Posted on 02/27/2004 1:01:58 AM PST by kattracks
President Bush fired back at his Democratic critics Monday night. After being a sitting duck for the slings and arrows fired at him by the “Hate Bush Brigade”, the White House says the President plans to go on the offensive.
It’s about time. We need to see a tough, straight-talking, Texas-style George Bush hammering away at his detractors. He also needs to reach out to his conservative base and remind them of what’s at stake in this election, because he has a problem with a lot of them.
In recent weeks my conservative listeners have been talking about the same things Kerry and Edwards have been talking about. They’re talking about jobs even though the unemployment rate is only 5.6 percent. They’re talking about outsourcing, they’re talking about amnesty for illegal aliens – these are the things that people who listen to talk radio are concerned about.
Their reaction to the President’s handling of these issues should be a warning sign for the President. Conservatives are calling my show and telling me that they are not going to vote for George Bush because of his stand on amnesty or outsourcing, for example. And this simply amazes me. I ask them if they aren’t going to vote to re-elect George Bush are they going to vote for the Democrat? And the answer is inevitably, "NO! I’m not going to vote for anybody. I’m going to stay home on Election Day."
My reply is if you stay home and George Bush doesn’t win re-election and instead Kerry or whoever the Democrat candidate is gets elected, do you think things are going to get really better? And their answer is, "Well, no, but I want to take a stand."
They should remember Custer. He too took a stand. It was his last.
That just stuns me because it’s utterly irrational. They don’t understand they are taking a stand against themselves. By not voting they only help elect a liberal Democrat who wants to raise their taxes, enact all kinds of new spending programs. They would also endanger the nation by their already demonstrated ineptness and weakness in the war on terror, and hand over Iraq to the United Nations so it can create the same kind of mess we are now seeing in Haiti – another UN and Clinton "success."
They are wearing blinders that only allow them to focus on one issue. They say they won’t vote for a candidate who disagrees with them on one single issue even though he agrees with them on every other issue. It’s utterly self-defeating.
Even though they staunchly support George Bush on his stands on tax cuts, how he is fighting the war, and applaud his pro-life policies, they disagree with him on the amnesty issue, for example, and therefore can’t bring themselves to vote for him.
They’ll just stay home and help elect a Democrat who disagrees with them on just about everything. They’d enact socialist programs that would cripple U.S. industry, yet some of my listeners applaud them not realizing that if you drive a company’s profits down, you drive the value of their stock down and the millions of Americans whose 401Ks are invested in that firm suffer losses as a result.
When President Bush goes on the offensive, he’s going to have to remind Americans that if they want to pay low prices for the goods they need, the reason they are going to have to look overseas is because Democrats in Congress have so regulated American companies that the cost of doing business has risen. That’s due to the unions and government regulations that have become so prohibitive.
What’s the Democrat answer? Well, they say they’d make foreign nations enact the same kind of onerous regulatory and environmental burdens we have here that would force the prices of their goods up to the same level as ours. In other words, wreck their own economies to make John Kerry or some other demagogue look good.
Fat chance.
Mike Reagan, the eldest son of President Ronald Reagan, is heard on more than 200 talk radio stations nationally as part of the Premiere Radio Network.
There have been many changes that have REDUCED regulations and/or influence of the federal government. WHY DO YOU THINK THE LEFT IS SCREAMING ABOUT THEM?!
But you know that, so why the dishonesty?
Alcohol???
Our new "Homeland Security Department" took a number of other offices and EXPANDED them in both size and budget. I think you'll find that if you examine the departments that were accessed to create the new one, you might find that their individual budgets increased as well. - The total budgeted amount increased.
I have yet to mention Ronald Reagan, nor do I draw comparisons between the two administrations.
I don't believe that I claimed to know what ANYONE besides myself thinks. I do admit to observing the comments and actions of others.
Just because no president ever reduced government, it doesn't mean it is acceptable to continue down the same path. I think you'll agree that quite a few of our past presidents governed as pseudo-socialists, which was wrong. Isn't it just as wrong to do nothing about it or actually expand those policies?
You speak of the big picture, focusing on the big picture must include identifying the problems, and striving every day to remedy them, not just pointing across the aisle and blaming the other party.
Really? please enlighten me, I'd love to find out that I'm wrong.
"WHY DO YOU THINK THE LEFT IS SCREAMING ABOUT THEM?!"
They scream about everything the other party does.
But you know that, so why the dishonesty?
I could be wrong, but not dishonest. Nice try at changing the subject and making it about me. That's a common technique, yet seldon effective. Because
As it should have, under the terror threat, but wait until the new HS shakes out. The current inability to fire people is dragging the costs upward rather than showing the expected savings.
