CATO Institute lambastes President Bush

CATO Institute ^ | July 31, 2003 | Veronique de Rugy and Tad DeHaven

[Luis Gonzalez]

Better than yours is.

"Again, any candidate who can convince me that they are for small government."

So, you will cast your vote for any politico that will make you a promise that he knows he will never have to fulfill. He will make you that promise hoping that if enough people like yourself vote for him, he will be able to get millions of dollars from the Federal government to run his campaign.

The reason that you refuse to name a name is that your candidate does not exist.

[Stew Padasso]

That paper must be worth something. Or the government wouldn't jail you for not paying.

Who is convinced that the government has any *respect* for your assets and resources?

[Stew Padasso]

"The reason that you refuse to name a name is that your candidate does not exist."

And there is the rub. I would be interested to hear of any candidate within the RP who has an effective argument for small government. I'll help promote their efforts.

Can you point to anyone in leadership who is making an effective argument? i'm sure that locally there are plenty. I just don't know where.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Go out and look, they're just south of El Dorado, and around the bend from Atlantis.

[Stew Padasso]

I figured as much.

[Stew Padasso]

"he will be able to get millions of dollars from the Federal government to run his campaign."

That candidate has already lost my vote.

[Stew Padasso]

Well gotta run. Catch you later Louis.

[Recovering_Democrat]

Actually I'm a very cheery person, optimistic, successful and good natured.

No evidence of that. Admitting there's a problem is the first step.

What sets me off is hypocrisy, corruption and waste. And if you cannot see this happening in our government then you are(at this time) a lost cause and part of the problem.

I never said that, did I? Blaming others is another common tactic when avoiding an issue.

I respect the fact that you admit you approve of the way government is operating. At the same time, I wish to encourage you (and anyone else who feels the urge) to pony up your entire salary and assets in leiu of my tax bill.

Heh. That's silly, but I can play the game, too, Stew. I encourage you (and anyone else who feels the same way you do) to REALLY show us the strength and deepness of your so-called convictions by withholding your entire salary and assets subject to taxes until the government's spending habits comport with your notion of appropriateness.

Good luck with that. Now. I'll stop responding to you, as this is quickly going nowhere: you seem to have a strong mistaken notion that we're headed into a financial quagmire--and I don't. Time will tell who is right.

If it'll make you feel better though, send off one more seemingly witty, sure-fire response that'll convince me of your position. I won't respond, and you can believe your retort really GOT ME GOOD.
rd

[R. Scott]

George W. has not impressed me much – it takes more than sending troops off to war to be a good leader.
I really don’t want to see him with a second term – but I don’t want to see a democrat up there either. Once again it appears I will be left with trying to pick the lessor of two evils, and I will probably vote Libertarian just to register a protest vote.

[NutCrackerBoy]

So W gets a 'legislative win'. Big deal!

Whether a given political tradeoff is worth it is always debatable. But do you really deny that triangulation works? When one party takes away the issues of the other it makes it hard to whip up an electoral frenzy for the other side.

I thought my key phrase was the coming wave of Republican dominance.If that is really a possibility, I don't want W/Rove to jeopardize its coming to fruition.

[ovrtaxt]

Coming wave of Republican dominance? So what. If the republicans become the promoters of a lesser socialism than the Democrats, it's still socialism. I guess I'm just more Conservative than Republican, more loyal to an idea than a political party. If the Repubs abandon conservatism, I don't need them.

The ONLY reason to vote for them, IMO, is to keep the full on fascists out of power. But when THE right candidate comes along, as Luis keeps challenging us with, I'm outta here. The frustrating thing is that W is really the only choice right now, liberal tendencies and all. Ick.

[takenoprisoner]

good job

[UnChained]

"Not one solution (other than electing a Democrat for president), and not one viable candidate thus far to be seen."

How are viable candidates identified? Who was it that decided that Dole was a viable candidate to beat Clinton? The GOP tries hard to earn the title "The Stupid Party"

The discussion of a conservative ideology of governance has all but disappeared from public view. Our GOP leaders have nearly all lost the fire in the belly that is needed to fight the slide into socialism.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"How are viable candidates identified?"

Well for one, they should have announced their candidacy by now.

"Who was it that decided that Dole was a viable candidate to beat Clinton?"

Dole could have beat Clinton, had it not been for Perot, Clinton won with a plurality, not a majority.

Now, since you apparently will not be voting for Bush, who is your candidate?

[Stew Padasso]

"No evidence of that."

Don't expect you to notice it.

"Blaming others is another common tactic when avoiding an issue."

You are a recovering Democrat, right? Maybe you should take some responsibiltiy for the condition of our government is today. When you were a full fledged Democrat you were probably pimping your pet interests and never recognized the consequences. Kinda like today.

"show us the strength and deepness of your so-called convictions"

For the time being, I will continue to fork over my money to your government. Don't want to end up in jail. However, if I knew that folks like you would personally come confiscate my resources, I would reconsider.

"government's spending habits comport with your notion of appropriateness."

Gosh, people do have a say in the matter, considering the amount of money taken. If we leave that up to your ilk, there is no telling what sorry shape we could end up in.

"you seem to have a strong mistaken notion that we're headed into a financial quagmire--and I don't."

Never said that. Your boy Louis is the one for that debate.

[takenoprisoner]

"Our GOP leaders have nearly all lost the fire in the belly that is needed to fight the slide into socialism."

Look how quickly they shunned Newt. Gave him up in a heartbeat.

[UnChained]

"Now, since you apparently will not be voting for Bush, who is your candidate?"

Playing fantasy politics, I'd have to say that Bush/Cheney in 2004 would pretty well give Hillary the presidency in 2008. A young, solidly conservative, articulate running mate like Condi Rice would be my preference in 2004.

If Dole had Alan Keyes as a running mate, Clinton wouldn't have had a second term. I suspect that the Stupid Party will put forward another ticket like Bush/Quayle, Dole/Kemp or Nixon/Agnew. Cheney is awesome and all but I doubt he will want to run in 2008. His health may be even more of an issue then.

Will GWB take the steps neccesary to protect the Constitution from it's domestic enemies like Hillary? I suspect not. But I'll vote for Bush while I complain about not having a better choice.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

DUBYA STRIKES AGAIN!!!

I shoulda NEVER advocated voting for him in 2000! My apologies for THAT action!

[TBP]

So, you will cast your vote for any politico that will make you a promise that he knows he will never have to fulfill. He will make you that promise hoping that if enough people like yourself vote for him, he will be able to get millions of dollars from the Federal government to run his campaign.

The reason that you refuse to name a name is that your candidate does not exist.

I'll name one for you: Howard Phillips. A committed constitutionalist, small-government conservative who has never taken a cent of government money for his campaigns.