WHY CONSERVATIVES NEED TO BACK THE REPUBLICAN PARTY

From the Washington Times 1/31/04, quoting the Cato Institute:

For example, the Cato study found that over the last 40 years only the Johnson administration's budgets for the Vietnam-escalation years of 1966 and 1967 increased inflation-adjusted (i.e., real) discretionary outlays by higher percentages than the three budget years (2002, 2003 and 2004) of the current Bush administration. By contrast, Cato reported, at the height of the Cold War, "President Reagan boosted [real] defense outlays by 19.2 percent in the first three years of his term, but he also cut real nondefense outlays by 13.5 percent."

The Bush administration claims that much of the increase in nondefense outlays has gone to homeland-security improvements. That is true up to a point. But in 2002, the historic, subsidy-reducing "Freedom to Farm" legislation, which the GOP-controlled Congress passed in 1996, was replaced by a subsidy-raising farm bill that increased taxpayer transfers to the largest cotton and grain growers. This year, Congress is already poised to test the president's week-old pledge to keep the increase in 2005 nondefense and non-homeland security discretionary spending below 1 percent. Compared to a Bush proposal last year to authorize $247 billion in highway and mass-transit spending over the next six years, the House is advocating $375 billion and the Senate seeks $311 billion. In this atmosphere, unless the president immediately begins to use the bully pulpit to waive his veto pen, which he still has never used, the fiscal 2005 budget process will likely make the 2004 deficit look like an exercise in tight fiscal government.

This does NOT include the huge Medicare prescription drug benefit. And, Bush is promising more big government -- from money for worker retraining, to socialized health care for kids to more pell grant money.

But, keep drinking the Kool-Aid with Sean Hannity and claiming conservatives are winning by unconditionally supporing this nonsense.

Who is the real conservative here?

In response to Bush's 2005 budget (and he promised a similar expansion of government in his acceptance speech at the GOP convention):

Donald Devine, vice chairman of the American Conservative Union, said conservatives see Mr. Bush as "the biggest-spending Republican president ever."

"You can't find any proof that he's a limited-government conservative," said Mr. Devine, who served in the Reagan administration. "Discretionary nondefense spending is up 8.2 percent across the board, more than four times the increase under [Democratic presidents] Carter or Clinton."

While I deplore the Republican Party's lack of conservative backbone, it can only be changed from within by dedicated conservatives willing to make the effort.

Exactly right. If we abandon the party, we cannot change it.

I'll be staying, but if this party nominates Guiliani to run for President in 2008 I will sit out that election.

It would hardly be a disaster if Kerry won.

More ignorant, false words, could not be spoken.

"Although I'll be voting for Bush, the Stupid Party is selling out America with it's free trade agreements, pandering to Hispanics under Bush's AMNESTY plan, and allowing excessive labor and environmental regulations to destroy domestic industries."

You need to find a new screen name.

"Just because I don't believe in a god does not mean that I don't see the value in many of the religious/philosphy books written by man."

...exactly. That's what I've seen from all who say that they are Atheist, conservative and really appear to mean it by fiscal policy. Most of our social programs are now social engineering programs against traditional family structure brought to us by those who hate monotheism and have personal problems with family. Such programs can only be supported by socialist government policies. Therefore, fiscal conservatives should oppose them.

And although I've been a believer from childhood, I'm against having any government Christian monument. Even George Washington made way for Jews and put his words into at least one letter that I recall.

As for the Ten Commandments in a government monument, though, I only see one problem with it. Different bibles have different versions of those Commandments. For example, the Romans did away with the second Commandment a long time ago. So which version would we use? The only really authoritative version would be that from the Torah, copied many times in each generation, word-for-word, from Moses' time until now. But most of our country, Romanized as it is (even once-Protestant churches), would reject that only truly preserved version. So although it's doubtful that any real conservative would have a problem with the Ten Commandments (keeps religious people in line), which version would be agreed upon?

Actually, if Kerry won and gridlock prevailed, the increase in the size of government and government spending would decrease.

If Kerry did win, long run, it might even be a good thing. There would be chance to elect real conservatives to Congress and gain considerable amounts of seats in both the Senate and House. And, a Reagan-like candidate might emerge as the next President in 2008 rather than a RINO Like Rudolph Guliani.

Your single focus on spending is blinding you to the fact of what an utter destructive force a Kerry Administration would be to this country. Appointing at least two of the next Supreme Court justices, creating massive environmental regulations, creating all types of obscene executive orders, destroying our military, giving away more national secrets, losing the war on terror, and on and on!

Stop being so myopic.

In case, you've missed SEVEN of the nine current Supreme Court justices were appointed to the courts by REPUBLICAN Presidents.

Nothing is going to change in the court system unless the Republicans in congress get a backbone and start fighting for conservative judges. They have shown time and again they don't have the will or backbone the Democrats do the issue.

Clinton was able to get virtually any liberal judge he wanted through a Republican Senate and Bush is getting very few of the conservative judges he wants. Nothing is going to change in this nation as long as we kept electing worthless Republicans to office.

Getting Republicans elected is the easy part. Getting them to behave as conservatives is what is hard. And, that isn't going to happen when people like you unconditionally support the Republican party without holding them accountable.

It certainly will not happen when people like you unconditionally surrender, take your ball and run away. Don't worry, the rest of us will stay and fight.