Bush cannot cure this with a magic wand or something.
He cannot single handed, root out all the wasteful bureaucrats and desk rats lining the offices of the fed.
If he could, there would be many buildings for lease.
Government, as a entity, has no way of saving money. I must spend it all. It will grow with the economy. It must!
But the rate of growth can be controlled.
The only controls are the congress critters themselves when they set limits for themselves and stick too them.
Yeah sure, it is all Bush's fault. NOT!
You're right, I should have qualified that to state a portion of the hard-right. There are a great many that understand the percentages involved and add their weight to the GOP to stand as a coalition... I was referring to the others on this site that seem to despise the GOP with their every atom. I've also seen some specifically mention looking forward to the death of the GOP someday and how the CP or LP can then thrive.
I'm guess I'm quite a bit more disenchanted than you MUD. I didn't expect much from Bush Jr., but unfortunately got even less.
IMHO, one election doesn't mean that much. Getting the Republican party back on the track means everything.
I didn't make any such claim.
Nor did I suggest that our president had a mandate to reform government overnight.
My original point was a response to a post that blamed the democrats for the expansion of government. In my response, I pointed out that the current party in leadership had only made the problem worse.
In subsequent posts, I did indeed suggest that I expected better from the party of principle and limited government.
I also admitted that I believed that most gop supporters were probably in favor of more government, and more spending. (I'm paraphrasing)
Now you know where I'm coming from, (I doubt that you ar anyone else cares, though)
FOFLOL.
Yeah, LOL!
They lie in wait for total anarchy.
A anarchy that is often espoused here on the forum.You should see the fuss about CP in the southern poor regions that know little of politics and react to promises of the promised land.IMHO
That is what I see. It reminds me of the Communist romp that occurred in the unions of days past.
They made huge inroads with people who only wanted a few more dollars per week.
Please tell me what departments you want done away with and how President Bush could accomplish doing that, especially when faced with a run for reelection.
I threw in Reagan and Ike as well. I could just as easily added the names of every 20th century GOP president too, to show you that not a one of them has done what you want this president to do, before he has earned your unequivocal support.
There are problems and then, there are PROBLEMS that one has to look at, during this election season.And it is long past time for people to look at what a Dem president would do. The "not a dime's worth of difference" junk, the carping and whining, and all the rest, is NOT howling to further the Conservative movement. And those who stay home/vote fringe party, immediately become irrelevant. They are NOT the GOP base. When looking to expand the base, should more moderates join and vote, then their wants are listened to.
All I want is a straight answer. Are you just complaining, or are you going to not vote for President Bush?
Excellent point... we still see that now, too.
Smaller and leaner, limited growth is the mantra.
I doubt that you ar anyone else cares, though
We all care, that is why we are here.
On Education spending, on the Farm Bill, on Steel tariffs, etal...yes, the Bush Administration has left us wanting, but the key to getting what we want is being open to going back to supporting the GOP if they show enough signs that they realize the spending binge of Dubyuh's first term cannot be replicated in his second term. Bush has said exactly that, but we must overcome the BigGuv'ment folks in his administration to insure that the words are followed up with the corresponding actions, if Dubyuh's second term is to be as successful as I remain confident that it can be.
FReegards...MUD
Uh huh,,,,,,,,,
After saying that, you expect someone to take you seriously?
It'd be a drastic move fer me, as I've voted Reagan/Bush/Bush/Dole/Bush since I've been eligible, but the Constitution Party at least gives me an outlet if Dubyuh refuses to get the message. Personally, I believe that he knows curbing the spending is the Right thing to do and will act accordingly in the upcoming months...if so, I will have voted fer a Bush in 66.6% of my Presidential elections...LOL!!
"You were correct to say that we all seek it."
I know...it's more and more obvious that most of the BushBackers would prefer that Dubyuh tackle outta control spending, but simply don't wanna risk his losing the battle to remain as Commander-in-Chief. How many BushBackers actually come on these threads and say, "Yea!! Domestic Discretionary spending is growing at 8% per year...WOO-HOOO!!"?
"I think we will get more than currently seems to be the case. I think government growth, as a percentage of GPD will be controlled. I do not think that it will ever actually decrease in size."
Not so fast, my FRiend, I'm not ready to concede that. If Dubyuh's Medicare Reforms and his proposed Personal Accounts fer Social Security succeed, we can start to eat away at the Non-Discretionary Spending that is growing at an outta control pace and real dollar decreases in Federal Spending are fathomable. I agree that the smart tack is to decrease Fed Spending as a percentage of GDP, but let's not barter away the dream...LOL!!
FReegards...MUD
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.