Posted on 05/15/2008 6:27:32 AM PDT by TSchmereL
. . . Democrats will control Congress. If they also control the White House, we will have a series of legislative packages that will make the Great Society look like a libertarian government. . . .
The country is in trouble. We have forgotten our founding principles, and we move inexorably toward a European style socialist state, with the only winners being an enormous bureaucracy. This will accelerate the economic decline.
The argument is to give the Democrats their head, and pick up the pieces after the inevitable crash. I think that overlooks the resilience of tax and tax, spend and spend, elect and elect regimes. We haven't seen much in the way of reforms in Europe. The Democrats will create new bureaucracies that can never be dismantled: an example is the Department of Education. Reagan came into office determined to abolish it. Now it owns US education, and No Child Left Behind is entrenched. The Iron Law of Bureaucracy is inexorable.
. . .
I conclude that McCain as president is a far lesser evil than Obama would be. But there are those in whom hope springs eternal: who hold the view that Obama is not what all the evidence says he is, a left wing liberal intellectual with Chicago political connections and all the ethical implications that implies. Hope springs eternal. . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at jerrypournelle.com ...
Maybe : ) It seems to me that a moderate socialist (McCain) can and will do much more damage than an extreme Socialist (Hussein). Simply for two reasons, first he will have no opposition and secondarily he will accomplish what it is possible to achieve (he will get extremely bad laws passed). A traitor from within doesn't generally work from a basis of ideological purity, he generally has other agendas.
Hussein on the other hand would face opposition even from his own party because they would fear that the unintended consequences might make them look bad. Hussein would be a very constrained President.
IF, it can be cleaned up. The bureacracy these slugs will create will be impossible to undo. Never mind the activist ACLU Supreme court justices they will appoint. We are in deep doo-doo.
“Big Government Conservatism” exists. The phrase was first used by Fred Barnes to describe George W. Bush who is, in fact, a “Big Government Conservative.”
George W. Bush saw Big Government Conservatism as a trade-off. To gain free-market reforms and expand individual choice, he was willing to broaden programs and increase spending. Thus his aim in proposing to add a prescription drug benefit to Medicare is to reform the entire health-care system for seniors.
George W. Bush believed that People like big government so long as it is not a huge drag on the economy.
I am a Conservative. It was well known that George W. Bush was a “Big Government Conservative” well before 2004. I still voted for George W. Bush in 2004 because the alternative was worse.
I am a Conservative. I hate Big Government Conservatism. Big Government Conservatism is a total failure. But whatever it is, “Soviet Style Communism” is far worse.
When faced with a choice between “Big Government Conservatism” and “Soviet Style Communism,” I, a Conservative, will reluctantly vote for “Big Government Conservatism.” And hate it.
If you actually believe what you just wrote, you should vote for Barack Obama.
I think the logic is convoluted.
That is true. And a MORE committed socialist is still MORE dangerous than a LESS committed socialist.
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.