Posted on 05/09/2006 7:50:33 AM PDT by Incorrigible
I often hear from readers who wonder why I so thoroughly dislike George W. Bush.
It's simple. Living in New Jersey, as I do, I spend a lot of time arguing politics with liberals. In the pre-Bush era, I found it easy to win such arguments. I have fond memories of defending the policies of Ronald Reagan back in the good old days. "He called the Soviet Union an evil empire!" the liberal would say.
"But it is an evil empire," I would point out...
...Before George W. came along, conservatives were on the winning side of every major issue. We were the ones who disdained the Beltway class, who pushed for smaller, more responsible government. Remember term limits? The balanced-budget amendment? In the Clinton era, the GOP promised such reforms...
...But to call Bush a traitor to his political philosophy is to imply that he had one. He didn't. You can read through Bush's various speeches over the years without coming up with the slightest hint of a coherent system of thought. In this, he's the opposite of Reagan...
...That's George W. to a T, an entertainer past his prime. Only his fellow entertainers -- Rush Limbaugh et al. -- still pretend he knows what he's doing...
As I am fond of reminding readers, I was onto this fraud from the first. In November of 1999 I urged that he drop out of the GOP primary. In the spring of 2004, I suggested that renominating him would lead to disaster for the party. The only good I can see coming out of this mess is that it opens a whole new line of argument against the liberals: After Bush, no president will ever be trusted again.
(Excerpt) Read more at nj.com ...
So, Bush is good because Gore and Kerry are bad? The converse is why many voted for Kerry: Kerry is good because Bush is bad.
Until there's a better alternative to Bush that is FEASIBLE, conservatives have to settle for the half-a-loaf we get judicial appointments, tax cuts, etc.
More like one-twentieth of a loaf. With it we also get runaway spending (and I better not get the old "Congress spends the money line"; yes, they do, but the president either approves of it or a 2/3 majority overrules him; Bush, however, never met a spending bill he didn't like). Tax cuts mean very little without spending cuts. We need both. He has done little/nothing for conservatives in the social realm and has caved in to the liberals often enough. The list goes on.
The Republicans amaze me. They bill themselves as conservatives when the liberal agenda runs the country amuck, but when they get in office, they pander to the people they beat and start acting a lot like them. Do you want a truly conservative government? Here's what needs to happen: conservatives need to vote conservative. If this leads to a momentary liberal take over, fine. Liberals will put the country in a downward spiral and after they do, people will listen (think Reagan following Jimmy Carter). If the Republicans run liberals, vote third-party or stay home. The bloody nose they get in that election will make them come to their senses.
"Could be denial, could be a really weird attempt at a fashion statement."
This from someone who had fuscia hair (just read your profile -- cute kid!)
Did the Boston thing, too (MIT). Hated it, although MIT is largely (largely) an island of conservatism in a sea of liberal garbage. Engineers are too logical to be liberals.
[A. Pole] And he had SIX years to close it.
Of which five years were post-9/11.
We need to scrap the entire immigration system, both the law and the institutions and create a new, working one from the scratch - like the metric system was created to replace the preceding hodgepodge.
Is it going to happen? - not likely. Insted, our elected represntatives will once again jerry-rig with duct tape and sweep under the carpet.
There is yet another reason why Bush did nothing. He may be afraid that closing the border will throw Mexico into a crisis, even revolution, bringing into power another Fidel Castro or Hugo Chavez.
I express my opinions a number of ways (including letter writing). WE did vote for exactly what he is pushing right now.
President Bush Proposes New Temporary Worker Program
January 7, 2004
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/01/20040107-3.html
That said, please explain how Rats in charge help our cause. I find no advantage to giving up the high ground on the battlefield. Why can't we work to improve the quality of our representatives while at the same time CRUSHING THE LIFE FROM OUR TRUE ENEMIES ON THE LEFT?
Cutting taxes? Given the Republican majorities in both houses Bush's tax cuts were weak, back-loaded and sunsetted.
Here's the congressional make-up by party during Reagan's tenure.
Democratic Party majority counts highlighted in yellow.Yeah, Kudos to the President for the WOT and not much else. Bush is no Reagan.
Source:
The office of the Clerk U.S. House of Representatives
Party Division in the Senate, 1789-Present
House Senate Reps Dems Reps Dems 1981-1983 192 243 51 53 46 7 1983-1985 167 268 101 54 46 8 1985-1987 182 253 71 53 47 6 1987-1989 177 258 81 45 55 10
Most folks on the right voted for Bush despite his stance on a guest worker program, not because of it. And apparently he or his staffers either cannot hear the rising din over this matter, think we'll just hold our noses like we've done in the past in matters such as spending and education, or they just simply don't care.
