He is wrong on immigration, no one is perfect.
Protect our borders and coastlines from all foreign invaders!
Support our Minutemen Patriots!
Be Ever Vigilant!
Posted on 02/11/2006 12:49:16 PM PST by Reagan Man
Your statement is pretty misleading. Descretionary spending as a percentage of GDP was higher for Reagan than it is for Bush.
The starting point for any "descretionary spending" is zero. It's irrelevant what the level of discrestionary spending was previous to both Reagan's or Bush's descresionary budgets.
Hey the 1994 elections were great. But the 96 and 98 elections pretty much corrected what was the true picture. We currently have a 15 seat majority.
I love Rick Santorium. I guess most here would classify him as pretty big conservative. Right now he is in the fight of his life against a moderate Dem Pro lifer. It will be interesting to see the results of that election e. I suspect the "true conservatives" will all chalk it up to corruption in Philly if he loses.
He is wrong on immigration, no one is perfect.
Protect our borders and coastlines from all foreign invaders!
Support our Minutemen Patriots!
Be Ever Vigilant!
I don't care what Reagan "said" about immigration. It's what a president does. Bush has also said similar things.
Reagan did sign into law the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. It specified prosecution and punishment for employers who hired illegals. If that law was enforced, the IRCA of 1986 would have turned out to be what it was meant to be, a one time amnesty deal.
Reagan's amnesty was a citizenship amnesty. Bush's is not.
I really do feel for Santorum.
He would have been the underdog in any case, but his relentless campaigning for Arlen "Not Proven" Specter was really an unforced error in what was already shaping up to be an extremely difficult race.
Talk about biting the hand that feeds you.
This immigration issue is going to backfire on us if we dont handle it properly. I want something to be done also. I also see some merit with what Bush is proposing. I would suggest people on this think about some sort of compromise that forwards all our goals.
I am jst sick and tired of being basically told I cannot disagree with the POTUS on anything or else I am somehow disloyal or not patriotic. I voted for the man. Twice. In a race between him and Hitlery I might not even stay home, and go ahead and vote for him again unless he has amnestied all the G.D. illegals by that time.
And who says you can't.
I think what you are sick and tired of is being proved that you are basically a whining hack, when facts are presented to you.
I understand why we campaigned for him. In fact in some ways I respect Santorium for doing that because in many ways it was the right thing to do. For the record I am no Spector fan. I mean if the conservatives punish him for that then thats crazy. I just really want a win there. I was disappointed after all the trips to PENN we couldnt take it in 2004. If Santorioum doesnt win there I am starting to fear the long term prospects of the party in that huge State as to State wide races
Look bot, I wasn't addressing you. When I want an illegal snuck over the border, I'll give ya a ping.
Big surprise, huh?
Hmm, well I guess you are going to throw in the towel about Lynn Swann also.
If there is one thing about you doom and gloom whiners is that you are consistent in the ways you can be played like a violun by the MSM.
Aww, let's have a pity party for the knee jerk whiner.
Yep, ironically he was overtaking Clinton when Perot dropped out because "Republicans messed up his daughter's wedding" or some nonsense. Clinton & Perot were a team. Rumor has it that they met in Texarkana, AR in late 1991 to defeat Bush I.
I recently did a short analysis of data posted at the Bush administrations website for the Office of Management & Budget, omb.gov. The data compares the Bush 2005 budget that just closed, versus the Reagan 1985 budget adn account for each President's 4th year final budgetary spending figures. While this is data from only one year, its indicative of Reagan's entire eight years in office. A truthful representation.
Human Reources: aka. social welfare & entitlements: Bush spent 64% of the annual budget, Reagan spent 49.9%.
Defense: Reagan spent 26.7%, Bush spent 18.6%.
Non-defense discretionary programs: Bush spent 20.2%, Reagan spent 17.1%.
Social Security: Bush spent 20.9%, Reagan spent 19.8%.
Medicare: Bush spent 11.8%, Reagan spent 6.8%.
Education: Bush spent 2.8%, Reagan spent 1.6%.
Clearly this data shows that Bush far outspent Reagan in the area of social welfare & entitlements. Highlighted by Bush`s out of control spending on Medicare. While Reagan's budget had considerably more spending in the area of national defense then did Bush`s budget.
Its time the GOP got back to its conservative roots.
If there were a way to put a rating on Bush's Constitutionalist/Conservatism, I'd give Bush 2.3 stars out of a possible 5.
Better than the negative rating I assign to each Rat that has run for the Presidency, but still far from what America really needs to remain viable into the foreseeable future.
And from the looks of the next potential Republican nominee, it's going to get MUCH worse, not any better.
The "Bushbots" got exactly what they wanted and appear to be extremely satisfied. By my definiton of "Bushbot", most if not the vast overwhelmingly majority are NOT Conservatives nor Constitutionalists.
Clinton and the MSM demonized the GOP (which, IMO, began the birth of RINOism among Congressional Republicans) Congress in those two Congressional elections, and as a result, the GOP lost some seats.
My point was that his support for Specter-like the support rendered by the White House-was completely superfluous, and that anything that will dampen conservative ardor for Santorum's re-election-keep in mind, this is his base-should be avoided at all costs.
There was no logical reason for him to go out of his way to support Specter, other than some lingering guilt from the 1994 campaign, when Specter helped Santorum to win his seat.
However, I don't think Snarlin' Arlen will shed a tear when and if his colleague loses this November.
The Senate is filled with egotistical, self-involved megalomaniacs, and to expect reciprocity in a place like that is the height of naivete.
I suppose you could make an argument that Santorum "owed" him, but there is no rational explanation for Bush's uncritical support of a senator who is-at best-only supportive of half of the White House's agenda, and is certainly no conservative.
"Compassionate Conservative" = Liberal Moderate
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.