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?
That the federal Constitution is silent on the matter and that the states should decide.
The Platform Committee must have missed that.
2. I didn't mention any of those and didn't call you a traitor.
Libertarian honesty. Oxymoron.
Then it's my fault when a weak Republican candidate loses.
Let's face it, had it not been for the anti-clinton vote, W would have been steam rolled by a pathetic candidate, algore. The fear factor was so strong that thre was even a new category of voters spawned, the ABC voters, Anybody But Clinton!
Of course, Florida had 538 who 'held their nose' one last time.
Bush is a nice, likable guy, I just don't care for his politics. He has revealed that the visisble so-called Consevatives are every bit as unprincipled as their counterparts on the Left.
B-1 Bob Dornan said before teh election that with algore we knew what kind of agenda we were getting and that with Bush we had an unknown and that Conservatives would have to keep his feet to the fire. Outside of Hannity and Rush, I haven't heard much. Of course, koolaid drinkers like deb will only criticize other parties.
There are traitors and there are those who vote for them. I don't beleive that the latter necessarily makes the former.
Feeling guilty or something?
Bull crap. Straightforward without twisting words, unless you believe that one must be a traitor to vote for traitors or that you have no understanding of the basic conventions of English. But I know that you are too smart for that.
You just don't like the truth when it varies with your viewpoint. Not uncommon, not unnatural.
That too.
To review:
1. If it's a choice between unconventional thinking or traitors, I'll not be found with you and the traitors.
2. I didn't mention any of those and didn't call you a traitor.
Libertarian honesty. Oxymoron.
What if I'd said, " I'll not be found with you and the tigers." Would that have made the person to whom I was speaking a tiger? No.
Are you sore because I called the senate traitors or because you voted for traitors?
As you say, there's no way that Browne will ever get more than 2 or 3 percent of the vote. And for good reason.
Is George Bush perfect? No. Is he as similar to Al Gore as this article pretends? No. I'll take the tax cut, the ban on abortion funding abroad, the movement toward a missile defense, and the resolute action in Afghanistan (if not yet in the Middle East). If Al Gore had stolen the election, things would be very much worse than they are now.
Plus, after watching the last campaign, I have problems thinking that the Libertarian Party is truly conservative on many issues. The impression I had was all talk and no action, and great emphasis on me, me, me.
My comment:
I will reply in a similar fashion to that of a response by Imal to an article I posted a few days ago:
"This is another step in a process that began oh so long ago," wrote Imal. "Get used to it."
I think Browne is more right than wrong. Bush and Gore may seem to be so different. But in reality, having Bush as president (and I voted for him) only slows down a teeny weeny bit of our creeping socialism. I'm not suggesting that having a radical like Browne (and I mean radical in a good way) would be any better (there would be plenty of other problems that we cannot even begin to predict).
(On a side note, I must admit and concede, however, that, when you are looking at say, Cuba, and say, Italy , the two nation's look alot closer together when you are looking at them from Pluto than they do when you are looking at them from the earth's moon.)
All the things that you asked DID NOT happen due to the Libertarian Party. All those things you asked, could have happened with republican control of the congress.
You say Libertarians are not some monolithic entity that marches lockstep with the party ideology, but you condemn Republicans and say your a libertarian because they don't? The LP has no track record; you have no idea what they would do if they were actually in power. You think (wish) that when in power, the people are just going to say, yea, go ahead and open our borders and legalize drugs.
Actually Libertarians disagree on many issues some of the more notable being the "war" (I don't rememeber one being declared) on terrorism, abortion, and completely open borders. When the Libertarian forum open to the public you'll have to stop by an check just how much we argue amoungst ourselves. The big key for Libertariansism is the return to a Constitution government and committment to responsible personal freedom and liberty.
The LP has no track record; you have no idea what they would do if they were actually in power.
The party is only 31 years old. Quite young wouldn't you say. How long have the Republicans had their "track record"? You know the one where they sit around and allow UNConstituional forms of government to not only exist but grow. The LP would seek to rid out country of UNConstitutional big government. I guess that's a bad thing for you hard-liner types.
You think (wish) that when in power, the people are just going to say, yea, go ahead and open our borders and legalize drugs.
Well, if the LP does make to "power" in some big way, does it not makes sense that they would have had to of had "people" vote for them? So yeah, if the LP was in power I would suspect that many of the "people" would be supportive of these issues.
But why do you insist that all Republicans agree on everything?
Well, if the LP does make to "power" in some big way, does it not makes sense that they would have had to of had "people" vote for them? So yeah, if the LP was in power I would suspect that many of the "people" would be supportive of these issues.
Do you remember Clintons health care reform? The Dems had the White House AND congress. You expect anything as radical as open borders to get passed? I would just like to see what can be done with a Republican White House AND solid Republican Congress. Then lets see what happens. If they don't perform to my expectations, then I would even consider joining the LP.
Oh, good try, but that's not what I said. I said (in a nutshell) that Harry is a tired, boring representative of the Libertarian party and since I have already heard his pitch a million times I don't need to re-read the same drivel over and over again to know what he stands for. However, since you would like to reflect on the relative "intelligence" of my comments, let's review yours -
Harry Browne is not a spokesman for Libertarians, much less libertarians. He speaks for himself
For you to claim that Harry does not speak for the Libertarian party when he has run for President under the banner two, three, who knows how many times, shows up on TV under the banner, and writes articles for WND under the banner is a ludicrous statement. So ludicrous, I might say it reflects nicely on my earlier statement about how reasoned debate with you guys is fruitless. And Bob Dole may have been a lousy candidate for president, but when his obituary gets written, included will be how he was a war hero, a Senate Majority leader, and how he was leading the charge during the Florida recount fiasco. What's Harry ever done besides slam the government and advocate legalizing dope? Here's a hint:................nothing. No elected office, no legislation, no major policy initiatives, no military strategy, nothing. To place Harry and Bob Dole in the same sentence is to insult Bob in a pretty big way.
I wish I could find out what the Republican party/movement/cult stood for so I could take pot shots at them
"party/movement/cult". Gosh, where did you come up with that? Oh, yeah, I said it. I guess the best you could come up with is to take my words and throw them back at me. If a recommendation to find a new spokesman, and tone down the drug rhetoric until after you actually elect someone to high office is a "pot shot" in your book, so be it. I thought it was a reasonable suggestion. But you see, that's the problem I mentioned. Reasonable discussion is out of the question with you guys. You're right, everybody else is wrong, and there is no middle ground. Doesn't make for much of a debate, does it?
I sure appreciate the time & effort you put into this.
It sure looks obvious to me that the "big L libertarians" as you call them are an open minded and thoughtful bunch.
It's good information for all of us to ponder.
Thanks!
How would you know?
Run from the debate, but stick your nose in long enough to make a sophmoric comment and hit the bricks. On to the next thread for some more disruption.
Find any threads about little boys lately?
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.