None of those possibilities bode well for the GOP this election.
That said, please explain how Rats in charge help our cause. I find no advantage to giving up the high ground on the battlefield. Why can't we work to improve the quality of our representatives while at the same time CRUSHING THE LIFE FROM OUR TRUE ENEMIES ON THE LEFT?
I have never said I want the Rats to win. I stand with the GOP House on this issue - you know, the guys up for election this year. And my position is that Bush MUST drop his call for a guest worker program, or else Bush could well erode support for the GOP House and help a Dem victory.
Good post, Buford. But I guess we all must be DU plants to be criticizing Bush over most of his domestic agenda. Man, it's taken me almost eight years and over 40,000 posts on FR, but I've finally reached deep cover status from DU.
Ronald Reagan prepared for the confrontation with the Soviet Union and had his endgame strategy in place before issuing that challenge. George Bush just rattled his saber. Reagan was playing chess. Bush was playing blind man's bluff.
Ronald Reagan built up the military.
George Bush is rebuilding the military.
Reagan built up the military to overwhelm the capabilities of his adversaries before they were needed. Bush is rebuilding the forces after he committed them.
Ronald Reagan defeated the Soviet Union.
George Bush is defeating al Qaeda.
Reagan had the patience and strategic genius to outmaneuver the Soviets before he ever engaged them. Bush jumped in first and then scrambled to put together the details of his plan.
Ronald Reagan cut taxes.
George Bush cut taxes.
Reagan controlled spending in conjunction with tax cuts. Bush threw money at everything in sight.
Ronald Reagan failed to cut spending.
George Bush failed to cut spending.
Reagan failed to cut spending. Bush increased spending dramatically.
Ronald Reagan offered amnesty to illegals.
George Bush is offering guest worker programs for illegals.
Reagan screwed up. Bush has Reagan's precedent to guide him and is still screwing up.
Ronald Reagan was charged by Democrats with abuse of power and lying.
George Bush has been charged by Democrats with abuse of power and lying.
Reagan pushed the envelope of his authority with finesse. Bush pushes it with with a bulldozer.
Ronald Reagan called on God for help.
George Bush has called on God for help.
Reagan acknowledged seeking guidance through prayer. Bush grandstanded that his faith dictated his actions.
Reagan was effective because he thought out his strategy and then executed it with the precision of a scalpel. Bush impatiently bashed away with a sledgehammer and left the details to others to figure out after the fact.
Reagan would have fought the WoT primarily with intelligence and covert ops. He would have dumped the CIA on its ear and rebuilt it before engaging them, not afterward like Bush is doing. He would have fought Iraq by proxy through a fomented civil war, not by throwing troops at the problem.
I know Reagan's methods and I know Bush's. Bush is no Reagan.
All that said, given the choices of the 2000 and 2004 election I would still vote for Bush over Gore or Kerry. That doesn't mean I am happy with Bush's abilities though, and as such I am disappointed in him.
Back in '92 my liberals friends rubbed Clinton's victory in my face. In '94 I thanked them and said Clinton was the best thing that happened to the Republican party. What will we say in November 2006?
It is up to President Bush and NO ONE ELSE to turn things around.
I think most of the adults at ICE and the like are working on counter terrorism issues. Just listen to the Rats. They scream about containers and this draws resources to the ports. Does it hurt issues that we worry about? Sure, but Pedro is not planting IEDs in your flowerbeds.
If we keep getting run in circles by politics we will not get anything under control. Local municipalities could help out too but, no one will help until they get a slice of the DHS grants. As long as we tolerate 'enforcement free zones' this interior problem will not go away.
Question for you though. How are the comparisons for actual crossers caught in the border regions? Seems like the asset shift, post 911 may have put more agents in these areas. That might explain some of the interior drop also.
Another issue I wonder about too. Does work place enforcement hurt employers disproportunately? (I am not defending the scum, however if you allow/encourage illegal immigration, does that not force business to use the cheapest labor?) This whole picture would likely appeal to Rats since they hurt/punish business and create a victim class who are waiting for a socialist type rescue/voter registration. That means we should expect the Rats to push work place enforcement exclusively, giving clear support for your numbers.
Fix the border is the best solution, then clean up the mess.
You have to both secure the border AND provide interior enforcement to fix the problem. Encouraging border intrusions by promising amnesty and rewards only makes the problem worse.
Bull! You need a reminder:
Perot gave us Clinton -- twice!
You mean uni-brows, right?!?
Agreed. The point is, he got our vote with that as one of his main priorities. We want the man that does not follow the polls when he agrees with us, but get all pi$$ed off when he displays the same conviction when he goes against some other issue. Words like STEADFAST, RESOLVE, BACKBONE OF STEEL, and the like are a double edged sword.
