Actually, this is a reasoned criticism of Bush by a Conservative who's heart is in the right place and who understands the stakes. Quite unlike the demented ravings of the Monster Raving Paleocons.
Be Seeing You,
Chris
Posted on 02/12/2004 11:28:55 PM PST by JohnHuang2
Will Bush survive attacks from the right?
© 2004 Newspaper Enterprise Assn.
The disgruntled mutterings about President Bush in conservative circles are getting too loud to ignore. From National Review to The Heritage Foundation, not to mention such libertarian redoubts as The Cato Institute, the grumbling is reaching impressive levels. It doesn't (yet) amount to outright rebellion. The protesters are still on board for November; few of them are seriously threatening to stay home on Election Day and let John Kerry waltz into the White House. But it is fair to say that, in the opinion of many serious people, the integrity of the conservative movement as we've known it is at stake.
Just how far has President Bush strayed from the conservative mainstream? Last September in the National Review, Ramesh Ponnuru counted the ways:
"Bush has increased the federal role in education, imposed tariffs on steel and lumber, increased farm subsidies, OK'd federal regulations on campaign finance and corporate accounting and expanded the national-service program President Clinton began. Since Sept. 11, he has also raised defense spending, given new powers to law enforcement, federalized airport security and created a new Cabinet department for homeland security. No federal programs have been eliminated, nor has Bush sought any such thing. More people are working for the federal government than at any point since the end of the Cold War."
And that was even before Bush pushed through Congress a Medicare reform law that is the greatest new entitlement in several decades.
Bush's defenders have just about given up pretending that he is implementing traditional conservative principles. Instead, some of them, like Daniel Casse in the February issue of Commentary, have begun arguing that Bush has offered "a very bold, and very ambitious, reordering of conservative priorities." He cites Michael Barone's contention that Bush has replaced "the conservative touchstones of small government and spending cuts with the bolder, more inspirational ideas of choice and accountability" – to which Casse would add support "not for big government but for strong government."
All this may well be true, and it is only fair to add that many of Bush's steps in the direction of bigger government (notably the Medicare and education bills) include reforms that, if they can be built upon, should greatly improve the performance of those programs. In addition, the federal deficit at the end of 2003, though dollar-wise the largest in history, represented only 4.2 percent of GDP – by no means a record.
Still, a widely circulated Office of Management and Budget chart showing the percentage increases in discretionary domestic spending reveals just how far President Bush has wandered from fiscal discipline:
– Lyndon Johnson, 1965-69, 4.3 percent
– Richard Nixon, 1970-75, 6.8 percent
– Gerald Ford, 1976-77, 8.0 percent
– Jimmy Carter, 1978-81, 2.0 percent
– Ronald Reagan, 1982-89, 1.3 percent
– George Bush, Sr., 1990-93, 4.0 percent
– Bill Clinton, 1994-2001, 2.5 percent
– George W. Bush, 2002-04, 8.2 percent
Historically, one of the chief things the Republican party and the conservative movement have had going for them is the public belief that they are financially more responsible than their opponents and less inclined to expand government. If Bush squanders those assets in pursuit of "bolder, more inspirational ideas," he will bear a heavy responsibility for the future fates of the party and the movement.
No wonder many conservatives are ill at ease. There is probably still time – though just barely – for Bush to make policy corrections that will signal his continued allegiance to the basic principles of traditional conservatism. Unless he does, he may win the next election at the price of presiding over the political destruction of the conservative movement.
Hmm, that's not how I would characterize my preferred kind of government.
"A Constitutional, government accountable to the people," that's what I think the founding fathers would say -- and I agree with them.
The thing is, GW knows that, too.
First, Lincoln was the only President to actually stop Habeas corpus. We aren't even close. Second, you are again confusing the issue with WHOM the right is being denied. You, like liberals and Buchananites, think this loss applies to EVERYONE! Bull, that's just nonsense.
And in regard to suspected terrorists, only one so far, it's not denying anyone a hearing before a court to determine if their detention is lawful. One reason is the law was changed to SAY such detentions were lawful. And even in the case of Padilla, he GOT a court hearing. If anything, the Justice Dept has been too lenient in it's usage. Even John Lindh got off with a slap on the wrist when I would have tried him for treason.
