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?
Of course, it would help if people spent their time getting a safe GOP majority in Congress so the good guys wouldn't have to settle or compromise with the criminals who call themselves Democrats/press. But I understand you're too busy whining and griping about "principles" and the Constitution, to actually help save the country.
Again, no problem. We'll pull all your fat asses and dead weight along while we fight the enemy, like we always do. So you're free to condemn and take cheap lying shots because, since you have no power...you have no responsibility to deliver. Pretty sweet being a carping coward who never faces the enemy yourself. But then, your LOSER status never changes.
Of course, it would help if people spent their time getting a safe GOP majority in Congress so the good guys wouldn't have to settle or compromise with the criminals who call themselves Democrats/press. But I understand you're too busy whining and griping about "principles" and the Constitution, to actually help save the country.
Remember the '94 elections? I voted republican then and all i got was a lick and a promise.The lack of pricipals that were not subject to compromise was the whole reason i left the Republican party to begin with.It does seem the Republican party would like to forget the Constitution ever exsisted. Reminds me of something i read "when you try to be all things to all people, You end up being nothing to anyone".
Again, no problem. We'll pull all your fat asses and dead weight along while we fight the enemy, like we always do. So you're free to condemn and take cheap lying shots because, since you have no power...you have no responsibility to deliver. Pretty sweet being a carping coward who never faces the enemy yourself. But then, your LOSER status never changes.
I'm not quite sure where you got that but i do feel i have the right to call it the way i see it and that is there's no real difference between Republican and Democrat just one favors corperations and the other favors unions but both are in someones pockets.
When, exactly, was the last time a third party was in power?
We did that back in the 1990s, don't you remember? Remember how much things changed? Oh wait, they didn't did they?
We'll pull all your fat asses and dead weight along while we fight the enemy, like we always do
So your fighting the enemy by giving them everything they wanted and throwing in things like the PATRIOT ACT to boot...HEY IT WORKED FOR THE FRENCH IN WWII!!!! THEY REALLY SHOWED THEM GERMANS HOW MUCH THEY HATED THEM!!
I dunno, but *sniff* my ass isn't fat *sniff* and for her to insuate that really offended me *sniff*. My feelings are hurt *sniff*.
I hope nobody ever hits the abuse button or asks for moderators to delete her posts, I find her much more entertaining than those undergoing a code brown in their shorts right now over the crash in Italy.
I have a lower threashold for treason and treachery than you do. Obvioulsy you will still support those who set up the rules so as to subvert the impeachment conviction and those in office who refuse to seek justice for clinton's crimes even today.
If it's a choice between unconventional thinking or traitors, I'll not be found with you and the traitors.
I guess you better read it again.
The Senate, on its own, passed a "sense of the Senate" resolution rejecting Kyoto by 95 - 0, or some such. But the treaty is still out there. Algore eventually would have submitted it for ratification.
This gets my "grasping at straws" award for the day.
I'm sure the 95 would change their mind on this. Talk about a free shot!
I guess that is a good substitute for a reasoned refutation of the articles points.
I'm glad someone recognised that. I had a feeling this would become just another thread about libertarians and the Libertarian Party instead of a discussion on the merits of what was said. I guess most of the people must concede that he is correct in what he said. (in a pigs eye)
The Libertarian Party is the place where the people went who got tired of waiting for that to happen. Most would take it either way, or any way for that matter. Freedom is what these people want, not power.
LOL line for the day!
Thats hilarious. Stupid and dangerous are the requirments for being a Republican!
After the campaign, Harry came out and screamed bloody murder attacking the U.S. campaign in Afghanistan, not to mention Harry reminded everyone of his pro-choice and open borders views. Libertarians on FR immediately told us that Harry Browne ran a lousy campaign for President, did NOT represent the views of "most Libertarians" (and that the LP "leaders" had disavowed Harry's columns)-- not to mention grassroot Libertarians had abandoned him for Ron Paul and Barry Hess.
Now, Harry attacks Bush again for not being conservative enough. Most Libertarians on FR tell us that Harry Browne is a great guy and is a walking platform for what Libertarianism means. And, of course, he'd make a great president.
I sure wish you guys would be consistant here.
Now, the Republican party was a third party. :-)
OK, I read it again. Now, to review the bidding:
The original comment was this: Browne and most libertarians have a simple problem of wanting all or nothing, their way or the highway.
To which you replied: "There are never any compromises in our favor – producing smaller reductions than we might want. " ... This statement from the article belies your statement.
The full context of Browne's comment is this:
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?
This reads like Harry Browne saying "no compromise." Far from "belying" the original comment, it tends to support the contention that Browne wants all or nothing.
About the best face one can put on it is that phrase "all the compromises have been" implies that Browne thinks it's possible that "future compromises" might be in the direction of smaller, less oppressive government.
Browne didn't come right out and say that, however. And since Browne's proclamations more often than not have the damning "all or nothing" flavor, I'm unwilling to give his current comments the charitable interpretation.
As for the "most libertarians" part of the claim, I think FR has accumulated enough examples of "all or nothing" to satisfy a reasonable person that the claim is substantially correct.
The old, ugly, scowling, and embittered spinster with the humpback and warts can always blame her lifelong loneliness on the low tastes of males.
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.