Slowly but steadily, we won people over. By the late 60's, we had an emerging GOP majority in national elections. Nixon's Watergate gave us Carter by a hair, but Reagan corrected that with gusto four years later. We continued to win the intellectual battles, as socialism failed in place after place, and the US economy showed that capitalism works best. Clinton was the exception that proved the rule, a minority president who won only by siphoning off the populist voters with Perot and only because he pretended to be a centrist AND only because the new conservative majority was so pissed at Bush because he clearly was not a conservative.
But the pain of a Clinton victory was softened because it helped the American people decide it was finally time to jettison the Dem congress that had prevented Republicans from doing much in office to actually change the leftist/socialist mixed economy that was erected unconstitutionally in the 30s under FDR. Now, we had the Congress, and with W's election in 2000, we might actually be able to accomplish things.
Well, Bush has done very little to advance the conservative agenda. His best efforts in that regard are his Supreme Court picks, which (other than the Miers fiasco) were fantastic. But on government spending, bureaucracy, immigration and a host of other things, Bush is indistinguishable from Clinton. Name one executive order of Clinton's that Bush reversed on his own, from the Utah land grab to the "wall" between justice and the FBI. He left Clinton's people in State, CIA, Justice, the Pentagon.
The war on terror has been listless at best. He should have gone into Iraq one year earlier, as Steyn has written, and as I was saying at the time, not just with hindsight. He should have been more forceful with Syria, instead of letting them attack us from the rear. He should have been actively arming Iranian freedom fighters in the hills of the north since 2002, and fomenting rebellion there, which even if unsuccessful, would tie up those mullahs so they couldn't be causing trouble in Iraq. He should be more active in Waziristan, and if it means venturing into Pakistan once in a while in hot pursuit of AQ, so be it. Stuff it Mushareff. And as a security issue, the border is a joke.
But is is as a cultural and political issue that the border is most threatening to Americans. Suppose that the numbers are right, that there are 12 million illegals in the US right now. If legalized, those people are going to be Democrat voters for at least 3 generations, based on simple demographics. There are enough of them now to sway elections in states that are getting closer, such as Arizona, Nevada, Colorado. They will swell Rat voter rolls in Rat states like California, New Mexico, and as far away as Pennsylvania, Ohio and Louisiana. Even in GOP states, like Texas, they will cause loss of house seats in Districts that are close.
However, what is far worse is that those 12 million will be 30 million within a scant 10 or 20 years, as relatives of legal citizens and the children of legal citizens come pouring across the border. That, my friends, will swamp the GOP and send it to minority status for 70 years, if not forever, because once the Dems are back in control for good, with modern technology and there own personal propaganda mills, they may never let go of the levers of power again. That GOP (I should say conservative, because the two are not synonomous) century will be cut off at its inception, before it ever got a chance to get off the ground and show what it could do for this country.
To maintain the majority that we have worked so hard for, to restore constitutional government, and reduce the size and scope of government, we have to build on the current slim majority, which is approximately 51/49, into a permanent 55/45 or higher majority. Demographic trends, excluding Mexicans, are with us--a wealthier nation, growing suburbs, more educated populace. The FDR socialists are dying off, and the battle is now between the hippie/baby boom/marxist radicals and the free marketeers who revere Reagan. The radicals are not able to sustain the intellectual argument--among Americans. But they can convince 90 percent of the Mexicans to vote with them. And that will change the equation completely.
Bush thinks that he can coopt their votes by being nice to them. But he can't, no more than the fact that the GOP supported civil rights more than the Dems in the 60s led to black support of the GOP. Dems pushed welfare, and blacks voted for Dems, and that is what poor uneducated laborers from Central America will do.
Maybe Bush thinks he needs to be nice to keep the support of current hispanic citizens, but it's not true. About 47 percent of hispanics voted for Prop 187 in California. They are threatened by a new wave of immigration from even poorer hispanics, and so long as our policies are anti-immigrant, not anti-hispanic, the hispanic citizens will not decrease their support substantially from the 40 percent or so that currently vote GOP. Most of those are Cuban anyway.
I get so angry about this because Bush is pissing away the efforts of millions of conservatives over many years, including Jim Robinson right here, to convince Americans that conservatism is the best philosophy of government, if he lets this happen. We can't let him do it--it will take another Harriet Miers times 10.
Not true. Many voted for Bush because he promised to fight abortion, because he promised not to involve the US military in nation building, etc, etc ...
There was nothing about open borders in his platform.
Excellent post. This is about far more than Bush.
HEAR, HEAR!
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.