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?
Most all of the planks of the Contract with America were passed. Terms limits? No. But nine of ten ain't bad.
HR586 was passed yesterday. 219 Republicans voted to make the tax cuts of 2001 PERMANENT. Only one did not.Only 9 Democrats voted to make the tax cuts permanent. 196 vote not to.
The fact remains that the US government spends more for welfare today than it did befoe the "Republican Revolution."
Most all of the planks of the Contract with America were passed. Terms limits? No. But nine of ten ain't bad.
Term limits for committe chairs is just about the only part of the Contract that did pass. Most of the rest of it was voted down. Notice how the GOP managed to weasel out of its commitment on that issue. They voted to limit terms so they would get the credit, but figured out a loophole so they wouldn't have to actually carry out their promise.
HR586 was passed yesterday. 219 Republicans voted to make the tax cuts of 2001 PERMANENT. Only one did not.Only 9 Democrats voted to make the tax cuts permanent. 196 vote not to.
Passed in the House. Not likely to get through the Senate. It has to do both, you know. Plus be signed by Bush.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, rant.
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.
Here are your attacks, starting incidentally, with your very first post.
"Not wanting to be a fool,"
Too late, Harry.
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.
Harry just sounds like a bitter, tired loser. He doesn't bring anything new to the table, it's just the same stuff, over and over.
I think if the libertarian party/movement/cult
I count three attacks on Browne and one at the Libertarian party in the form of the word "cult". I counted no refutation of any point Browne made in his article. Which of course was impossible because you didn't read it. Your intention was to attack Browne and Libertarians, not to refute the facts about his subject.
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.
I addressed your comment in the proper context, namely that of you addressing the content of the article. Browne is your focus, not the contents, it was/is apparent. The context was correct.
Reasoned debate to you guys is when you make a point and no one answers
Reasoned debate is when someone makes a point, and another party either refutes the point with logic, or debates individual precepts within the point.
Your points were off topic. And I answered them point by point.
"We're right, everybody else is wrong".
Please cite where I said that or kindly withdraw the quote.
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.
The word maybe is the key here. I never said what your position was or is. I don't know your position nor do I care.
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.
I wasn't looking for it because I never asserted that you took a postion.
I've been polite, presented an argument, and tried to debate.
The only arguments you tried to make were off topic. And polite isn't the word for someone who starts his first post by calling someone a fool.
You have told me I was cheap-shotting,
The "fool" remark was a cheap shot and the "cult" remark was a cheap shot too.
helping to destroy the country,
I never said that. I said the Republican party was helping to destroy the country and I stand by that statement. If you are supporting them you should wonder if you are part of the problem.
questioned my intelligence,
I questioned whether or not it is an intelligent response to an article to call the author a "fool" without reading the article. I still question the response.
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.
I never said you stated that. I asked a question. It was no leap to ask someone what they would suggest when they advocate dumping a person as spokesman who is not an offical spokesman. Plain to most people, but you made it impossible not to ask the question.
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).
Debate is impossible in light of what I have just posted, not because I'm a libertarian. I didn't call you any names and I have made no baseless accusations.
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.
You finally got around to the last gasp before you drown. That Libertarians are wrong because they have yet to find a way to break into the closed two party system with major electoral success. If ever there was a goofy argument that is it.
I will hand it to you and the rest of the crowd however, they have succeeded again at evading the central points of an article by changing the subject to something or someone else. The points about Bush are correct and none of you have refuted them. Of course you couldn't from the git-go, because you never read them. It didn't keep you from commenting however, and as I first pointed out, it isn't very intelligent to respond to an article by attacking the messenger.
No need to read any further beyond this. Probably the same old lies and half truths as ever.
There has been a Libertarian Party on the ballot for the last twenty years.
It's a failure in the marketplace of ideas.
GWB would certainly sign it IF passed by Senate. Therefore, it is being held up in the DEMOCRAT controlled Senate as are many other pieces of legislation, judicial appointments,etc.etc.
As for increased welfare expenditures? Just think what they would be today IF Republicans hadn't decreased roles by 50% in many states. Much of the increase is due to inflation and the recent downturn in the economy as well as 9-11, which led to layoffs, factory closings etc.
