Posted on 04/18/2002 5:43:33 AM PDT by Commie Basher
Two weeks ago, I suggested that George Bush's presidency had turned out to be amazingly similar to what we had feared from Al Gore. The only major difference is that there's very little conservative opposition to Bush's expansion of government, while we could have expected fierce opposition to Gore.
The article provoked some angry reactions from people who said that only a fool could fail to notice all the good deeds George Bush has done.
The Bush agenda:
Not wanting to be a fool, I've compiled a list of the good things conservatives believe George Bush has achieved so far. Let's look at them:
He opposed the Kyoto agreement on global warming, while Al Gore supported it. But since the Senate had already rejected the treaty, it doesn't matter what the president thinks about it.
He's said he wants to cancel the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty so the U.S. can build a missile defense. All well and good. But he hasn't done anything to get America out of the treaty or to protect us from missile attack, beyond what Bill Clinton had already done. So far, it's just talk.
He hasn't signed a bill imposing new gun restrictions. But, then, Congress hasn't passed such a bill, so we don't know what he'll do when the test comes. But he's already proposed closing "loopholes" in the unconstitutional gun laws already on the books. And given the way he's embraced foreign aid, campaign-finance reform, federal health care and practically everything else, why should we assume he won't sign the next gun-control bill? (He signed many such bills in Texas.)
Bush and Gore make opposing public statements on abortion. But just as Bill Clinton did nothing to promote abortion, so George Bush has done nothing to reduce abortions.
On Social Security, Bush has talked about wanting to let you invest a teensy bit of what now goes down the Social Security drain. But he has sent no specific proposal to Congress. Even if Congress would turn it down, shouldn't Bush at least make the Democrats publicly oppose your right to invest your own earnings?
Al Gore probably wouldn't have pushed through a tax cut as Bush did. In my view, a tax cut without a spending cut means only that the monstrous burden of big government is being rearranged – not reduced. But since others may see the issue differently, this matter is at least debatable. However, even here Bush discarded some of the provisions he had labeled essential – such as tax relief for corporations.
Perhaps Al Gore wouldn't have handled the terrorist situation as Bush has. But we don't know what Gore would have done. Prior to Sept. 11, we didn't know how Bush would have handled such a crisis. In fact, he's already reversed some of his earlier promises – such as not imposing pro-American governments on foreign countries.
The scorecard:
In sum, George Bush seems very good on things that don't count – gun bills he hasn't had to veto, environmental treaties that won't be enacted anyway, talking about the ABM treaty or reforming Social Security while doing nothing about them.
But where something has actually happened – foreign aid, farm subsidies, education, health care, campaign-finance reform, corporate welfare, and much more – he's expanding government at a blinding pace, just as Al Gore probably would have done.
And I doubt that Gore would have signed a punitive tariff on foreign steel – which could trigger a terrible trade war and injure the economy.
Who's to blame?
Am I carping at George Bush?
No, I'm carping at the conservatives who would have been screaming bloody murder if Al Gore were president and had done exactly what George Bush has done.
Conservatives don't oppose Bush because he's a Republican. For most Democrats and Republicans, it's all just a game – "beat the other team, whatever it takes."
If all you want is a president who will say what you want to hear, George Bush is your man. But if you want a president who actually does something to make your life better and reduce the government to its constitutional limits, you're no better off with Bush than with Gore.
Sorry, but that's the way it is.
Raise your sights
They tell you that in politics you must compromise. But all the compromises have been in the direction of bigger and more oppressive government. There are never any compromises in our favor – producing smaller reductions than we might want.
If you don't ask for what you want – if you don't demand what you want as the price of your support – you shouldn't be surprised that you never get what you really want.
When are you going to raise your sights – and stop supporting those who are selling out your few remaining liberties?
You're right. If we sell out our principles, we're whores. We've given up the moral high ground and are just haggling over price.
Immediately ending the war on drugs would immdediately reduce violent crime by 50% in one day, would also put the mafia into bankrupcy within a couple of years, and would save the tax paying public hundreds of billions of dollars.
What did voting GOP get you?
Smaller government? No.
Fewer unconstitutional laws? No.
Less government spending? No.
More freedom? No.
Tax reform? No.
A tax cut? Yes. But so miniscule that it is barely noticable. A tax cut that is to be phased in and out. Smoke and mirrors.