We now need permission to travel. That's major and significant.
Wrong again. We don't need permission. You can get in your car right now and go anywhere you want and if don't speed, have a headlight out or break any other traffic laws, nothing will happen. Same for taking the bus, getting a taxi, etc. Oh, so you are talking about flying I'll assume. First, you had to have passport to go out the country already and you can still fly anywhere you want RIGHT NOW! (I bet you Libertarians even think passports are too much government control).
So what permission are you talking about? The fact you have to basically PROVE who you are when you fly? So the airline now has to make sure YOU are who YOU say YOU are! Oh horror!
And let's look at that complaint. It's because of your Libertarian ideals that we never thought actually profile young men from the Middle East on Visas paying cash for a one-way ticket! God forbid, that would require Big Brother breathing down our necks. Now you complain about the random checking of old ladies! While I'll give you the old lady part (you never know though - what if the terrorist know we won't check old ladies? Are you willing to bet they won't find some, pay them off, and use them to smuggle stuff onto a flight? Huh? Huh? Of course not), vigilance isn't control.
"Privacy" is now a dead issue. Bush proposed that the cable guy and the mailman and the gas company meter reader all were to become agents of the federal government.
Another canard and total paranoia. Is anyone, right now, knocking down your door? Tapping your phones? Watching what you type here? If so, wouldn't those same evil government agents in black suits be dragging you off for your nonconformity? You'd be in a cell right now along side Saddam getting anal examinations!
Oh, and Bush never "proposed" creating agents out of mailmen and meter readers. I'll bet good money your knees are badly bruised since they must jerk so bad. The "proposal" was to create a simple national HOTLINE to call in suspicious behavior. I could get into LONG explanations (like people just after 9/11 saw Arabian men taking pictures near airports and called the FBI only to be referred to local authorities that just referred them back to the FBI, etc.) but I won't. And Bush said people should be watchful.
Now, who best to be watchful than the guys that go to homes every single day? Or the truck drivers that are on the road? The DC area snipers (black Muslims but Chief Moose wanted to find white guys even in a white van because he's a racist) were found by a TRUCK DRIVER being alert. But you and the liberals think he meant actually deputizing these people. That's just not true. So you are saying that if a mailman walks up to your house to deliver the mail and sees in the open window some thug beating the crap out of you he should just move on and ignore it? Because that's what you are inferring. All Bush the TIP program was talking about was centralizing and helping the public report activity.
If you saw something tomorrow you thought could be terrorist trying something who would you call? Ghostbusters? And as I pointed out, you can call agency after agency and have to deal with some pinhead moron (of this we conservatives and libertarians agree - the liberals think they are geniuses) and get nothing done. Wouldn't a hotline to the Homeland Security Dept. be better?
I don't know what offends me more. The fact you and others actually believe this garbage you spout or the fact you don't even bother to learn the truth when it's right there at your fingertips with a simple Google and comprehension of the English language.
You're kidding whether you know it or not.
Let me see...according to you, Congress has to "declare war" but an "authorization to allow force" isn't "declaring war".
I see. Talk about a word purist.
Gee, police now can seize the property of a person suspected of carrying illegal drugs.
That's another flat out lie. Seize means take away. They can impound and the court will determine UNDER THE LAW whether or not, after conviction, the property can be sold by the state!
Stick to engineering (and I agree about the 2nd amendment and pilots or citizens with guns...but you can't be for Air Marshalls...that's more Big Brother - oh, the conflict of the Libertarian), you aren't a good lawyer.
I never thought I would see anything like CFR either -- we need to dust off that provision of the Contract With America that called for implementing term limits, and hold the GOP's feet to the fire.
Throw in, and the destruction of the two party system in American with the death of the Republican Party. Which angry, savvy, unrepresented conservitives will attempt to take down with them.
Actually, this is a reasoned criticism of Bush by a Conservative who's heart is in the right place and who understands the stakes. Quite unlike the demented ravings of the Monster Raving Paleocons.
