HILL OF BEANS - Bush's No Action On Affirmative Action

New York Press ^ | January, 2003 - Volume 16, Issue 4 | By Christopher Caldwell

[AAABEST]

Damn sink, is it me or have you been gone a while?

Good to see you!

[Sabertooth]

I have to laugh. You guys point to Reagan, yet, when he walked out of the White House in 1988, government was TWICE as big as when he entered.

It's unwise to pretend that Reagan had no flaws or made no mistakes. It's also unwise to ignore the fact that Reagan never had a GOP House of Representives.

If the GOP had controlled both houses of Congress in the '80s, do you believe that government have been larger, or smaller than it actually was when Reagan left office in '89?

The only true voice for "small government" are the pipsqueaks in the Libertarian Party, and they're hanging onto the toilet bowl rim by their fingernails.

There are many times more "small government" voices in the GOP than there are registered voters in the LP. These voices are votes that the GOP requires to be a majority party.

This fact is inadvertently confirmed by every poster who blames them for abandoning Bush 41 in 1992 and enabling Clinton's victory.

[Jim Robinson]

Well, I'm all for change through the primaries and totally against pushing anything over the edge. Get the most conservative candidates we possibly can through the primaries and then push like hell for the nominee selected (whoever he may be). The liberals are shaking in their boots right now. They ALL see the impending Republican landslide looming over their heads. They see their world crumbling. Conservatives will be the majority for many years to come and we will have plenty of opportunity to move even more conservative candidates up the ladders in the decades that follow. I see this as a golden opportunity to sweep the liberals out of congress and out of our courts. This could be the conservative revolution we've all been praying for. The defeat of liberalism is at hand!

[sinkspur]

If the GOP had controlled both houses of Congress in the '80s, do you believe that government have been larger, or smaller than it actually was when Reagan left office in '89?

It would likely have been just as large as it was, if not larger.

Did Ronald Reagan actually ever propose anything that would have made government smaller? Hell, he never once suggested the elimination of the Department of Education, a promise he ran on.

No, the only way to "shrink" government is to starve it, which Reagan did, and Bush is doing, with tax cuts.

One is forced to take solace in the thought that government would not be as large as it would have been, had there been no tax cutting.

[Sabertooth]

Keep voting out the Democrats and after we get a solid majority start on the Rhinos.

This would reward the fecklessness and appeasement of the RINOs in the meantime. What constitutes a "solid majority?" A filibuster-proof Senate?

Republican proponents of larger government are a second front in the battle we face. Creating a new prescription drug entitlement on the eve of the retirement of the babyboomers could very well be politically lethal to those of us "working to roll back decades of governmental largesse."

I don't see how we can afford to focus exclusively on Democrats while ignoring the threat from within.

[MattAMiller]

Ensuring that public institutions, especially education institutions, are open and accessible to a broad and diverse array of individuals, including individuals of all races and ethnicities, is an important and entirely legitimate government objective.

This doesn't sound like a defense of diversity for the sake of diversity to me. It sounds like a defense of the concept of equal opportunity. It uses that smarmy litle D word, but there's nothing here that really bugs me.

The author's main concern seems to be the demographic results of Affirmative Action, not the principals behind it.

[sinkspur]

Damn sink, is it me or have you been gone a while?

I've been here, just over on the religion forum.

I had to come back over here to get away from the vitriol!

At least over here I'm not consigned to the pits of hell every time someone disagrees with me!

[Consort]

It's not that anyone did anything out of spite, it's that conservative weren't motivated (ie given the fuel they needed) to go out and "grass roots" the electorate.

I am a "grass root" electorate now as I was in '92. The Bush 41 campaign did little to motivate me and Conservatives did nothing to motivate me, especially Rush Limbaugh, who disappointed me by influencing many of his listeners to not support Bush.

It was the Clintons and Ross Perot's hatred of Bush that motivated me to vote for Bush again. If the "base" had paid more attention to the bad guys, they would have gotten the "fuel" they needed instead of running on empty.

[Jim Robinson]

Solid majority means we can lose a few without turning control over to the other side. Who's to say what that number is? Certainly not me. However, I don't see any reason to take any big chances at this particular point in time. Even though we have the majority, the margins are still way too slim to take big risks. We can't afford to lose any races now. We have the majority, we have the confidence of the populace, we have the momentum and we need to keep it rolling. In other words, keep your eye on the long-term goals and don't get so upset about the short-term setbacks. We're not going to win every battle, but we must win the war.

