CATO Institute lambastes President Bush

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

[habs4ever]

But what's the point, so you can feel better about bitching?

Yaknow, seeing those Twin Towers come down sorta put politics into perspective, and well, I DON'T CARE about anything else he is doing than what he is focusing on right now.I trust his instincts, his wisdom and believe he has good sense, and superb leadership and political skills, so why should I nitpick when the things that matter to me, and I think are germaine to these times, are NOT about daily political battles or the items that radio talk show hosts grew used to during Clinton's term.9/11 changed it all.

I am prioritizing how I view Bush and have changed my expectations with the times.He hasn't let me down, and in his most important functions are CIC, he is a titan.For that, I am proudly a Bushbot.He is a REAL President.

[cinFLA]

I think that this will ultimately result in a "one-term" GWB presidency.

Not to worry. The Libertarians only got 380,000 votes in '00.

[CWOJackson]

That many? So is that a net gain or loss from the previous election?

[paulk]

Reagan lived in a much cleare world, with a clearly defined enemy. That was then, this is now.

Sounds like a parrot of the mainstream press.

I was awake and paying attention during the reagan years - he had a big mess on his hands and showed what leadership can do. He won the cold war! What everyone said could not be done, what everyone said he couldn't do with military strength. He defied the conventional wisdom again and again. The Dems didn't like him - but they also followed him - they feared him. He didn't follow poll data out of fear - he led. He was a man - not someone's BOY like GWB.

[habs4ever]

Sure...dream on.

The Dream Never Dies, or so says....Teddy Kennedy too?

[AntiGuv]

Pat Buchanan & the Libertarians combined got 833,560 votes in 2000, and it's a well-known political tenet that incumbent parties tend to lose a greater "protest" vote than do challenger parties...

[RJCogburn]

I share your admiration for Bush the man. I agree his most important job is the security of the nation.

So, when you ask But what's the point, so you can feel better about bitching?

The answer is not, I don't feel a bit better. It is, as I said

say those are bad ideas. Otherwise we can anticipate more of the same

[DoughtyOne]

To: DoughtyOne

Translation: I'll whine and complain and hold my breath until someone else brings me a solution in a silver platter.

Translation: This is supposed to be a conservative forum.  Big government is not conservative.  Just because you're fool enough to settle for trillion dollar Medicare suppliment enhancements, and 70% Education Department increases in 2.5 years, and borders so out of control we have no idea how many or what level of terrorists are entering, it doesn't mean everyone is.  Your silver platter is tarnished bud.  Wake up.

By the way, if that type of a conservative reaches the level of national recognition that a political candidate needs to have in order to stand a chance at winning, who do you think will get him there? You won't, you just said that you will do nothing until he shows up.

I didn't say I wouldn't help get him lofted, I just said I wouldn't until one was lofted.  I can work for a guy, but if he isn't the nominee that doesn't mean I'm going to vote for the DimPublican anyway.

We will.

I'm so impressed.

Funny thing is, at that point you'll jump up put of the sofa and claim title to that victory.

Luis, you don't know what I do or don't do.  Your comments are off base, which isn't unusual for your ilk.

87 posted on 08/01/2003 7:22 PM PDT by Luis Gonzalez (Yo soy la Cuba libre.)

[habs4ever]

If you had some proof, like a Novemeber 2002 blowout loss, or massive tanking in the polls that showed Bush wildly unpopular, then I maybe think you know what you are talking about.You've confused what animates you with what everyone else OUGHT to be focusing on, whence your anger and outrage.

Would you say you're an ideologue?

[CWOJackson]

Thank God for buchanan or it could have been worse. Fortunately he was able to use $12.5 million to parley his 17% in the polls down to next to nothing. If he hadn't alienated his base so quickly selling out to Fulani we might have been looking at President Gore.

But you guys can give it your best shot next time around...I'm sure you will.

[habs4ever]

The devil is in the details, mostly in Medicare reform.It depends HOW, doesn't it? That's where Tom Delay comes into things.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"He won the cold war!

I love Reagan, he's by far the best president that I believe I will ever see in my lifetime, but Reagan did not win the cold war by himself, he pushed it over the edge, but you can no more say that he WON it, than you can give sole credit for the Allied victory over Nazi Germany, to the people who landed in Normandy.

It was a war, many fought, all helped.

[AntiGuv]

The difference between Bush & Gore was 543,614 - with the Democrats losing 2,882,985 "protest" votes to the Greens. (Though to be accurate, only about 1/2 to 2/3 of that would've gone D without Nader on the ballot.)

[Harlequin]

So a 70% increase in the budget for the Education Dept. (*cough*) is helping the war on terra? Buy a clue, bozo.

[AntiGuv]

The issue at hand, however, was rationalizing the disparity between Reagan and GWB's spending on the basis of military expenditures (which weren't even included in that original graph). Clearly, that rationalization doesn't hold water when Reagan had to contend with similarly compelling military requirements.

[CWOJackson]

Take care Luis. Now that I'm an honorary Constipated And Ticked Off the wife and I are going to go out and celebrate.

Be seeing you around.

[Tauzero]

" and Reagan GOT 75-80%! GWB is giving up 90%"

No kidding.

It's truly pathetic how these party hacks actually think that advice is applicable to Bush.

Makes you wonder if any of them are even old enough to remember Reagan.

[DoughtyOne]

To: DoughtyOne

"Partner, with your lack of intelligence, I can live with your opinion too."

Of course you can, it reflects in your own political choices. I wouldn't expect less of you.

116 posted on 08/01/2003 7:41 PM PDT by CWOJackson (go pat go,,,going, going....gone)
 

This is the second reference to Pat.  Your tag line has mentioned him both times.

I seldom talk about other forum participants intelligence, but you and Luis try to take leadership roles through badgering of other forum participants, so the gloves are off.  In 1992, 1996 and 2000, Pat Buchanan tried to get the border and immigration issues resolved.  I didn't support him in 1992, but by 1996 I recognized that he was right.  Our borders were out of control.

It wasn't just the illegal immigration that was out of control.  There were troubling signs of other problems.  Some of the people immigrating to our nation were from terrorist states in the middle-east.

After 2001, I would think that someone who professes to be as intelligent and all knowing as you do, would know better than to avoid damning Pat Buchanan.  If we would have tightened up our borders, and screened immigrants as Buchanan demanded starting around 1990, we could have avoided 09/11/01, a war on terrorism and a multitude of other problems.

I know you won't admit this, but then again that is but a very firm confirmation of my opinion of your abilities.

[Luis Gonzalez]

You said this:

"I'll be more than happy to support a conservative when one is eventually lofted for us to support again."

Then you said this:

"I didn't say I wouldn't help get him lofted."

What then did you mean by "WHEN ONE IS LOFTED FOR US"?

"Luis, you don't know what I do or don't do."

Hell Ron, YOU don't know what YOU are saying, or NOT saying anymore, let alone what you're doing.

[cinFLA]

That many? So is that a net gain or loss from the previous election?

Down 20 percent from 96.