Posted on 04/25/2006 9:49:30 AM PDT by Reagan Man
Well said.
That's easily one of the dopiest posts I've ever read.
>>>>Bush, of course, has never pretended to be a small government conservative. He favors an expanded role of public education despite the evidence that public education cannot do the job.
I see it differently.
Many conservatives thought Bush would be the second coming of Reagan, or at least someone who would try to advance the Reagan agenda. Bush campaigned on a strong defense, tax cuts, pro-life issues and reducing the national debt by elimination of waste, fraud and abuse in the federal bureaucracy.
In 2000 Bush said of Algore, quote:
"He expands entitlements, without reforms to sustain them. Spending without discipline, spending without priorities, and spending without an end."
We all remember what happened to Algore and we all remember what happened to Bush41 too. Bush41 didn't advance the Reagan agenda and lost. GWBush was supposedly a different man. He was a Texas conservative. Bush gave America her tax cuts, increased defense spending and promoted a strong right to life agenda.
Having said all that, America got a few things from Bush that we didn't expect. Namely, a new trillion dollar welfare entitlement program supplying subsidized prescription drugs to seniors, an 86% increase in education spending and huge historic discretionary pork barrel spending bills for transportation, farm and energy. We've also witnessed run-away social spending on Medicare and no reform of Social Security.
Conservatives aren't happy with Bush and rightfully so. Along with a domestic spending agenda that matches anything liberal Democrats gave us over the years, we've got a POTUS who basically supports open borders, illegal immigration and amnesty. Bush has also shown himslef to be a globalist of the first order. Just like his old man.
At best, Bush has been a mixed bag as POTUS.
I guess you haven't heard what Howard Dean of the DNC is saying? He's, of course, being duplicitous, but that's another issue. Whether congressional democrats are listening is another question.
I guess you prefer death by a thousand slices rather than a clean stab to the heart. Enjoy.
Well, Reagan was a globalist. No one can promote a big military without increasing the size of the federal government. The national security issue creates a big pig and Congress simply adds the pounds.
Ronald Reagan was a big believer in free trade, as long as it was fair trade. And while Reagan wasn't a protectionist per se, many economists considered his administration to be the most "protectionist" Presidency since Herbert Hoover. Reagan signed off on special trade protection for Harley-Davidson, imposed quotas on steel imports, pressured Japan to restrict vehicle shipments to the United States, tightened limits on foreign textiles, accepted new barriers to imported sugar, raised duties on Canadian shakes and shingles. All in the name of fair trade. In 1980 Reagan campaigned on creating a free trade agreement with Canada and Mexico. Later that became NAFTA, which Reagan supported. But Reagan wasn't a globalist in the sense that Bush41 and Bush43 are. In the DPW/UAE deal, Bush43 clearly showed he is more concerned with the interests of foreign entities, then he is with American interests. Reagan placed American interests first and foremost, at all times.
It's not a single issue when it affects so many other issues; healthcare, education, lack of good paying jobs for so many Americans who were able to feed their families working in construction, painting houses, landscaping, etc.
You list suggests that the difference between Reagan and Bush are a matter of degree. Bush was a Texas Republican, not a Texas conservative. I am not sure we get very far separating American and foreign interests. Reagan spent a lot of American bucks to free eastern European countries. or doesn't that count as a "foreign" interest.
To top it off, this program was written by the K Street lobbyists working for the pharmacetical companies.
In other words, our "representatives" represent only big money lobbyists, not their constituents (I realize this does not apply to evry single one of them, but WAY too many)
Watching them up there crawfishin' on the gasoline and illegals makes me sick. Good riddance to them.
As I recall, Dole didn't want to be president; just wanted to be on the top of the ticket, which he thought was owed to him.
When I watched the debates, I knew he wasn't fighting for the job.
Ditto!
Here in Arizona, there is no border, I am reminded of that every damned time I step out of the house.
***his liberal spending has run up huge deficits***
His "Liberal" spending cut the Democrats off at the knees by taking away the Big Hammers they were going to use...
Don't like, but it WAS great politics. THAT'S WHY THEY HATE HIM SO MUCH, he doesn't just beat Dems, he DESTROYS them...
You're way out of line and out of touch. A good shot of isolationism is exactly what this country needs. That sounds like crazy talk because the elites (including the bushies) have made isolationism a dirty word. But unequal relationships where we give to them, they do nothing for us, and then they spit on us are a big problem for us. And yes, I'm talking about hordes of illiterate, uneducated, disease-carrying, law-scoffing ILLEGAL ALIENS from the socialist, turd world hellhole of mexico trying to escape their fate and turn our country into the same.
You think so? Maybe the pubs would fight back if they were in the minority.
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.