Bush to wage ideological campaign

Washington Times ^ | 6/1/04 | Bill Sammon

[MissAmericanPie]

This "good man" is about to sell out our sovereignty and has spent the last four years positioning himself to ram the FTAA treaty through in his second term. He now has the "Fast Track" ability.

Conservatives who have put on the brakes, such as myself, have no confidence that those that assume themselves to be conservative will ever organize and attempt to block this coming FTAA fiasco, it makes it even more impossible to vote for the man.

It's like watching a train go off a cliff. Is not voting the answer? There is no answer that will work. No matter who wins the fat lady sings, "Bye, bye, Miss American Pie".

[hobbes1]

Odd, most of the "Conservatives" I've read, are decidedly in favor of free and open markets....And when I peruse some of the anti FTAA sites, I get such communist drivel as

" the FTAA is yet another example of the kind of free-market fundamentalism that has created a global race to the bottom that erodes environmental protection, workers' livelihoods, and human rights. If you think NAFTA has been a disaster for working families and the environment in the US, Canada, and Mexico, this will be far worse.

As far as I am aware, the US Economy employs More People, at a higher standard of living then we did before Nafta. (SoL= % of GDP per capita....)

[VRWCmember]

Lance Arstrong for president (he doesn't fall off)

And, he has more balls than most senate republicans.

[jern]

back to your comment about Reagan

It's conservative lore that Reagan the icon cut taxes, while George H.W. Bush the renegade raised them. As Stockman recalls, "No one was authorized to talk about tax increases on Ronald Reagan's watch, no matter what kind of tax, no matter how justified it was" Yet raising taxes is exactly what Reagan did. He did not always instigate those hikes or agree to them willingly--but he signed off on them. One year after his massive tax cut, Reagan agreed to a tax increase to reduce the deficit that restored fully one-third of the previous year's reduction. (In a bizarre bit of self-deception, Reagan, who never came to terms with this episode of ideological apostasy, persuaded himself that the three-year, $100 billion tax hike--the largest since World War II--was actually "tax reform" that closed loopholes in his earlier cut and therefore didn't count as raising taxes.)

Faced with looming deficits, Reagan raised taxes again in 1983 with a gasoline tax and once more in 1984, this time by $50 billion over three years, mainly through closing tax loopholes for business. Despite the fact that such increases were anathema to conservatives--and probably cost Reagan's successor, George H.W. Bush, reelection--Reagan raised taxes a grand total of four times just between 1982-84.

This record flummoxes the best efforts of today's Reagan hagiographers to explain away. Peter Wallison, for instance, after proclaiming that Reagan "stayed the course against changes in his economic plan," later dismisses the president's tax increases as "a modest rollback" that "seems to have been the result" of his accepting a Democratic promise to cut spending by twice that amount. (Whatever happened to "Trust, but verify"?)

Reagan continued these "modest rollbacks" in his second term. The historic Tax Reform Act of 1986, though it achieved the supply side goal of lowering individual income tax rates, was a startlingly progressive reform. The plan imposed the largest corporate tax increase in history--an act utterly unimaginable for any conservative to support today. Just two years after declaring, "there is no justification" for taxing corporate income, Reagan raised corporate taxes by $120 billion over five years and closed corporate tax loopholes worth about $300 billion over that same period. In addition to broadening the tax base, the plan increased standard deductions and personal exemptions to the point that no family with an income below the poverty line would have to pay federal income tax. Even at the time, conservatives within Reagan's administration were aghast.

[rocky88]

"The choice between Bush and Kerry is so minimal as to which is more awful that it doesn't make a difference which wins. "

Not when it comes to appointing judges. There is SO MUCH at stake over the next four years when at least 3 SC judges retire. Please encourage those you know to vote for W.

[JoeSixPack1]

Well, lets clue you in a little.

X42i made a speech extolling the vertues of Joe Sixpack. His analagous reference was made to envelope all "regular guys" who have escaped the stereotypical titles of a PC society. Whether it's a reference to a six of brewskis or a couch potato or an Archie Bunker or Al Bundy type or even "the Beaver", it's pretty much the all American bread winner with a used car, a financed home, a few credit card bills and not a lot of time to go campaigning for their political heroes or villians.

We do exist. And a six pack is just a pack of smiles after a hard day paying taxes.

[Sloth]

The choice between Bush and Kerry is so minimal as to which is more awful that it doesn't make a difference which wins.

While I am sick of Bush's socialism, he'd undoubtedly appoint better SCOTUS justices than Kerry.

