Posted on 02/14/2004 9:25:22 PM PST by lilylangtree
Let's just be blunt: The North Koreans would love to see John Kerry win the election. The mullahs of Iran would love it. The Syrian Ba'athists would sigh with relief. Every enemy of America would take great satisfaction if the electorate rejects the Bush doctrine and scuttles back to hide under the U.N. Security Council's table. It's a hard question, but the right one: Which candidate does our enemy want to lose? George W. Bush.
And some conservatives will be happy to help, it seems.
Woe and gloom have befallen some on the right. Bush has failed to act according to The Reagan Ideal.
The actual Reagan may have issued an amnesty for illegals, but the Ideal Reagan would have done no such thing. So unless Bush packs freight cars full of gardeners and dishwashers and dumps them off at the Mexican border, some voters will just sit this one out.
The Ideal Reagan would have eliminated the National Endowment for the Arts; the actual Reagan proposed a $1 million increase in his final budget. But Bush increased NEA funding -- perhaps an attempt to placate people who wouldn't vote for him if he showed up in performance with Karen Finley and a can of Hershey's syrup. So angry conservatives might just sit this one out.
And if a Democrat takes office, and the Michael Moores and Rob Reiners and Martin Sheens crowd the airwaves on Nov. 3 to shout their howls of vindication? If the inevitable renaissance of Iraq happens on Kerry's watch, and the economy truly picks up steam in the first few years before the business cycle and Kerry's tax hikes kick in? If emboldened Islamist terrorists smell blood and strike again? Fine. Maybe the next Republican president will do everything they want.
Oh, sure, Bush is fine on the foreign affairs stuff, and yes, there's a partial-birth abortion law, and the tax cuts were nice, and come to think of it, Sept. 11 wasn't followed by blow after blow after blow, for some reason. The nation endures, at least at press time. But that's hardly enough. Where's that bill requiring 60-foot Ten Commandments monuments in every capitol rotunda? Let Kerry win. Teach the GOP a lesson, it will.
So both sides have elements that seem unserious about the defining issue of the day: the war. But the right's malcontents snipe from humid redoubts of Internet message boards. The left's biggest spokesmen are parading their delusions.
No less than Al Gore has practically accused the president of treason. In a Feb. 8 speech in Tennessee, Gore went on an alarming rant, performed almost in an arr-matey pirate voice. ‘‘He betrayed this country!” Gore bellowed. ‘‘He played on our fears. He took America on an ill-conceived foreign adventure dangerous to our troops, an adventure preordained and planned before 9/11 ever took place.”
We've been manipulated into a state of fear, Gore shouted. Really. Which administration spent most of 1998 warning us about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, only to launch some missiles and walk away? Gore saw all the intel on WMDs. Gore was part of an administration that pushed for regime change because it viewed Saddam, correctly, as a danger to the region and to America. Does Gore think we don't remember everything Democrats said about Saddam and WMDs, when they felt responsible for the nation?
As for that state of fear, well, anyone out there feel afraid of Saddam today? Didn't think so.
Gore should give this speech at the convention. Why not? Why not stand up and give vent to all the poisons hatching in the muck? Why not tell America that Bush lied about everything, that he took the country to war for reasons he knew would be discredited, just so Halliburton could make another buck or two? It's what they seem to believe, after all. The delusions of their fringe have become articles of faith for the mainstream. Bush was AWOL! Bush knew! Bush lied! Bush never flosses! Skull and Bones! Plastic turkey!
At least we'll have a clear choice in November. Bush is serious about the war. The Democrats are serious about the war against Bush.
This should be the message for the next 8 months.
Much as I love Lileks, these are straw man arguments. The problem with Bush isn't a proposed amnesty (which will never pass anyway) nor even a piddling few millions for the NEA. The problem is a $540 billion Medicare prescription entitlement and a humongous farm subsidy bill and an enormous education subsidy bill, etc., etc., all of which have ballooned the federal budget and the federal deficit by amounts which make Democrats look like penny-pinchers.
There's no excuse for such extravagance, not when Republicans control both houses of Congress and the White House. The War on Terror is no excuse for repeated annual double-digit jumps in domestic spending.
The sad reality is that electing a Democratic President will probably cut the annual deficit and cut the rate of increase of federal spending, if for no other reason than the fact that divided government will create some well-needed gridlock. The other sad reality is that the best form of gridlock is a Democratic President and a Republican Congress. A Republican President (e.g., Reagan), when dealing with a mostly Democratic Congress, will still tend to allow spending and deficits to grow substantially.
Really? Where have you been? These very topics have been all the rage amongst many so-called conservatives, in particular right here on Freerepublic. There are quite a few who think the Bush immigration proposal is the WORST THING EVER. But it's so easy to say, "No THOSE things we complained about that you refuted never really mattered, it's THOSE OTHER things we complained about that REALLY mattered." These are not straw man arguments just because you personally haven't made them. I have heard far more about the NEA than the "horrible farm subsidy".
There's no excuse for such extravagance, not when Republicans control both houses of Congress and the White House.
I assume you fault the Congress as much as Bush when it comes to the budget. After all, according to the Constitution, who is responsible?
The sad reality is that electing a Democratic President will probably cut the annual deficit and cut the rate of increase of federal spending
and increase taxes and add more liberal judges to the federal bench/Supreme Court and make sure leftwing extremists are appointed to the cabinet and destroy any hope of moral leadership for this nation and end the fight against abortion and guarantee the destruction of marriage and increase corruption and appease the terrorists and destroy the sovereignty of the United States and promote racial discrimination and enact industry-killing environazi laws....
Other than creating gridlock (this assuming the Republican Congress will remain and that they will be strong), what are the other benefits to having a Democrat president? Will a Clinton do?
I still believe that if the GOP gains more seats in Congress, Bush will push for more conservative ideals. The Democrats still think they are in charge and a bigger GOP majority will block their stonewalling.
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.