That was real cute.
Posted on 03/06/2005 2:58:14 PM PST by Graybeard58
They're called partisan realignments, periods of seismic shifts in U.S. politics like the one that began in 1936 with the re-election of Franklin Roosevelt and ushered in six decades of liberal Democratic dominance. Many political observers believe a new realignment started with the Republican Revolution of 1994 and is accelerating under the Bush presidency. One of the more recent ruminations on this subject came in a USA Today op-ed by Ross K. Baker.
Noting President Bush's three rounds of tax cuts and his re-election, as well as the success of the Iraqi elections, Professor Baker postulated that continued GOP control of government "might well produce more conservative social legislation, a relaxation of regulations on business and environmental rules and more truculent policy toward countries that sponsor terrorism. If he could pull it off, Bush would find himself in the select company of such presidents as Jefferson, Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt -- all of whom engineered realignments."
Before President Bush's likeness is chiseled into Mount Rushmore, consider four factors working against the GOP domination:
President Bush has not yet learned how to say no to wasteful spending.
The party has too many "Nancy Johnson Republicans." It has an entire left wing of politicians who claim to be fiscal conservatives and social moderates. Since those are competing philosophies, social liberalism usually wins out because the resulting government largess is the surest way to ensure incumbency. It explains Rep. Johnson's support for the Medicare prescription-drug benefit and a good many other costly social programs during her long congressional career. Though small in number, NJRs are the swing voters on important legislation, which positions them to water down reforms, lard-up social programs, etc. Consequently, true fiscal constructivism cannot rule the day as long as NJRs are in the way.
Liberals continue to dominate two key cultural institutions: the public schools and the news media. Until conservatives can end the indoctrination of children and the propagandizing of adults, even modest, sensible reforms such as partial voluntary privatization of Social Security will be next to impossible to achieve.
Liberals reign supreme in America's courts. If recent rulings on the Ten Commandments, the Pledge of Allegiance and same-sex marriage have taught Americans anything, it's that Republicans can pass conservative legislation, relax business and environmental rules, and enact tort-law reforms all they want. But before sanity can be restored to the judiciary, Republicans must purge the system of the left-wing loonies and replace them with jurists interested in upholding the rule of law instead of legislating from the bench. In the interim, liberals always will be able to find a judge to strike down conservative reforms as unconstitutional.
It may well come to pass that we are seeing the dawn of a new political era for America. But even if Republicans can overcome these considerable obstacles, it will be decades before the fruits of their labors will be evident.
This never hurt Roosevelt.
FDR never claimed to be a conservative. He was the biggest of the big government libs. El Presidente Jorge de Ustados Unidos DOES claim to be conservative.
'Nuff said.
That was real cute.
I would be banned if I said what I think about you right now.
Regardless of what you think about the President and his policies, he is the President of The United States and he deserves more respect just by nature of the office.
Discussing his policies is one thing, but this "name calling" tone just turns me off.
I think it is immature. Your opinions just get lost in the "clever" name calling.
I agree, it is immature. But funny. I actually picked that up from one of the "illegals" threads here on FR. I guess it is just my way of protesting. (I hate that word.)
However, the same could be said of Bill Jefferson (BJ) Clinton. How many names have we come up with for him? Does HE deserve any respect at all? I certainly don't think so.
As an aside, I don't like politicians, period. NOT ONE of them deserves my respect. We all talk about how slimy lawyers can be. Politicians are just as bad. Until a REAL conservative steps up and at least tries to stop this craziness that we call government from growing into such a monster, I will maintain my dislike and disrespect for the lot of them.
I do concede that Bush seems to be different. He is genuine. I trust him. Other than having a few liberal policies and not doing anything about the illegal immigrant flood, he has all the qualifications for President that I look for, i.e. trustworthiness and common sense. Anything else is gravy.
How is this an insult? I think it pretty much states the case. President Bush is definitely doing more for Mexico than Fox is, so maybe we should call him El Presidente Jorge de Norte Americano!
And I agree that politicians are not inherently deserving of our respect, especially since the vast majority of them started out being lawyers!
If you don't see the disrespect for the office, then there isn't going to be anything I can say to explain it to you.
This is a democracy, and the politicians are supposed to respect the people that they supposedly serve, i.e. people like you and me.
When George Bush shows me a modicum of respect by talking intelligently to me about social security, illegal immigration, or any similarly important topic, then I will begin to have more respect for him.
If he continues to limit discussion to simplistic notions, stale cliches, and out-and-out falsehoods, then I will continue to reserve my respect for great leaders such as Ronald Reagan and great thinkers such as George Orwell.
In the nightmare world of Orwell's 1984, the populace was beaten into submission partly by the government constantly remaining on a war footing.
When the Liberals were in charge in America they simulated this continuous war by hyping one supposed "Crisis" after another: a poverty crisis, a healthcare crisis, etc.
The Conservative response was to say: Whoa there! People are by and large smart enough and hard working enough to find their own way out of the current situation.
Unfortunately George Bush seems to be using Liberal tactics to support a quasi-conservative agendas. He is creating crisis after crisis requiring government intervention.
I suppose I should respect his showmanship and marketing abilities, but I certainly don't respect his disrespect for those who are supposed to tell him what his job is, rather than vice-versa.
Uh huh. Feel better?
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.