Posted on 12/22/2009 7:29:27 PM PST by rabscuttle385
This week the Senate grinches stole Christmas. The Obama Nation is getting Obamacare.
It’s easy to blame the sixty Democrats, as the Wall Street Journal does, for "the worse bill ever." It solemnly declares: "These 60 Democrats are creating a future of epic increases in spending, taxes and command--and control regulation."
True enough. But what's the root cause of this permanent disaster?
Sorry, friends, but it’s not the Democrats, nor the American people who elected them.
The real culprits are two Republicans who ran the show the previous eight years: George W. Bush and his "master political strategist" Karl Rove. If it weren’t for these two in the White House, the Democrats wouldn’t have sixty senators, including a professional comedian from Minnesota, to close off debate and ram down our throats a bill worse than Hillary Care.
The fact is that the Bush & Rove act pushed through a litany of ruinous government policies that led to the lowest approval numbers in history:
the undeclared and costly War in Iraq and its stepchild the unconstitutional Patriot Act.
the monstrous No Child Left Behind Act that dramatically increased federal intervention in private education.
the Prescription Drug Act that gave the American people another benefit-corrupted entitlement and unfunded liability.
large and growing deficits and national debt.
the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, largely due to their failure to reform government-sponsored agencies Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.
large and growing deficits and national debt (according to the Cato Institute's latest report, George W. Bush was the biggest spender since LBJ!).
The supply-side tax cuts were probably the only major piece of economic legislation that Bush/Rove deserve credit for, but even then, they blundered in not making the tax cuts permanent. So now even if the Republicans take back Capitol Hill in the 2010 elections, all President Obama has to do is veto an extension of the Bush tax cuts, and voila, taxes will increase automatically.
In short, we are paying a heavy price for the "compassionate conservativism" of Bush/Rove.
Once Obamacare becomes law, like Medicare and other "Great Society" programs, it will never end. We will be stuck with national health care for the rest of our lives.
And how are Bush and Rove rewarded? We aren’t seeing much of George Bush, who is quietly ensconced in his new digs in Texas.
The tragedy is Karl Rove, who ironically has been rewarded by conservatives. He’s treated like a triumphant general on Fox News almost every night and was signed on as a regular columnist in the prestigious Wall Street Journal.
Mr. Skousen is a renowned financial economist, author and university professor. He has been the editor of the financial advice newsletter, Forecasts & Strategies, for 28 years. Two of his books highlight Milton Friedman's career: "The Making of Modern Economics" and "Vienna and Chicago, Friends or Foes?." Check out his latest book "The Big Three in Economics: Adam Smith, Karl Marx, And John Maynard Keynes" or "Investing in One Lesson" and "EconoPower: How a New Generation of Economists is Transforming the World." He is the producer of FreedomFest, the world's largest gathering of free minds, in Las Vegas every July (www.freedomfest.com).
What poll numbers? Are you talking about the poll numbers in favor of abandoning Iraq to al-Qaeda? Do you, like the Democrats you're defending, believe that this direction would have been better for national security? Why are you afraid to answer this?
talk radio was telling listeners up until the election the polls were not accurate
What poll numbers? What polls are you referring to? Where is your source? And why do you keep attacking talk radio? Oh wait, I know why.
that it would be another 2004
Speaking of 2004, how'd your side do against Bush?
Are you changing the subject to Obama...
I can understand why you don't want to talk about Obama's poll numbers...
Sorry I didnt repond to your great point. You are right. I have made that point over and over here after 2006, that we needed a conservative communicator and I got cursed here in response. I got pinged with “All we need is a vetoer” . And Bush partially played out that unpopular role. So shortsighted they acted as if that would win elections.
Look at his Stem Cell research veto, political poison because he couldnt sell ideas.
RE :” are you afraid to answer this?”
Because you are changing the subject to avoid my point. Bush turned the country off to republicans and on to democrats. The fact that Democrats were irresponsible on the subject National Security they polled high on makes your care worse, you and Bush turned the country to isolationism. You are beating yourself with your own arguments.
RE:”I can understand why you don't want to talk about Obama’s poll numbers...”
Because you jumped on me to defend Bush, but are trying to change the subject away from your nonexistent points to Obama. Every Bush-bot does that every post. Because they have no defense.
And you're still morning John Kerry's loss to Bush.
but this is 2009
Yes, Bush is retired and Obama is the President. How's Obama's poll numbers been lately? Oh, I forgot, you don't want to talk about that.
you paved the way for Obama/Pelosi for two election landslides.
I paved the way for Obama by voting for Bush in 2000 and 2004? Your logic is as kooky as your attempts at defending the Democrats.
Cheer that!
Why would I celebrate the elecion of people like Obama and Pelosi? That's your department. I voted against Obama.
Because you are changing the subject to avoid my point.