Besides which, in the current situation, the GOP could at least prevent the government from growing. Control of the Senate is not necessary to keep government from enacting unconstitutional laws.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Since Goldwater, conservatives have been "just one election away" from taking over the GOP. We've been told over and over to stick with the Party and take it over from the inside. Just support this one more leftist and next election surely a conservative will take over.
And the GOP continues to go to the left.
What has it been? Almost 40 years? We still are no closer to taking over the GOP. It's insane to keep on trying.
That the federal Constitution is silent on the matter and that the states should decide.
I agree with the bit about saving tax money. Don't think hundreds of billions, but significant amounts.
As for the other? Not a chance.
Libertarians seem to believe that if drugs are legalized, the Bayer aspirin people are going to start making herion and the corner drug store will start selling it. It just isn't going to happen.
Before they start making herion for sale in the US, don't you think the Bayer people will go talk to RJ Reynolds? Can you imagine how many hungry lawyers would be in line to sue over that?
Can you imagine the boycotts and the protests from the concerned mothers? MADD and that sort of group would go ape. All on the 6 o'clock news.
No company is going to touch the manufacture and sale of "drugs" with a 10-foot pole. Even if they though they could somehow convince the FDA that herion or crack cocaine was "safe and effective".
So drugs are going to be a black market commodity for the foreseeable future even if we legalize them. The same people who make and sell them now will continue to control the business. They'll still have turf wars and shoot each other. The only difference is that we won't lock the users up.
No problem. I don't have all day, so let's start with just three threads from different time periods. The first thread is from the presidential election, Nov. 2000. The vast majority of registered "Big L" Libertarian Party members on that thread talked about how Harry Browne was such a great guy, the ONLY guy they were "willing" to vote for, and how much he representive their values, and the ideals of the party. The second thread is right after 9/11. Harry attacked the U.S. for defending itself against terrorist attacks. The ast majority of registered "Big L" Libertarian Party members on that thread posted disclaimers that Harry did NOT represent the beliefs of the party, that they regretted voting for him, and how they wished another Libertarian would have been nominated but they were left with no choice. Now we have this thread. Seems we've come full circle. The vast majority of registered "Big L" Libertarian Party members are talking about how Harry Browne was such a great guy, better than any of the other people running for President, and how much he representive their values, and the ideals of the LP party.
THREAD #1
Harry Browne for President
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39d6932f2e66.htm
Posted on 09/30/2000
REGISTERED LP PARTY MEMBER COMMENTS:
Harry Browne is the only candidate in the race that even comes close to espousing constitutional conservative government!
Cheese and rice open your freakin eyes.
29 Posted on 09/30/2000 19:36:02 PDT
>>"...I simbly disagree with his [Harry's] vision for America."<<
In other words [if you disagree with Harry Browne] you disagree with:
1). The Constitution
2). The Bill of rights (contained within the Constitution)
3). Liberty
4). American sovereignty
5). Smaller government
62 Posted on 09/30/2000 20:25:31 PDT
Harry Browne represents a big breath of fresh air to many voters who are tired of more of the same. Sure, BC/AG have committed treason, etc., but the Congress failed the people and the Constitution miserably. This is the reality we have to deal with. In four years it will be more of the same, 'tow the line so we can save the government from the traitors!!' And we will all be victims again as we are let down by those we entrust with our lives.
Posted on 10/01/2000 02:54:11 PDT
I'm an evangelical Christian who will be voting for Harry Browne this November. You have to ask yourself, would Jesus try to use government to force people to do what He wanted? A "Christian" who supports the use of force to promote his religion is no Christian at all.
Posted on 10/01/2000 07:01:34 PDT
Total nonsense. Bush doesn't own my vote. Neither does Gore. Without Browne in the race, I wouldn't vote. Posted on 10/01/2000 09:02:48 PDT
I will not sanction evil. Even for a 'good' cause.
221 Posted on 10/02/2000 00:50:17 PDT
And so do I. A bump for Harry Browne and freedom
. 37 Posted on 09/30/2000 19:48:58 PDT
Unlike all recent occupants of the White House, [Harry Browne] would take that oath seriously. And the Constitution gives the federal government no authority to be involved in abortion in any way.
I challenge you or any other Bush supporter to counter the above statements by Harry Browne with equal or superior statements made by Bush regarding the same subjects.
Harry has also said that as president he would do everything in his power to repeal Roe v Wade.
99 Posted on 09/30/2000 22:00:14 PDT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THREAD #2
HARRY BROWNE: "When will we learn?"