[Dems_R_Losers]

Not only was the 1986 Tax Reform a huge corporate tax increase, but by eliminatng the passive loss deduction for commercial real estate, it caused the real estate crash that directly led to the savings and loan crisis, which cost taxpayers $200 billion and produced the recession that cost George Bush the presidency and gave us Bill Clinton for 8 years.

[MissAmericanPie]

We are talking about a President, whose cornerstone of his second term is the FTAA treaty, and who just agreed not to use the recess to appoint judges, who has been very limp and inactive in pushing for judicial appointments, and who only threatened to bring out his veto pen on legislation designed to grant vets the ability to draw both disability and retirement pay. This is the man you put your faith in regarding conservative judges? I see great disappointment in your future.

[MissAmericanPie]

I never claimed to love Reagan, or think him the pinnacle of conservatism, but when he did leave the negotiating table, he left with a chunk of meat. I only quoted his feeling about leaving the Democrat party.

[4Freedom]

How Conservative were the judges that Bush appointed in Texas? What are their judicial records like, so far?

[Consort]

Geeze, it looks like you're part of the porblem.....not part of the solution. No wonder why we can't get rid of the Democrats.

[4Freedom]

Were the judges he appointed in Texas Conservative?

[Doctor Stochastic]

As long as Conservatism is defined by expanding the Government faster than Liberals did.

[MissAmericanPie]

Some people have to experience disaster, so go ahead. The USofA is about more than some economic bottom line. We are a nation, not a corporation. Let me rephrase that, as yet we still slightly resemble a sovereign nation.

The Supreme Court has been busy as bee's educating themselves on international/euro law, and make no secret that the Constitution will be set aside in favor of euro/international law when the US consitution comes in conflict with globalist treaties, whims, laws, and wishes.

Our founding fathers warned us about becoming involved in entangling treaties that destroy our constitution. And here you go off like a rabbit chasing the Free Trade carrot. Texas sodomy laws were set aside using euro-law. There is no bill of rights in euro/international law, no freedom of speech, right to bear arms, none of that. The E.U. has euro laws that punish people for talking bad about the E.U.

So when international law bans the ownership of private fire arms and we are signed onto a treaty that agrees to go along with those laws over and above our own sovereign constitution, what then? The FTAA has far more to do with governance than trade. But you go right ahead and wait n see, or you could do the unthinkable and go to the offical FTAA web site and poke around for yourself.

See how much discussion is given to how to give courts more power to punish "hate speech", and how to make hate speech a nice long time in prison and a hefty fine. Hate speech is what ever they decide it is of course, it could be people opposed to losing sovereign borders and nationhood, covered under xenophobe. Go to the site spend some time poking around.

[MissAmericanPie]

Which democrats are you talking about, the ones in the demonrat party or the ones in the republican party?

[Matchett-PI]

"The choice between Bush and Kerry is so minimal as to which is more awful that it doesn't make a difference which wins."

I hope there isn't anyone here that will foolishly attempt to use reason with such illogical, intemperate, emotional basket cases as this.

[Consort]

The GOP comprises conservatives, moderates, and liberals. You are no better than any of them. The Democrats are to the Left of all of them. If you help the Democrats, you are part of the problem. In November, it's going to be Bush or Kerry and whatever you do or don't do will help elect one of them. Which will it be?

[hobbes1]

So when international law bans the ownership of private fire arms and we are signed onto a treaty that agrees to go along with those laws over and above our own sovereign constitution, what then? The FTAA has far more to do with governance than trade

OoooooKaayyyy...Now, take two Zoloft, and repeat after me.

The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land.Period.

80 Million homes own close to 300 million Guns. The Second Amendment has been under direct assault for 3 generations, and now Today, 32 States have liberalised concealed carry. Gun Control except for a few holdout states is effectively dead.....

As to and make no secret that the Constitution will be set aside in favor of euro/international law when the US consitution comes in conflict with globalist treaties, whims, laws, and wishes. ....That is quite a stretch to make from the usurpation of states rights by the Fed. (to use your Sodomy example).

[rocky88]

"This is the man you put your faith in regarding conservative judges? I see great disappointment in your future."

He did appoint Pickering during the recess... And with the obstructionism that took place in the Senate, it's pretty obvious that Tom Daschle wasn't getting all worked up over the aspect of Liberal judges.

I have faith that W would appoint judges who will keep this country on (and bring this country back to) a moral high ground.