No I'm not. You had come up with some inane analogy comparing Clinton's lying to Bush's support for Operation Iraqi Freedom. When I linked the Democrats quotes on WMDs you started bashing talk radio (a typical reflex for your side when confronted with the truth). Then I asked you if you believed it would have been better for national security to abandon Iraq to al-qaeda as the dems wanted. You still don't want to talk about that, huh?
Because you jumped on me to defend Bush
I pointed out the hypocrisy of the Democratic Party and you started bashing talk radio. If you and the Dems were correct that abandoning Iraq to al-qaeda was better for national security, why are you afraid to state this outright instead of hinding behind some poll numbers that you're unable to source?
You jumped in to defend Bush and now all you want to do is talk about democrats. Well when you find a post with me posting about democrats and reply then I will talk about democrats. But you are not changing the subject.
The fact that Democrats are so bad is a reflection on you and Bush, look what you forced the country to choose. Obama/Pelosi elections are NOT a argument for Bush. They are about the huge Republican failure.
Somebody on FR gets it. Without that DOJ hit job markie begich the socialist mayor from Anchorage would never be senator casting the 60th vote for socialized "health care". Even with the DOJ running interference he was only able to win with a "recount" of incredibly close margins. This was the most undereported travesty in the last 20 years of the "justice department". This occured during the Bush administration. A poll released today reveals that over 70% of Alaskans are strongly opposed to the bill for socialized rationed health care but markie is going to vote along with his schumer daddy.
Against your kooky analogy with Clinton's lying. I'm still waiting on your explanation as to why you think abandoning Iraq to al-qaeda would have been better for America's national security.
Well when you find a post with me posting about democrats
Weren't you the one who came up with that goofy analogy comparing Bush's support for Operation Iraqi Freedom to Clinton lying about sex? Then when I linked the Democrats quotes on WMD, you started bashing talk radio.
look what you forced the country to choose
By voting for Bush in 2000 and 2004, I forced the country to choose Obama and Pelosi? Like I said, this arguement is as goofy as your attempts to defend the Democrats on national security.
Good point.
That says it all!!
Yes, I agree. Couldn’t sell ideas...
That’s what it comes down to. Romney seems to be a good communicator. It’s just that I couldn’t trust him to push sound Conservative policy.
He’s still convinced his RomneyCare was the best thing since flapjacks.
I know a lot of people want to see Bush as this generation’s Ronald Reagan. While I sympathize with that desire, because I would love to see a person come along who could legitimately be seen as that, it is a massive insult to Ronald Reagan to claim he was nothing more than what George Bush was.
He could communicate.
He knew what to communicate.
He knew just what buttons to push on the left, and how to do it.
He got Democrats to come to his side of the isle, without ‘compassionate conservatism’ or selling his Conservative soul to do it, at the polls.
He wasn’t afraid to call a spade a spade. He told it like it was, and explained why it was.
He stood up to the Democrats, but in a way that got it’s leadership to join him.
He rebuilt our military, after Carter, and didn’t just set new lowered limits to gloss over the prior cuts.
I miss Reagan too much, to accept an inferior substitute.
Thank you AuntB.
Reflections of a (very unhappy) former Bush-Bot in Obama-land
Nice comments. I’m bookmarking this post and will return next week to address them.
I see things a little differently, but I don’t want that to telegraph to you that I don’t understand what drove them and that I think you’re way off course. That’s not the case.
I appreciate the fact that you took the time to write down what you thoughts were/are, and have made those thoughts available for review by others.
A good healthy debate is needed on our side. We need to clearly define our goals, and lay out a step by step policy to realize those goals.
Electing another RINO, IS NOT on the table IMO. By saying that, I am not inferring that you think it is either.
Take care.
When I made the analogy that “WMDs” was Bush's “ I did not have sex with that women ”. I was not referring to the two authors intentions (Lie vs Mistake which everyone has their own personal opinion.) I was referring to their place in history as seen by the population including independents, obviously outside of most here.
Democrats always argue (to me here in MD too) that Bush lied about WMDs, and Obama is misjudging things like the economy and jobs. It's Dems fixed rule. I always ask liberals if they really think Bush thought he could get away with such a huge lie (their assumption seems silly) . Bush supporters argue that Bush's actions were fully justified because he truly believed in WMDs. I disagree with that too, he was in charge, had info we will never see or could see then, and made the decisions AND THE HUGE SALES pitch (and we cant blame congress for the invasion as Hannity tries much as we would like to) .
Just thought of another :” It depends on what the meaning of the word is is ” becomes “ It depends on what the meaning of the word WMDs is ”
Oh come on, you spent the better part of a week trashing every Palin thread with how she was unsupportable because of her support of McCain. I just laughingly tweaked you back because one of your candidates (DeMint)supports Romney (the ultimate RINO).
It's an irony thing.........
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.