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/521067/posts?q=1&&page=401
Posted on 9/12/01
REGISTERED LP PARTY MEMBER COMMENTS:
I don't blindly follow Harry Browne. Just to give you an example, I'm pro life. And I would have prefered a better leader for an LP candidate, like L Neil Smith.
122 posted on 11/20/01 1:58 AM
Shut the F up Harry! (And I voted for the man)
79 posted on 9/12/01 7:52 AM Central
Mr. Browne is only the party's most recent presidential candidate but he does not speak...for the party.... assuming Harry Browne speaks officially for the Libertarian Party is a mistake at least as profound as that mistake (which I remember only too well and too furiously leveled at the party in question) of assuming that anything out of Richard Nixon's mouth post-Watergate was official Republican comment; or, anything out of Jimmy Carter's mouth was official Democratic comment. Let Mr. Browne rant his bloody head off. But he is only a former candidate. He holds, to my knowledge, no official LP position and cannot be deemed an official LP spokesman.
150 posted on 9/12/01 8:54 PM Central
I am a Libertarian because I consider myself a constitutionalist. I believe that this nation would prosper if we stripped away 200 years of bureaucratic buildup, and I voted for Harry Browne because I believed he would do that. This statement, however, disgusts me. Browne has forgotten that the FIRST duty of government is to protect its citizens from foreign aggressors. He has also forgotten that blame shifting and peacemongering are the LAST things we need after being attacked.
posted on 9/12/01 11:42 PM Central
Brown is no "Libertarian". He is a democrat.
posted on 9/14/01 7:47 AM Central
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THREAD #3
Libertarian Harry Browne on George Bush
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/668245/posts
April 18, 2002
REGISTERED LP PARTY MEMBER COMMENTS:
in every way Browne is vastly superior to Bush -- and Browne shows greater understanding and respect for the Constitution.
posted on 4/18/02 7:43 AM Central
BUMP for a good article. Everyone should note that everything that Harry pointed out has been pointed out by many (libertarian)freepers on this site as well.
28 posted on 4/18/02 9:47 AM Central
Browne points out, Republicans are willing to settle for nothing. All the "Compromises" seem to end up in leftists getting what they want and conservatives getting nothing.
Until conservatives are willing to demand that politicians give them what they want, they will never get anything.
Another way of putting it is that politicians should have to earn our support.
posted on 4/18/02 1:06 PM Central
This is a common story, but true. My dad voted for Goldwater.
My dad was warned that if he voted for Goldwater, America would be mired in a losing cause war in Vietnam. Sure enough, he did vote for Goldwater, and we did get mired in Vietnam.
A Clear case of cause and effect.
They asked Goldwater how long the Vietnam War would have lasted if he had been elected. He said, "As long as Ho Chi-Minh could stand the bombing."
I disagree. You read it to mean what you want it to mean. Maybe I do the same thing. As for your hope to paint all libertarians as "All or nothing", that is weak as well. But it helps to paint with a broad brush when one doesn't want to deal with the messy details.
Most of the libertarians I know (and I know a hell of a lot more than you) would be happy if they just saw the country going in the right direction. Not the worng direction, like the Republicrats are taking us.
Harry Browne is not a spokesman for Libertarians, much less libertarians. He speaks for himself. Particularly now. He is a candidate for nothing. Unless Bob Dole speaks for Republicans, or David Duke for that matter.
I wish I could find out what the Republican party/movement/cult stood for so I could take pot shots at them. But since no one seems to know,,,,,,
In any case, it was nice of you to admit that you didn't even read the article and therefore could not make an intelligent comment on it's contents.
I hope you are right. I personally don't care how we get there. Maybe you should check out the "Club for Growth", they probably have a better plan to elect liberty minded people than the RLC.
Bingo. And I've always loved the quote.
Thanks for being the biggest loser on the thread!! You automatically lose...but then you're a Libber Lackey so you already knew that.
Thanks for making my point about the stupid thingy.
Thanks for making my point. It's great to always be right.
Wow. Talk about twisitng words in a deceitful manner, you've outdone yourself.
I didn't mention any of those and didn't call you a traitor.
Did you attend the Carville school of debate?
Seems that you cannot defend your position of siding with the Republican traitors so you try to turn the attack on me. Sorry deb, you are too transparent.
Any chance you want to defend those with whom you side who care nothing for law and justice?
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.