White House, conservatives split on drugs

Washington Times ^ | June 29, 2003 | Donald Lambro

[nyconse]

I don't know exactly what a Bushbot is. I guess that is someone who thinks Bush is perfect. I don't beleive that. Personally, I don't expect to agree with anyone 100%. Also, I am willing to give President Bush the benefit of the doubt and see what happens in the end. LOL

[nyconse]

I agree with much of what you say. Although, I always vote. I would have crawled across broken glass to vote in 2000. We needed to get rid of Chambliss and Barnes in Georgia.

[LS]

Suit yourself. You just voted for Howard Dean. Hope ya feel good.

[LS]

Well, he "shaded" the truth because the plan he endorsed during the campaign, just like the CFR bill he endorsed, was substantially different. His original bill was highly privatized and would actually REFORM Medicare, not expand it.

[RJCogburn]

Suit yourself. You just voted for Howard Dean.

Silly. The worn mantra that not voting for the Republican is the same as voting for the Dem. Of course that is not so, logically or arithmetically.

Only by voting for Dean do I vote for Dean. If I stay home Dean did not get a vote. If I vote for Lyndon LaRouche Dean still did not get a vote.

Bush, or whomever, needs to give me or someone else a reason to vote for him. I did in 2000. We'll have to see about 04. Right now I am just beginning to think I might stay home...which would be a vote for nobody.

[LS]

Wrong logic. Not to choose is to choose. Those who voted for weak 3rd party candidates in the Weimar Republic essentially voted for Hitler, regardless of what they thought. There are a finite number of votes. In a country where voter registration still favors the Dems, every vote NOT for a Republican is a Dem vote.

[Moonman62]

Reagan lambasted deficits his whole political life, but eventually had to sign on to them, because there was simply not the national public will to do anything about them. Likewise, Reagan promised to cut DOE and DOEd, but didn't lift a finger against them, because there was not a national "small government" mood.

But Reagan had that "small government" philosophy and he did what he could, including slashing federal regulations. And eventually that philosophy caught on with Republicans in Congress during the 90's. GWB nor his father have that philosophy.

[RJCogburn]

There are a finite number of votes. In a country where voter registration still favors the Dems, every vote NOT for a Republican is a Dem vote.

There is a finite number of votes cast. There is also a finite number of potential votes. Most people who could vote do not. You are correct in that many people choose not to vote.There are a lot more non votes than votes and with those, the Dems could make the same argument.

For about all of my life I did not understand why so many did not vote. I have never missed an election at any level. Even in a small town election where I had lived only a short time and did not know the candidates or the issues well enough to believe I could make a good decision I went to the poll and got my ballot and just blanked it out.

After all these years I am beginning to understand why at least some people choose not to vote. I don't know what I'll do...probably vote....but there is no way I'll vote for somebody just because he's got the (R) or against somebody just because he's got the (D).

[MississippiMan]

It's time for all conservatives to take off the blinders, open wide their eyes, and admit the obvious truth that Bush is a liberal Republican. Yes, he's better than having Gore, but he's still a liberal Republican.

I think we were so desperate to be rid of Clinton and anything remotely connected to him, that we bought fully into whatever Bush said he was, without taking time to look behind the curtain.

MM

[RJCogburn]

I think we were so desperate to be rid of Clinton and anything remotely connected to him

Yes, that is all you needed to say.

[LS]

Well, I agree with you that it is a mystery why people who can vote do not. But even a pro-life Republican like me would vote for a "pro-choice" person it if meant controlling the senate or electing the Speaker, because there is a hierarchy of power that we have seend displayed VISIBLY by the Dems in the Senate.

You are going on and on about health care---fine, I agree it's a big problem. But it is no more a big deal than taxes, or abortion, or national security (much less so IMHO). Therefore, it makes a HUGE difference if I vote for someone with an (R) next to his name because regardless of health care, I know that that person will put Frist instead of Daschle in; and that in turn shapes everything else.

So prescrip. drugs become a reality. That in no way changes what the DEMS do on national security (dangerous), abortion (murderous), or taxes (larcenous). So again, not to vote it to choose Dem.

[LS]

To what extent Reagan's "small government" philosophy was any more deeply-held than Bush's "compassionate conservatism" means little if the OUTCOMES are not much different. My point stands: on the issues where Reagan saw the writing on the wall, he punted. Bush has done the same thing, and I would too in his shoes.

Or, he could become a sacrificial lamb and all the conservatives would thump their chests, then whine about the next four years of Pres. Dean, followed by Pres. Clinton for eight. No thanks. I'll take pragmatism any day.

[xdem]

To what extent Reagan's "small government" philosophy was any more deeply-held than Bush's "compassionate conservatism" means little if the OUTCOMES are not much different.

The Dems held both houses of congress for most of Reagan's presidency. But "W" has no such excuse.

[Moonman62]

My point stands: on the issues where Reagan saw the writing on the wall, he punted. Bush has done the same thing, and I would too in his shoes.

GWB must be standing much closer to the wall.

[LS]

Reagan had not only a GOP Senate, but had a 40-member "blue dog" Democrat faction that gave him a working majority in the House for four years. If you consider that the Dems have a 5-6 member group of RINOs, the situation actually favored REAGAN more than it does Bush.

But all you guys are bobbin' and weavin': the fact is, Reagan did not use ONE exectutive order to stop abortion; did not cut ONE important government agency or department (all within HIS, not Congress's, pervue); and did not veto ONE single spending bill.

In actual performance, Bush has been as conservative as Reagan, and on issus of pro-life, far more so.

[LS]

Your option? Make a heroic stand over Medicare, get defeated, and then thump your chest and say how "right" you were? All this when, say, the next 9/11 hits because a DEM Pres would not be serious about national security? No thanks.

[xdem]

Reagan had not only a GOP Senate

He had this for two years. That's why I say Reagan had a Dem congress for "most of his presidency."

Bush has been as conservative as Reagan

Both Bush's have betrayed core Republican constituencies. Reagan didn't.

[LS]

Hmmm. As I recall, the Senate did not switch back until 1986.

If anyone "betrayed" conservatism, it was Reagan, who did not attempt to scale down government, ever; and who never once attempted to stop abortion with a single ex. o.

Nor did he privatize any federal jobs. From those perspectives, this Bush is in actual accomplishments, not rhetoric been more conservative.

[xdem]

If anyone "betrayed" conservatism, it was Reagan...

Are you nuts? You are attacking Ronald Reagan!

You may recall that the Clintonites attacked former presidents to save their guy too.

"W" has been a massive disappointment on the domestic side. If he wants my vote in 2004, he'll need to provide accomplishments, not promises.

[LS]

Besides the COld War ("War on Terror") and the tax cut (ditto), Reagan did not advance the conservative agenda EXCEPT by words. Now, that was great. I'm not bashing him. I live RR. But, you must separate actions from words. In actions, on the fronts of taxes, abortion, privatization, Bush has done as much as RR, and on abortion, FAR more.