THAT URANIUM STORY

NRO ^ | 7/14/2003 | David Frum

[headsonpikes]

As I see it, OWK, the problem is this - the modern state, including the Federal U.S. Government, has been transformed over the last 70 odd years into an essentially socialist institution.

Those who believe in socialism and the panoply of 'benefits' delivered by the state are at home in the legislature, the courts, and the bureaucracies.'Conservatives', in this situation, almost always become 'socialist-lite' parties, because political struggle under socialist systems becomes an economic battle for control of the governmental money levers.

I have no solution - except to hope that a critical mass of contrary anti-socialist thinkers will hold out long enough to be relieved by a younger generation unwilling to pay the old bills of American socialism.

There is no free lunch - neither economically or historically.

[MEGoody]

"I know that 1994 seems like eons ago, but the GOP DID win both houses in that election because they ran on conservative values, not pandering."

Why not? At that point, they had nothing to lose, so go for the 'gusto'. And with Clinton as President, people were more willing to vote conservative for the sake of 'balance.'

As everyone on this thread should know, maintaining such a 'lock' as we have today is tenuous business. It rarely happens and simply doesn't stay that way, particularly if the policies put forth during that 'lock' are not 'centrist'.

[1rudeboy]

WFA^® at #154.

[carton253]

He "abandoned" any attempt because he did not have the votes he needed in the Senate.

The House and Senate are responsible for legislation... not the President.

So, he got his prescription drugs... If he gets the votes he needs in the Senate, he can go back and get the reform. Ronald Reagan called that good politics.

[MEGoody]

"But Bush has gone way beyond that with his pandering and spending."

That is a matter of opinion, obviously. Most of this nation is in the middle of the continuum, not the left or right. I know some have a hard time facing that fact, but it is true none the less.

[OWK]

BFD @ 223

[MEGoody]

"When you hand out money to people that don't pay any tax yeah I'd damned sure call that a spending bill."

I would too. So which tax cut did that?

[dirtboy]

No, the President isn't the one who has gutted it.

Oh, bull. He has proposed spending increase after spending increase while simultaneously proposing tax cuts. That is the hallmark of fiscal irresponsibility.

[dirtboy]

He "abandoned" any attempt because he did not have the votes he needed in the Senate.

Then he should have just called it a day and let the bill die. Instead, he let the camel's nose into the fiscal tent.

[dirtboy]

Amen to that. Sad to see there are only a few vestiges of 1994 left in the GOP.

[Area51]

The one that is going to send out checks in about 2 weeks.
THAT ONE!

[MEGoody]

"Integrity and principle coupled together, should yield conservative results for someone claiming to be a conservative."

You are either naive or simply choose to deny the facts.

Being a 'conservative' is not a lock-step, koolaid drinking kind of thing. It represents a spectrum of views (as has been stated previously).

The people in this country tend toward a centrist view. An extreme conservative isn't going to get re-elected, you know.

If you think your particular 'conservative principles' are the ones which will win the hearts of the American people, go for it. Find a candidate that will run on them or run yourself.

[dirtboy]

Isn't an argument supposed to propose an alternative?

There have been plenty of alternatives proposed - however, they involve the GOP actually making a principled stand on fiscal issues - and the fact that you do NOT consider that to be an alternative speaks volumes about YOUR political views.

[dirtboy]

An extreme conservative isn't going to get re-elected, you know.

That's a hoot - since when did fiscal conservatism become extremist? It seems to be a rather mainstream concept.

[dirtboy]

Being a 'conservative' is not a lock-step, koolaid drinking kind of thing.

That's another hoot - the only koolaid drinkers I see here are the folks demanding that us fiscal conservatives drink THEIR brand of koolaid and accept Bush's spendthrift ways.

[carton253]

Oh bull right back at you!

He can propose all he wants... in the end, the responsibility lies with the Senate and the House. American Government 101!

[1rudeboy]

BFD @ 15-

[OWK]

That's the problem here it seems.

These guys have been pushing "go-along to get along" politics, and excuses for socialism for so long now, that fiscal conservatism really DOES seem like extremism to them.

[dirtboy]

He can propose all he wants... in the end, the responsibility lies with the Senate and the House. American Government 101!

And if he caters to the RINOs with his public statements and undercuts fiscal GOP conservatives, and makes it clear he won't use his veto pen to curtail spending, then he has opened the gates.

Petulant, silly posts don't carry much water here. You'll have to do better than that.

[carton253]

Again... must disagree.

The President's agenda is presented on the Hill... After that, it is up to the Senate and the House.

He signed it because he got some... he will get the rest later (hopefully)...

Furthermore, your comment about letting the camel's nose into the fiscal tent is laugh out loud funny. This is Washington. The whole camel has been in the fiscal tent for a long time.