Be Seeing You,
Chris
What can we do? The only thing possible. Vote Libertarian.The only thing stupider than a Liberal is a Libertarian.
The Liberals are basically 100% wrong on every issue, which defines their stupidity.
The Libertarians (to the extent that their meager numbers actually add up in an election) can only help Liberals get elected. Which is even stupider.
Stupid is as stupid does.
Lincoln was the only one to suspend Habeus Corpus -- where have you been ??
Didn't you read right here on FR yesterday that U.S. citizen Jose Padilla finally is being provided an attorney, after being locked up for more than two years, denied all of his rights.
Didn't you read, that under SAMS and the Patriot Act, the government will 'supervise/monitor' the discussion between the lawyer and his client ??
Get in your car and drive across the country ??
I know you didn't mention flying because you know all about Total Information Awareness (TIA) and CAPPS II, that level of scrutiny constitutes tacit 'permission to travel.'
Drive across the country indeed. You're progress is monitored all along the way. Every toll booth records your travel, use a credit card to buy your gas, another record available without warrant under the Patriot Act, make a cell phone call, easy to track - Patriot Act requires no warrant to obtain record. There are proposals to require GPS installed in every cell phone, every call will be encoded with your precise lat/long (all in the name of 'for your safety,' of course). Got GM EnCore - you're really hosed now.
Travel through any cities with 'Red Light Cameras' that are there to "save lives?" They can all collect your tag number and feed it into that big TIA computer, along with all the other data, the Jack Booted Thugs are never more than 10 minutes away from picking you up if they want to.
Technically you're right, you don't need a permission slip to travel, yet. But today, right now - the government has in place the technology and the resources to deny your travel anytime they choose to do so.
That is, to me, you have permission to travel unless we say no.
I could go on - but your every counterpoint is flawed and naive.
You will claim I need a tin foil hat - maybe so. But, I don't intend ever to become one of the "sheeple" for which the term was invented.
Drive across the country indeed. You're progress is monitored all along the way. Every toll booth records your travel, use a credit card to buy your gas, another record available without warrant under the Patriot Act, make a cell phone call, easy to track - Patriot Act requires no warrant to obtain record. There are proposals to require GPS installed in every cell phone, every call will be encoded with your precise lat/long (all in the name of 'for your safety,' of course). Got GM EnCore - you're really hosed now.
And this has changed how? First, you are lying (I'm tired of allowing people like you the benefit of the doubt that you just don't know the law or can't comprehend it)...since the Patriot Act REQUIRES a JUDGE to ISSUE the warrant just like before the Act. It's that plain and that simple and NOTHING you can post will change the FACT! Get a life and quit lying.
And if you had any intelligence you'd know GPS isn't even NEEDED to track cell phones since they are RADIO TRANSMISSIONS. And the GM ONSTAR service (not EnCore you moron) is NOT MANDATED but a SERVICE you pay $14.95 a month to get!
And how can EVERY toll booth record my travel if I throw a few coins into it as I go by? Are they writing down my care make, my license and taking pictures? No. And credit card receipts have been used for YEARS! And the Patriot Act, again, DOES NOT ALLOW THE GOVERNMENT TO GET THOSE RECORDS WITHOUT A WARRANT!
Look it up if you can actually read. Like I said, no tin foil hat needed for you since you seem to be on lithium.
And if you think our travels on the road are monitored all they way you are smoking a lot better pot than I am since you are totally paranoid and stupid. I can drive anywhere WITHOUT EVEN GOING THROUGH A TOLL BOOTH or BUYING GAS all the way from Nashville to Louisville or Cincinnati and NO ONE would know I was there! And I could pay cash for a motel room and the gas and my food and leave the next day and I GUARANTEE no authority knew. You are either a total dope smoking paranoid idiot or just an idiot.
And you notice I'm not afraid to tick off the FBI agents that are, according to you, watching us as we type! Wooooooo.
I won't quibble with you, I can tell you're already a lost cause.
The government is our friend, they are here to help us.
Start by looking up Statist.
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.