Again, check the facts on the Republican Contract. Sure, it may have been watered down since passage, but that doesn't negate what I said about most of it passing. Oddly enough, Corporal Clinton signed most of them...perhaps a reason for his success?
Thank goodness, I wouldn't want to be intransigent! :-)
I have never seen you advocate the legalization of drugs, or abortion, and am confident that you are not about to.
My postitions are well known among people who have bothered to find out. I hate what some people do to their lives by escaping into chemicals. I have seen the destruction it can cause. I also hate what the WOD and other similar prohibitions have done to our country without any results whatsoever. I hate drugs, I hate the police state caused by the so called WOD even more because it makes a bad situation even worse. I therefore have to correct you about your take on what my position is. Substances of all kinds were legal for individuals to ingest or otherwise consume until quite recently. There have always been people who retreat from lifes challenges. It is always a tradegy. It has not been made better or less frequent by drug laws. In fact the case can be made that they have made the problem worse. I support the repeal of all federal laws concerning substance abuse on the grounds of constitutionality. I support the repeal of laws which authorize the use of force to regulate substances to only those approved by government on any level. I support laws which hold people accountable for their actions no matter what has caused them to take those actions. I do not believe that government force can solve societal problems and often makes them worse. The WOD is a case in point.
On abortion, I believe that life begins at conception and therefore abortion is murder. Murder however is not a federal offence and therefore Roe v Wade was incorrectly decided. Abortion is a state issue and I will always work to defeat legal abortion. At the very least, even for those who do not believe as I do about conception being the beginning of life, they can never say with certanity that it does not and we must always err on the side of life when in doubt. The burden of proof is therefore on the abortionists.
I believe you are a conservative Christian existentialist, and a strict Constitutionalist with Libertarian leanings. Let me know if I am correct.
I am a Christian first, a libertarian second and a constitutionalist third. I am a conservative in my persoanl life as to my beliefs and hopefully my actions, but I do not believe God needs our help in the form of violence and force to do his will.
Signed, a thoroughly disheartened, angry conservative Republican.
I know the feeling. I hope I haven't disappointed you with my stand on the WOD but it is a well thought out postition and it is who I am.
Again thank you for the kind words. Be of good cheer, there is lots to be done.
Not because the ballot laws are equitable. Most of the money raised by third parties goes to getting on the ballot with almost nothing left to campaign with. You know that and yet you still assert that the ideas have no merit. It is because of your anti-liberty ideology and agenda to destroy any attempt of the people to regain their rights that you say this over and over hoping it will stick with the useful idiots.
It's a failure in the marketplace of ideas.
If you really think that, why do you feel so threatened that you are drawn like a moth to light to every thread with a libertarian theme? If it is a failure and there is no support, just move along. "Nothing to see here, these guys are no threat, move along, return to your homes".
The differences are in scope and detail from my perspective. Fundamentally, they both believe that government solves problems with force. They both also believe it should continue to grow. They differ on the means and the timetable. And both value power more than freedom.
GWB would certainly sign it IF passed by Senate. Therefore, it is being held up in the DEMOCRAT controlled Senate as are many other pieces of legislation, judicial appointments,etc.etc.
But it isn't ever going to get the GW and everybody knows it. You can say it would get to GW if the GOP conrolled the Senate, but that is conjecture. Conjecture based on absolutely nothing. When the GOP owned both House and Senate, they had every opportunity to pass tax cuts, but they didn't do it. There appears to be no reason to assume they'd do it now.
As for increased welfare expenditures? Just think what they would be today IF Republicans hadn't decreased roles by 50% in many states. Much of the increase is due to inflation and the recent downturn in the economy as well as 9-11, which led to layoffs, factory closings etc.
The welfare expenditures have gone up every year since "Reform". You can't blame spending in 2000 on 9-11.
Again, check the facts on the Republican Contract. Sure, it may have been watered down since passage, but that doesn't negate what I said about most of it passing. Oddly enough, Corporal Clinton signed most of them...perhaps a reason for his success?
Four pieces made it into law. One required Congress to follow the laws made for everyone else. It has since been gutted by the GOP-controlled Congress. One was a line-item veto. It was (very properly) declared unconstitutional. The other two dealt with "stockholder rights" and unfunded mandates.
