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?
Well, I see the whole gang is here. You guys have secret email chain to alert each other when it's time to go disrupt another thread?
You need to get a new point to make though. The fact that Libertarians haven't so far garnered a lot of votes doesn't make your leaders less horrible than they are.
Try defending your morons instead of changing the topic.
Most do agree, especially in areas that relate to legislating morality. Which in the end leads to less personal liberty, for the sake of "society," "the people," or "the children". They refuse to allow for individual liberty, and insist on punishing the activity (ie. drugs, sex, porn, etc) engaged in by many responsible people who are not hurting anyone rather than allow personal freedom, punishing those who only step outside the lines. And how can one possibly make sure no one is doing these "bad" activites? Well, one needs a bigger governemnt with more rules, regulations, and law enforcement (the alphabet agencies), because Repubicans cannot possibly trust people to behave themselves. Government's domestic function is to protect individual inalienable rights - not make sure everyone is following the moral techings of Christiansity or any other religion for that matter. It's not the federal government's duty to fix every single ill and problem in society.
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 remember the socialized medicine scare, and it got defeated on common sense, thank God. As to open borders, this one I think is clearly misuderstood and misrepresented by many in the GOP - especially with the paranoia that every muslim immigrant is going to blow something up in America. When Libertarians speak of open borders, we merely speak to ability to be able to move and do business where ever we wish. This is necessary for capitalism, which drives a democratic republic such as the US. What has been misrepresented about this point is that the LP supports letting everyone come into and out this country at will. Libertarians do not mind certain check and balances to who is let in or out, as long as demonstratably law abiding people can easily move back and forth.
I would just like to see what can be done with a Republican White House AND solid Republican Congress. Then lets see what happens.
I'll tell you what would happen: bigger government. It would just be bigger programs that the GOP embraces. I guess the big governemnt is ok when it embraces the same issues that you do.
If they don't perform to my expectations, then I would even consider joining the LP.
They won't, and it will be nice to have you on board in the future.
LOL - I found this seriously pretty funny. Thanks for posting it. I needed the laugh.
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.
More conservative? Where do you get the idea that the GOP is more conservaive than the Democrats? Certainly not from the real world?
Maybe you've been fooled by the way they talk. You can't paty attention to that. You have to pay attention to the way they act. And the GOP acts as leftist or more so than the Democrats.
As you know, the Congres controls the purse strings. No President can spend one dollar without Congressional approval. During 6 years of the Clinton Administration, the GOP controlled both houses. What happened?
The GOP actually spent more money than Bill Clinton asked them to. Think about that. The GOP actually grew government faster than Bill Clinton asked them to.
Just how does that make them "conservative"?
On issue after issue, the GOP has consistently moved to the left.
Why? Because they know that people like you will vote GOP no matter what they do. They can take your vote for granted. So they feel safe in trying to entice liberals out of the Democratic Party. Thus, they move ever farther to the left.
By voting LP, I told the GOP that they could not take my vote for granted. If they want my vote, they are going to have to earn it. Too bad there are so many like you who will vote the GOP ticket no matter what they do.
Welfare reform? We spend more on welfare today than before the Contract.
Remember the Contract? Remember how they changed the House Rules to make sure that people wouldn't be chairman of a committee forever? What happened when the "term limits" ran out? Did the GOP fulfill its bargain with America? Not on your life. They changed the names of the committees so the chairman could remain in power.
The House did not make the tax cut permanent. The tax law has an automatic sunset provision. To change that, a new law will have to be passed. It won't be done. It wouldn't be done in the GOP controlled the Senate.
One of the few speeches that Harry Browne made that didn't deal with drugs was about abortion. That was his position. It is the only position that the LP could adopt at the federal level.
At the state level, they might take a different position.
Thanks for being the biggest loser on the thread!! You automatically lose...but then you're a Libber Lackey so you already knew that
Go back and read my comment carefully, and then tell me again who's braindead. If you don't like democrats being compared to the Germans of WWII, then perhaps you should go frequent DU
Did you attend the Carville school of debate?
She did. I didn't mention hitler/nazis/brownshirts/ss and she goes and says I did. I simply said the Republicans were giving the democrats what they want, just as the French gave the Germans what they wanted.
Either she doesn't read posts, or she got offended that I compared democrats to Germans.
I said "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." Your exact words.
To be honest, I didn't even read this article.
I rest my case.
However, since you would like to reflect on the relative "intelligence" of my comments, let's review yours
My statement is above, it says you couldn't comment intelligently (on the article) because you admitted that you hadn't read it. You then started to attack Browne and libertarians instead of addressing what he said. To do so would be a problem for you because what he said was correct. So,,change the subject and go on the attack, typical tactics of evasion.
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.
If Browne speaks for us now, David Duke speaks for you now. It's simple. The only thing ludicrous is that you can't see it.
Btw, you not knowing how many times he ran and then trying to claim that he writes a column as a representative of the Libertarian party is also ludicrous.
So ludicrous, I might say it reflects nicely on my earlier statement about how reasoned debate with you guys is fruitless.
Reasoned debate to you guys is when you make a point and no one answers. Agree with me or it isn't a reasoned debate, seems to be you idea of it.
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.
You are right, lets not pick on old Bob Doleful. After all the "tax collector for the welfare state" was a sucessful politicion. ( boy, isn't that a recommendation) He loved big government and showed it. I guess by your standard he is your eternal spokesman. No wonder the Republicans suck so much.
