Unity on the right gets rocky

The Boston Globe ^ | March 7, 2005 | Cathy Young

[Dan from Michigan]

I have a strong small "l" libertarian streak.

Most libertarians are troubled by the growing clout of the religious right within the Republican Party,

I am pro-life and have no problems with the 10 commandments. However, I have a major problem with this so called "Decency" push with the FCC.

the post-9/11 stampede to endorse security measures that sometimes impinge on individual rights (particularly for people detained on suspicion of terrorist involvement),

I have a major problem with the "Patriot Act"

and the unchecked growth of government under the presidency of George W. Bush

Same here. The SPENDING is what put off a lot of libertarians.

In the past election, these concerns led many libertarians who had usually voted Republican to jump ship and either cast a protest vote for the Libertarian Party candidate or, in some cases, back Democrat John Kerry.

There's no way I could vote for that traitor Kerry. And the democrats are still the big government, tax raising, gun grabbing party.

Walking out will leave the libertarian politically homeless and will (as both Antle and Lott pointed out at the recent panel) further enable the spread of conservative nanny-statism.

Agreed. We need to stay and fight.

[advance_copy]

President Bush had a profound positive affect on our economy. His efforts, far more than just tax cuts, included things like steel tarriffs, corporate accountability, and federal employment reform. This President understood that, while Keynesian spending is useless for long-term economic growth, it can be effective for short-term simulous when needed. The President gets far too much grief for spending in his first term, which he has already taken head-on in the second term. But the 2001-2002 economic situation was dire, extremely dire. That was no time to cut spending. Finally, to your point about Clinton, the economy in the 1990s was an illusion perpetrated by MSM to cover his scandals. The only good economic policy of the 90s came from the 1994 Gingrich revolution in Congress. 2000-2001 proved that a bubble is not a long-term economic foundation.

[rhombus]

Some good points...

With respect to spending, we have the education spending, the perscription drug program and of course defense. Did I miss any big ones? Probably.

As for the education spending, the Dems accuse No Child Left Behind of being underfunded so I don't know the real figures there. Certainly those programs didn't buy political capital as Ted jumped ugly first chance he got and his band of educators went with him. However we the people did buy a little more testing and at least a little more accountability (hopefully).

As for perscription drugs, it was going to happen anyway for sure - Why give the Dems credit? Bush took a major campaign hammer away from the now huge senior vote. All the Dems had was it's complicated and cost more than they said (like anyone believed the Dems cared). Expensieve yes, but seniors don't care and they won't care. They don't want to spend their SS checks on overly expensive drugs and the pharmecutical companies are easy to hate. Seniors mostly voted for Bush, I believe. If not, I bet a larger percentage than before. Also Republicans can demogogue the senior persrciption drug plan for the next 50 years.

Defense? Well there's a war on - another multi-decade war. Of course that means we have to keep an eye on the trough and demand the troops are supported while at the same time prepare for the next war. Expensive, yes. But without it, what's the point?

So oher than that spending (yes, it's considerable), how do the remaining programs size up over the past 4 years. Has even the rate of growth been slowed? Remember we're dealing with a moving freight train here with the federally-based economy. I can bet the Dems will have all sorts of talking points about this program or that program that was slashed. I'd expect there's probably some cost cutting in a number of programs... or like I said, slowing the growth.

Patriot Act? Regarding the Patriot Act, can anyone specifically say what should be changed/eliminated. I honestly don't know. I remembered the ACLU ad that ran over and over saying the Patriot Act was unAmerican and that some unexplained "changes" could be made to keep us safe. What are these changes? Even the liberals can't seem to say what they are. Is there a libertarian in the house? How will these "bad" things be used to oppress us? I haven't seen anyone hauled off on the street, or even mysteriously disappear a la the McCarthy boogie man... except for individuals that most would hardly call "freedom fighters". Like I said, is there a libertarian in the house? Or worse, a lawyer?

[Sam the Sham]

The T-34 was based on an American suspension system. But what made it revolutionary was its Russian sloped armor design.

And it is true that the Klimov engine had features of the Rolls Royce Nene engine. But the Mig-15 was far and away superior to everything in the UN arsenal - except the F-86. It blew away the Gloster Meteors and F9F's.

True the IS-3 was a super heavy Soviet tank that could go toe to toe with a King Tiger II. And shared its faults (underpowered, prone to breakdowns, etc). But Hitler let Pz IV production go by the wayside to produce smaller numbers of Tigers. The Soviets never neglected medium tank production to produce heavys.