The changes to the House Rules did not have to become law. The rules were changed, thus getting credit for the GOP. But the GOP refused to follow the rules, instead, creating loopholes they could exploit.
Something like 99% of voters chose someone else. Half of them for Al Gore. It seems to me people look at what's in it for them before philosophy. A libertarian-leaning farmer who gets a subsidy from the major parties is not going to vote for the guy who wants to take them away. And they guy who doesn't smoke isn't going to vote based on who is for or against a cigarette tax. Heck, it seems to me that the way a candidate wears his hair or how many good zingers he gets off in a debate count for more with voters than philosophy. Basic feelings about a man's honesty, strength, likability, as well as the occasional desire for something different.
There are some litmus issues. Guns, taxes, abortion, and the environment. On those issues, if you are on one side, you have only one choice. But most of the money and impact of government occurs in the broad middle where both parties dwell. And the votes are purchased piece meal. I daresay there are a few libertarian-minded folks who would vote for the guy who could get marijuana legalized, even if he couldn't do the same for heroin. According to philosphy, it would be a dreaded compromise of principle. But to many, the thought would be: What do I care? I don't use heroin.
After GWB took office, that worm Jeffords cut and run, giving the Senate back to Dems.
In fact Republicans did pass a cap. gains cut-from 28% to 20%. Not perfect. I'd prefer ZERO tax on cap gains, but on April 15th? I'd rather pay 20% than 28 and Republicans have been arguing for a reduction to 15%.
By far, not a perfect record on behalf of Republicans. However, the House, where the rubber meets the road, passed the Contract and other valuable pieces of legislation in the first 100 days after taking office in 1995. Just got tied up by the "old boys" club in the Senate.
On the down side? Even if Republicans gain control of Senate, too many RINOs. But we have to start somewhere. Third Party? Libertarians been around 31 years. H.Ross Perot blew their doors off in 1992. His Party now gone and Libertarians back to 2-3% of vote. Call it progress if you wish...
The past was yesterday. What about tomorrow? Libertarian's are great talkers/philosophers. Accomplishments? Show me? I'm former USTP here. Years ago. But we couldn't elect a County Road Supervisor in Jasper County.
I'm really not being critical of LP. Just facts. The masses (not necessarily I) view the message of the LP as bogus or perhaps the LP is not articulating it well enough. Some tend to be a bit arrogant. But a Party that was started by college snots, well, goes with the territory. Some claim what I call "issue purity." Yet their candidate in VA stumbled real bad re:the Second Amendment last fall and got taken apart, here and on the gun boards. So apparently, Libertarians are after all, only human. They have their own "RINOs." Yet it is easy to maintain such "purity" when nothing ever comes of it...
Word of that guy got around to libertarians real fast and we were not amused.
VA LP got an earful about him. Word was that he slid by the nomination process without much attention given to the issue. Unless he seriously changes his position, I think there is slim to no chance of him getting re-nominated now that his views are well known.
I'd have a lot more respect for RP if they treated their RINO's the same way. RINO's infest the RP and as far as I can tell, nothing is being done about it. There needs to be some serious house cleaning at the Republican conventions IMO.
Neither will I. I feel my vote for Bush, and for the person he has become (or has always been depending on who you ask) was wasted and I feel like I sold out. It will be the first time I have not voted for a Republican for the WH since I've been voting.
Nonsense. Here in California, ballot access is cheap and easy. In fact, it's even cheaper and easier for third parties than for anyone else.
It hasn't helped the LP a bit.
We have to do something. Conservatives have been trying to "take over the GOP" for at least 40 years now. We're no closer now than when the Rockerfeller Republicans stabbed Goldwater in the back.
Forty years of doing the same thing and getting the same result should teach us something by now. If we can't learn in 40 years that we're not going to make the GOP more conservative, then we can't be all that bright.
I'll agree that the LP wastes a lot of their political capitol by continually harping about drugs, pornography, and prostitution. But as you pointed out, the LP is small. It's a hell of a lot easier to take over a small party and build it than to take over the GOP. If we work at it, it shouldn't take us forty years.
Besides, what else do we have to do? Sit around and sing the praises of the GOP as it takes us ever further to the left?
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.