What's Harry ever done besides slam the government and advocate legalizing dope?
Both of those things are worthy activites, but heres a news flash for you;
THIS ISN"T ABOUT THE AUTHOR, IT'S ABOUT WHAT HE SAID. Which of course you and the others are trying to avoid discussing.
To place Harry and Bob Dole in the same sentence is to insult Bob in a pretty big way.
I have no problem with insulting what he did and stood for while in elected government positions. His heroism in war is admirable, I salute him for it.
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.
Precisely my intention. It highlighted your cheap shot and showed it for what it was. Mission accomplished.
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.
It would be reasonable if it was made in good faith. But what is your suggestion? That we use force to prevent Browne from speaking his mind? Not too reasonable. Maybe you support the WOD but we don't and have no intention of skirting the issue that is the most responsible for the dilution and usurpation of our rights just because it is unconfortable.
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?
Oh I see, we have to say you are right and we are wrong in order to have a reasoned debate? Amazing diatribe.
Now I'll give you a hint, we think you are wrong, if we didn't we would be you.( and helping to destroy the country one baby step at a time)
ouch!
You guessed wrong.
Women's Rights and AbortionWe hold that individual rights should not be denied or abridged on the basis of sex. We call for repeal of all laws discriminating against women, such as protective labor laws and marriage or divorce laws which deny the full rights of men and women. We oppose all laws likely to impose restrictions on free choice and private property or to widen tyranny through reverse discrimination.
Recognizing that abortion is a very sensitive issue and that people, including libertarians, can hold good-faith views on both sides, we believe the government should be kept out of the question.
We condemn state-funded and state-mandated abortions. It is particularly harsh to force someone who believes that abortion is murder to pay for another's abortion.
It is the right and obligation of the pregnant woman, not the state, to decide the desirability or appropriateness of prenatal testing, Caesarean births, fetal surgery, voluntary surrogacy arrangements, and/or home births.
As I said, the LP believes that on the federal level the Constitution does not permit any governmental action whatsoever. In other words, that it is a matter to be decided at the state level. I also warned that at the state level, the LP might take a different position. Actually, the position they take is consistent throughout -- no government involvement at all.
Here is what Browne said about it:
"There is nothing in the Constitution authorizing the federal government to deal with abortion in any way. The federal government shouldn't subsidize it, encourage it discourage it, or prohibit it. And it shouldn't try to overrule whatever the people in any given state decide to do about it."
The entire article is here
What exactly was the "attack"? That people (other than libertarian die-hards) turn off Brown when he starts talking? That to put the WOD in the forefront of your platform is a non-starter with Joe/Jane Sixpack? If those are attacks, I'd hate to see what you define as suggestions.
To be honest, I didn't even read this article.
You are absolutely correct, those are my words. They are taken out of context, but those are my words. In their proper context, they merge nicely with my position that I didn't have to read this particular article to know exactly where Harry stands, because I've read so many other articles by him that I've got it down. Once you've heard a song 500 times, you don't hear anything in the 501st listening you didn't catch already.
If Browne speaks for us now, David Duke speaks for you now. It's simple. The only thing ludicrous is that you can't see it.
I can't even respond to that. I'm only re-printing it so you can see how silly it looks in print. I'm hoping that sounded better in your head.
Reasoned debate to you guys is when you make a point and no one answers
Hardly. Reasoned debate is when someone makes a point, and another party either refutes the point with logic, or debates individual precepts within the point. For example:
* I stated my opinion that in order for libertarians to make successful runs at higher office, their preoccupation with the WOD should move to the back burner, and that once office is acheived, and you have a platform for national debate, you'll probably get further.
* A reasoned reply would have been a) we need to keep the WOD as a front-burner issue because (insert reason here) or b) that's an interesting idea, why do you feel that way? or c) any other reply besides what you came up with, which was to tell me I don't know what I'm talking about and the Libertarian favorite "We're right, everybody else is wrong".
Maybe you support the WOD but we don't and have no intention of skirting the issue that is the most responsible for the dilution and usurpation of our rights just because it is unconfortable
Nice to see you're paying attention. Please point to the statement I made detailing my position on the WOD. Don't bring up what I said the Libertarian party should do to win elections, show me where I told you my position as to its validity. Come back after you don't find it.
Now I'll give you a hint, we think you are wrong,
Gee, there's something I didn't know. Thank you for (unwittingly) making my point for me. I've been polite, presented an argument, and tried to debate. You have told me I was cheap-shotting, helping to destroy the country, questioned my intelligence, and made ridiculous leaps of judgement like this one -
*That we use force to prevent Browne from speaking his mind?
I've looked, but I just can't see where I said that. So I'll close with this. Debate with you guys IS impossible, because it deteriorates into name-calling and baseless accusations (just like this exchange). It is like arguing with liberals, the only difference is at least you guys pretend you want to discuss things until someone disagrees with you.
Well, this has been "fun", but now I have find some way to destroy the country one step at a time, so I must take my leave. You can hang around here with the rest of your cheering section and congratulate yourselves on that 2-3% of the vote you consistently pull down.
That's not what the platform says.
Clintonesque, is he? Thanks for the tip.
You left that part out when you quoted me. I guess you figure telling half-truths is better than telling none of it...
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.