Posted on 07/24/2003 4:00:40 AM PDT by RJCogburn
Edited on 07/24/2003 4:39:12 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
THIS IS THE is the summer of conservatives? discontent. Conservatism has been disoriented by events in the last several weeks. Cumulatively, foreign and domestic developments constitute an identity crisis of conservatism, which is being recast ? and perhaps rendered incoherent.
George W. Bush may be the most conservative person to serve as President since Calvin Coolidge. Yet his Presidency is coinciding with, and is in some instances initiating or ratifying, developments disconcerting to four factions within conservatism. The faction that focuses on foreign policy has four core principles: Preserve U.S. sovereignty and freedom of action by marginalizing the United Nations. Reserve military interventions for reasons of U.S. national security, not altruism. Avoid peacekeeping operations that compromise the military?s war-fighting proficiencies. Beware of the political hubris inherent in the intensely unconservative project of ?nation-building.?
How do you starve the beast by raising non-defense discretionary outlays by 18 percent and vetoing zero spending bills?
So why would I even consider voting for someone who is creating a bigger, dumber government? If those were my only choices, I wouldn't vote.
Fortunately, democRats and Republicrats aren't the only choices.
Stamped right across your forehead, for you vetoing any smeblance of rationality on how to negotiate the mine field called modern American politics.
The Bushbots would prefer that you bend over, grab your ankles, and take it.
Stamped right across your forehead, for you vetoing any smeblance of rationality on how to negotiate the mine field called modern American politics.
Reagan had the guts to veto 22 bills in his first three years. Remember how he did in his re-election bid?
Well your the expert in that dept. seeing how you like to take it from demos who you help elect in your quioxtic search of political purity.
122 posted on 07/24/2003 7:50 AM PDT by VRWC_minion (Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and most are right)
------------------------
Here's a novel idea long since lost on this site. GIVE IT BACK TO THE PEOPLE THAT IT WAS TAKEN FROM.
This redistribution of the wealth Via Medicare Drug Coverage is plain sick.
You take it under duress from the poorest generation alive and hand it to the Richest.
And you call yourself a conservative? Really...
HOw about instead of playing socialism lite, we do what we should do. Call the Politicians we put in office to do the right thing, NOT WHAT IS POPULAR. That was the whole point of having a Representative Republic.
We were NOT founded on Mob Rule. That whole doing what is popular, would have put Albore in office.
I never voted in an election where a Dem won by a single vote.
The politico's will always spend their income plus whatever they can deficit spend. That's a time honored given.
The strategy then is to lower the income figure and funnel the spending. In the case of education spending, the No child left behind bill was a Trojan Horse which will change the way schools work.
I agree, their is a problem with folks who want instant gratification and who cannot project results beyond lunch today. They haven't got a clue about long term strategy.
Yep, he still had big deficts and won re-election against a weak opponent, Walter Mondale. He also put tariffs on mortorcycles and steel in 84.
When are we going to see the JPEG and Gif from you with Reagan in tar and feathers, for his "political impurity".
How? More federal control?
long term strategy.
Let the me-too Republicans conduct their alleged "long term strategy" with their own money.
That's a non sequitur.
So, are you suggesting I don't write them? That I don't make contact with them?.
I didn't say that.
That I just sit down, shut up, and take it?
For Democrats: You the right to remain silent. For Republicans: Silence is golden. That is directed to whiners.
And some on this board question whether or not I understand how the process works?
It doesn't matter to me.
Hey the dem still won, such as in 92 when Perot took away votes.
Sure he got 19%, but the Clintons got the real prize, the Presidency. The power to put Janet Reno as Attorney General, Madeline Albright letting North Korea get nuclear weapons, etc. etc.
Here is the problem: if the Bush Administration were truly advancing a bold conservative agenda principally sound but politically risky, I and many others would be willing to accept large government spending, or giving in here and there. I would understand that it is the price of doing something truly extraordinary.
The problem is, Bush isn't advancing anywhere except the war on terror. And he doesn't have to give the Democrats squat for that! The war has been fabulously popular and will likely remain so. Bush isn't doing anything especially risky in the pro-life area, he doesn't seem to care about the traditional family, he won't cut government, he doesn't care about affirmative action, he won't stand for vouchers, etc., etc.
That is what makes the liberal tendencies so hard to take. It doesn't seem to be toward any larger conservative purpose. Bush just isn't uncomfortable with moderate and left-of-center tendencies.
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.