and Congress.
Having said all that, I intend to do whatever I can to reelect President Bush. The reason is simple. The alternative is unthinkable. A tax increase by rolling back the President’s much needed tax relief will not go to reduce the deficit but to fund massive new social programs, especially some form of universal national health care system. The stimulus of tax relief will be gone and the deadweight of new taxes and government program will lead to a much larger deficit. Moreover, the hue and cry over the deficit is only logical if the deficit grows as a percentage of GDP over a period of years. Economic recovery can shrink the deficit in a relatively short time -- provided there is no new spending. A Democrat will give us the worst of both worlds -- higher taxes and higher spending.
A Democratic economic policy is also lethal to the American middle class and small business. The repeal of most taxes to the “wealthy” proposed by the Democrats are really to two-income families that are just getting by and are clearly the backbone of the middle-class and small business owners who pay income tax; their business is not a corporation but a family business that is a sole proprietorship. An increase in dividend taxation or capital gains will put the financial markets in a tailspin and further retard the growth of new or expanded business activity.
Universal health care has an interesting twist that few seem to be discussing. If people are concerned about possible invasions of privacy because of the Patriot Act, imagine the access to private information available to Big Brother when he gets his hands on your medical records. Once the government is subsidizing our health, how long will it take before certain health lifestyles or diets become a matter of government concern over its citizens? Should we expect a universal health care system to deliver the same value as our compulsory educational system? In fact, the Democrats are likely to create an even greater rift between the Haves and Have-Nots in healthcare by allowing only the wealthiest Americans to pay for private services. Besides this, universal health will either bankrupt the economy since the demand for healthcare is virtually without limit or it will require the government to ration healthcare. Do we really want the delivery of healthcare to become a matter of political bargaining? Imagine the hypocrisy of those who are adamant that the relationship between a doctor and patient is sacrosanct when it comes to abortion, but would make almost all medical procedures a matter of public policy mandates in the future. Imagine your worst nightmare of an HMO and then increase that exponentially and you begin to get the real meaning of Universal Health Care. As for the eventual bill for this service, look to the past at all other federal entitlement programs. To make matters worse, no Democrat is going to support Medical Practice Tort Reform which is contributing to the skyrocketed growth of healthcare costs.
How will Democrats deal with other issues of free market choice for individuals? No Democrat supports any level of privatization of Social Security for retirement. There is no support for school vouchers or alternatives to the monopoly of the public school system. Finally there is no support for private Health Savings Accounts among the Democrats. While Republicans will at least look for market-based solutions to public policy issues, the unions and bureaucratic constituencies of the Democrats virtually insures no such innovation.
On the matter of illegal immigration, the Democrats are more likely to pass a liberal new amnesty program than any GOP administration. The reason is that the Hispanic community seems to be “in play” and this is one constituency the Democrats really need to lock up in order to strengthen their position on the West Coast and in the Southwest.
One can only imagine the kind of social activist judges and Supreme Court justices that would be appointed by the Democratic nominee. The Federal Judiciary will begin to resemble the lunacy of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. Can any responsible citizen sit home and allow the judiciary to lunge to the Left? This alone should energize conservatives. The dismantling of all religious tradition or symbolism in public life is likely to continue with a Democratic President and a liberal judiciary.
The final issue is one of national security. Certainly no one can believe that a Democratic administration will strengthen our intelligence and defense capabilities. It was under Democratic administrations that the CIA and other intelligence agencies became decimated and hand-tied. The Democrats have almost unanimously voted against nearly all major new weapons systems. At a time when we are in fact living in a Third World War, we can not go from a Churchill to a Chamberlain. It is disingenuous for the Democrats to glob onto intelligence deficiencies when they are largely the culprit for lack of human intelligence or material resources in the important area of espionage. In fighting a terrorist enemy, preemption is the natural policy and that requires intelligence first and foremost.
While President Bush may not be a conservative’s perfect president, the alternative should shake any discontents to active support of the President. Moreover, in the area of determining the security threat to the West and taking action, the President may go down as one of our greatest leaders. For the sake of the hope of more prudent domestic policy, judicial restraint and national security, there is really no choice. As for much of the domestic agenda, can we afford to sacrifice the good for the perfect?
Scott Shore is a political commentator and management consultant in Providence, Rhode Island.
Dear Simpleton,
In post 448 of this thread, ohioWfan stated... (and I quote)
If you really ARE a conservative (and not just a DU troll stirring up trouble)
So to disabuse this poor little girl of her confusion, I responded with the date of my entry into the FR community, which if you wish you can read for yourself in post 455 of this thread.
No "simple question" was asked.... nor was one "dodged".
What does that go for...? probably a couple cheeseburgers and a moon pie would be my guess.
The fact is that there ARE DU sleepers who have been around since 1999.
I didn't say YOU were one. You're just hyper sensitive and defensive.......and seem to have a BIG problem with telling the truth.
I said they existed, and that one can't tell the difference between them and you...........and it's true.
I said IF........that isn't a statement of fact it's a hypothetical.
You are SUCH a whiner!
Your precise words posted to me were...
"If you really ARE a conservative (and not just a DU troll stirring up trouble)"
Now you can pretend that this isn't insinuating that I was a "DU troll" if you want... but that's just a lie.
And your own words make that pretty clear to me.
It's one of those 'consider the source' kind of things.
There are a whole bunch of freepers who hold the same views as he does, but are respectable adults with whom you can carry on a rational discussion. He's just not one of them......
Yawn.
You are self-important, self-righteous, self-delusional, and spoiled by the blessings of conservatism to the point that you don't see or appreciate what it is that you have, because you only want more and you want it NOW. Of course, when you finally get what you think you want, you still won't be satisfied, because in a strange way, that is how you derive your own feeling of "principled" self-worth. Where you come from malcontentment is next to godliness, and in the end you become blinded to conservative successes and become thankful for nothing.
Any one who could write what you wrote all in context of just that one post just shows that you are a worthless, fair-weather "conservative," and probably never were up for the fight for the long haul.
You're the kind of person I saw in 1980 who held it against Reagan and didn't vote for him "on priniciple," because they held a grudge for his selecting Richard Schweiker -- the Pennsylvania liberal -- as his potential running mate in 1976, and selected GHWBush to run with him in 1980. Thankfully, enough of your stripe put away their parochial differences just long enough to become united with other conservatives to get Reagan elected and taking the Senate at the same time. We all look back now and revere the memory of Reagan who understood politics enough to build consensus for getting the job done.
You are this generation's embodiment of the "principled" philosophy that gave us a completely Democrat congress in 1986 and surrendered all 3 branches of government by 1992.
You call yourself "principled." I call you impatient, and ungrateful, content to be content in your malcontentment.... and completely worthless in any contribution you think you are making by deserting the team on this long march back toward conservatism.
That's fine. We will just win it without you. The thanks for victory will certainly not be extended in your direction.
Like I said before toots... you wanna dish it out... expect to get it back.
Rumors of my demise are greatly exaggerated. ;^]
Good to see ya.
I never thought you were a troll. And I don't lie...........EVER.
I just know that the DU trolls mimic guys like YOU to tear us conservatives down and rip us apart.
If you're not aware of that.......I'd recommend that you wake up......and grow up.
Neither OWK nor tompaine are now or ever have been sleepers from DU and if you can't distinguish the difference between intelligent libertarians and drug addled teenaged mutant Democrats then please accept this assurance from an old, really old Truman Democrat.
President Bush selected a terrible group of advisors and kept in place the most incompetent national security apparatus in decades. He needs to shape up more aggressively and ask the likes of Renfield and Candiass Rice to stop passing the buck and get lost.
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.