[AAABEST]

At least over here I'm not consigned to the pits of hell every time someone disagrees with me!

*/me gives sinkspur the "whore of Babylon" secret handshake.*

[Jim Robinson]

By the way, I'm not rewarding anyone. Just stating the facts and facing political reality. There is not one single democrat officeholder or candidate fit for office and I want to keep as many as possible out. The only way to do that is to vote them out!

[Sabertooth]

It would likely have been just as large as it was, if not larger.

Did Ronald Reagan actually ever propose anything that would have made government smaller? Hell, he never once suggested the elimination of the Department of Education, a promise he ran on.

That was a promise that he shouldn't have broken, the Democrat House notwithstanding.

However, where did Reagan advocate the expansion of government through brand new entitlements? What makes you think he would have done so with an all GOP legislature?

BTW, if you seriously believe that the government could have grown larger under the all-Republican scenario I proposed, that's actually an argument for divided government. This would indicate that the Bush expansion we're currently experiencing is a systemic problem. This would be an argument against voting for a straight Republican ticket.

If I'm for smaller government and I accept the logical consequences of your position, and since it appears the GOP will hold Congress in 2004, would you suggest that I should consider voting for a Democrat Presidential candidate?

No, the only way to "shrink" government is to starve it, which Reagan did, and Bush is doing, with tax cuts.

I'm all for tax cuts, but they stand a better chance of shrinking government if Bush and the Republicans aren't simultaneously advancing irresponsible spending sprees on new entitlements, just to keep up with AlGore and the Democrats.

[YoungKentuckyConservative]

I'm dissapointed, but Bush isn't the real problem. Our Justice system is. We need to focus our resentment on the appropriate parties. The President is not "all powerful" and people tend to forget that.

[Sabertooth]

Even though we have the majority, the margins are still way too slim to take big risks.

When President Bush 41 went along with Democrat tax increases, that proved to be a risk that lost him many of his 1988 constituency when he ran for re-election in 1992. That was a big risk that failed.

When President Bush 43 goes along with Democrat expansion of the welfare state by way of his proposed prescription drug entitlement, isn't that a big risk as well?

[Jim Robinson]

Like I said, damn the torpoedoes, full speed ahead! The president's current decisions won't mean a hill of beans in the long run. Defeating liberalism is the current goal. A complete turn-over in the congress and the courts is in order. Will take time, but it's the only way to restore our constitutional government.

[AAABEST]

Well Jim, having both houses and the exectutive was supposed to wield results. We dreamed of this for a long time, and it's politically rare to have such dynamics. but things are worse than ever.

That wasn't supposed to happen. This medicare debacle and creating this giant government monster is not a Gringrich-esque tactical plan, it's base political pandering (it's not even means tested for God's sake) at the expense of others and it's wrong. You don't really think that the medicare drug entitlement is going away, do you? Entitlements (especially for the elderly) don't go away ever, they just grown and become more and more destructive. I don't see any real world indication that we're even slowing the growth of government, much less reversing anything.

We'll see what happens on '04, but at some point if things keep devolving, we have to admit that it's not working. I hope you're right about incrementally implimenting conservatism, I'd love that more than anything. I've just become very cynical and don't trust any of them anymore. I'm real tired of being used.

[Sabertooth]

Like I said, damn the torpoedoes, full speed ahead! The president's current decisions won't mean a hill of beans in the long run.

Jim, Bush's proposals will mean trillions of dollars in additional outlays over the next few decades. We're already looking at a train wreck at that time, when Social Security is scheduled for insolvency. "Full speed ahead" sounds great, but we're looking at a headlong stampede over the cliff.

Who's going to pay for Bush's compassion?

[Jim Robinson]

Things are not worse than ever. Sheesh. How soon we forget. Look, I'm sorry, I know you don't like to hear it but it's gonna take time. One election won't do it. Nor will one or even two terms. We've got the majority and we're gonna have to hold it long enough to get a major turnover in the courts and in the congress and in the mindsets of the people. The liberals have had control for the bulk of the time during the last 100 years or so. Now we have it for a change. Makes abolutely no sense to give it all back to them again.

[Mr. Mojo]

A complete turn-over in the congress and the courts is in order.

And the St. Dept.

[Jim Robinson]

Trillions? I don't know that and neither do you.