Republican Presidents More Harmful

The New American ^ | June 27, 2005 | John McManus

[w6ai5q37b]

A Republican president can often enact a more liberal agenda than a Democrat could because many Republicans in Congress are more loyal to party than to principle.

Over the past few generations, congressional Democrats could customarily be relied upon to promote a liberal agenda while their Republican counterparts developed the reputation of being stalwart opponents of our nation's slide into big government and internationalism. The record shows, however, that during the past 50 years, congressional Republicans have exhibited such opposition only when....

[Ol' Sparky]

Actually gridlock during the Clinton years is the ONLY thing that has led to a balanced budget in the past 40 years. Sadly, the Republicans have dramatically increased government spending and the size of government just as the Democrats did. That shouldn't be acceptable to conservatives.

[verity]

Who is John McAnus?

[gorush]

I will never hold my nose and vote for the lesser of two evils again...I did that until the republicans controlled the white house and congress and yet the federal government continues to expand. Give me a strict constructionist conservative to vote for or don't bother me. We are socialist now and I don't see the electorate changing that...I will (and have) adjust(ed) my life accordingly.

[Republican Wildcat]

The New American

Uh huh. Next?

[fr_freak]

Those who try to claim to be the 'real conservatives' should remember that a President is President to all people, not just those who call themselves 'true conservatives.'

The political feelings of people in this country fall across a wide spectrum. A President that satisfied those who call themselves 'true conservatives' would not be serving about 75% of the country.

I couldn't disagree with you more. If we expected each incoming president to do what he needs to make everyone in the country happy, then why even have an election? Why not just pick a name out of a hat? The fact is that the President, as with all elected officials, is duty-bound to faithfully represent those who elected him or, at least to faithfully pursue the platform of the party that elected him. For one ideological party to place a candidate in office, only to have him promote the ideologies of both parties or of the other party alone flies in the face of all reason.

[w6ai5q37b]

Call me what you wish, but you know why Billary is going to be president again in 2008?

Because of our current "conservative" president, who has got us back into UNESCO, sent our boys to die in Iraq to uphold UN resolutions, etc.

You know why alot of Republicans in the House and Senate are going to lose their seats? Look at the federal spending charts. Look at the national debt. Look at the size of the government. Look at inflation. Look at how everything bad has grown over the last 8 years. This is the product of conservatism???

I'll bet Billary can't wait to get their hands on all the new "toys:" "Homeland security," "No child Left Behind," "USAPATRIOTACT," etc.

[Ol' Sparky]

This is the product of conservatism???

It's the problem of Republicanism, not conservatism...Politicians love to use taxpayers dollars to buy votes.

[w6ai5q37b]

Brought to you by the same guys who claimed that Eisenhower was a commie.

You know during the war, Ike had a direct phone line to Stalin? You know why Ike pulled back and let the Russians take Berlin? You know why Ike ordered Patton to let the Russians take Czechoslovakia? You know why Ike had 2 million eastern Europeans forcibly "repatriated" with mother Russia (Operation "Keelhaul") so that they would be branded as "spies" by Stalin and sent to the Gulag where it gets 40 below in the wintertime?

But Ike wan't the biggest communist. Read McCarthy's book on Marshall. Usually I get this kind of pooh-poohing from liberals. Yes, how dare anyone suggest that we had any communists in our government. Look at Karl Marx's "Communist Manifesto." Count how many of the 10 planks are in place in this country. I'm sure it's all by accident.

[cubreporter]

I wouldn't call you anything but pessimistic. That's all.

[Clemenza]

There's a sale on tin foil at Wal-Mart right now. Then again, you probably think Wal-Mart is controlled by the commies too.

--- Clemenza, Proud member of the CFR

[pollyannaish]

I will take this under advisement and check back in on this subject after the '06 and '08 elections. BTW, I won't call you anything specific if you don't want. I just disagree strongly with your position. and find much of the pessimism regarding NAFTA to be misplaced and overwhelmingly unjustified. We have had an incredible run economically in this country.

Also, I want to quibble one sec with your tagline. I understand that nothing in life is free. I also understand that the best way to deal with that in a capitalistic society is to figure out how best to profit from it.

We now have a playing field that is "free from" going both directions, which is very important in protecting our economy in the long run. We would be at a tremendous disadvantage in the world if others were making these agreements while we cut ourselves out of the deals. That may have worked years ago, but it just isn't feasible any more.

I will reiterate what I have said all along: I will pit the American worker against workers in any country on the face of the planet. Free trade may be a little painful for the American worker initially, but in the long run, I believe we will all be better off and more, decent jobs will be created. I think it's been said before, and I will say it again: We must live in the world as it is, not as we wish it was.

[Republican Wildcat]

Call me what you wish

I didn't call you anything.

[AppyPappy]

And Democrats like you will be leading the way for her. Buzz off.

[HostileTerritory]

Frankly I'm glad that party loyalty has enabled President Bush to extend free trade and get CAFTA passed... conservativism to me is about individual liberty.

[Republican Wildcat]

Apparently the mods didn't like his comment about "sending our boys off to die in Iraq." Zot.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

There was no balanced budget in the Clinton years. Look at how the deficit grew every year he was President. Fancy accounting can't hide that.

I agree that there's a lot more that Republicans could be doing. The problem is, what sane person wants to be a public figure the way they're treated, especially the way conservatives are treated.

The lies told about Clarence Thomas would be libel anywhere outside the Congress. Who would sign up for that or put their family through that?

I'm afraid we're going to have to do the best we can and at least keep the Dems out. I have to disagree with the author. They've cost a lot more than any Republican. Although I agree that there are times when the Republicans can be almost as bad.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

You know why Ike pulled back and let the Russians take Berlin? You know why Ike ordered Patton to let the Russians take Czechoslovakia? You know why Ike had 2 million eastern Europeans forcibly "repatriated" with mother Russia (Operation "Keelhaul") so that they would be branded as "spies" by Stalin and sent to the Gulag where it gets 40 below in the wintertime?

Because the civilian government under FDR ordered it. Haven't we covered this a billion times yet?

[Blood of Tyrants]

I agree. Both parties are big government and believers in the "new world order". They just have different paths to drag us there.

[kcvl]

John McManus is the director of Grade the News, a media research project focusing on the quality of the news media in the San Francisco Bay Area. A former newspaper reporter and journalism professor, McManus has written extensively about communication, and particularly about how markets shape news.

[ladyinred]

Well, Tweedle Dum as you call him, would have gone all the way with partial birth abortion and said the terrorists of 911 will be brought to trial, not realizing they were dead. If you can't see the difference, then I can't help you.