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 shouldn't repeat yourself. The "who refuse to honor their oath" part is redundant.
Hmmmm. Considering that the Left's most effective tactics are based on incremental steps, I don't know how you can possibly say this.
Conservatism and libertarianism are not synonymous. In many respects they're at opposite ends of the spectrum.
Really? Looks to me like Harry's defending a "no compromise" position.
I don't know.
I mean it's true that some are scared of freedom. Many. But most? I don't know.
I do believe that one thing that keeps the Libertarians from gaining more support is their reputation as the party of dopers and whores. The "Libertine Party".
They have wonderful ideas about reducing government. Ridding us of Social Security. Retiring the national debt. Cutting taxes. Abolishing the IRS. Returning government to its legitimate constitutional role.
These are all things that people want to hear. These are all things that many people really want.
So what does the Libertarian Party talk about? How the first thing they'll do is legalized drugs. They explain at detail how this will mean that drugs will be cheaper and more readily available. Then, in a very transparent and stupid lie, they say that drug use will go down because of their policies. In virtually every speech and article, they harp on this one subject.
Guess what. It's a sure loser. People don't want drugs to be cheaper and more readily available. They are terrified that their kids will be hooked on drugs. Even if their kids are 40 years old, they don't want them doing drugs. They don't want druggies in their neighborhoods. And it doesn't do any good to tell them that there are already druggies there. This is an emotional issue and the LP is on the wrong side of it.
Does that meant that the LP should give up on fighting the War on Drugs? No. The WOD is wrong. It is (on the federal level) unconstitutional. On any level, it puts too much power in government's hands.
But the LP has to decide which is more important. Constantly talking about the WOD or being elected so they can actually do something about it. The LP needs to decide to lead with the issues that will appeal to most Americans and that will change its reputation.
According to Ron Paul they also want the US out of Afghanistan, the middle east and to break with Israel. They want open borders and no immigration laws.
If that's the America you want, please leave the GOP now. Don't wait another minute. You're too stupid and dangerous to be a Republican.
I've noticed a large increase in people grumbling about Bush's decisions as of late, so I think people are finally taking the blinders off.
If that's the America you want, please leave the GOP now. Don't wait another minute. You're too stupid and dangerous to be a Republican.
lol..I did right before the 2000 elections after watching Bush's campaign. It was'nt hard to see he called himself a conservative but was in fact a liberal..it's pretty sad if this is the the cream of the republican party, who rose up to run for president. If you look at what he's doing he's trying to skim off segments of the democrat party base so the party does'nt have to rely on conservatives.
Bush and Generals Ridge and Ashcroft managed to pick the yardstick up and run quite a bit with it.
I think the Mideast has been what pushed a lot of the sheeple to finally stand up and say something - the rally in DC where they booed the WH staff member was/is a turning point.
If they can't get a majority of the vote, they must not have been very good from the beginning.
Maybe those candidates will pay more attention to the LP.
And the real reason government is getting bigger is because government employees are unionized and can't be fired. Thank fourty years of Democrat control for that. But if you cared reallyt about "bigger government", you could call Dick Armey's office and get a list of agencies and departments that have been axed since '94. You won't though, 'cause Libertarians are lazy, looney and perfectly happy to be led around by the nose by their alcohol-drenched "leader". As long as Browne keeps the BS flowin' you're happy.
You obviously need a steady diet of pablum and simplistic bumper sticker phrases to be content. The impotent, bawling world of third parties is for you. Have a nice life and don't come back.
You obviously need a steady diet of pablum and simplistic bumper sticker phrases to be content. The impotent, bawling world of third parties is for you. Have a nice life and don't come back.
most amusing. Remember to keep your happy thoughts; no matter what your party does.
Before I started coming to FR I would probably have thought it was worth trying.
Having met libertarians in action here, however, and seen the ridiculous "press releases" put out by the LP, I long ago concluded that there's no point in trying. The LP has too few points of contact with reality.
HA! What makes you think Libertarians care anything about a Repubican majority. As long as its close enough for the the Republicans and Democrats to have to bicker over everything, then neither side has carte blanche to increase government according to their ideology. I like the stalemate.
Depends on the Libertarian some side with the mother some side with the fetus. Me? I take a position somewhere in between.
the US out of Afghanistan, the middle east and to break with Israel. They want open borders and no immigration laws
That's a bit of an over simplification, and again many Libertarians take different approaches. Me? I support our particular military action of self-defense against those who attacked us. However, that's the extent of my support. Catch/kill the bad guys and come home. We spend too much time meddling in other's affairs. Our foreign policy was a contributing factor in the 9-11 attrocity. We should leave Israel and Palestine to their own affairs. If that means Israel kills every pallie on earth - it's NONE of our business. I'm in support of regulation of people coming into and out of this country, but borders need to be somewhat open to facilitate capitalism which of course drives democracy.
If that's the America you want, please leave the GOP now. Don't wait another minute. You're too stupid and dangerous to be a Republican.
Well, aren't we full of happy thoughts today? I've never been a Republican, so it's not like I can leave an organiszation I've never been a part of. I've been registered LP since I was 18.
Have a nice day :-)
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.