Everytime the Republicans have the slightest bit of success...
To what success are you referring? The reduction in federal spending? If the GOP had even the slightest success in reducing the size of government, you might have a point.
Posted on 09/11/2003 9:39:47 AM PDT by sheltonmac
What is the difference between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party? One is the party of big spending, more government control and a burgeoning federal bureaucracy; the other has a jackass for a mascot.
For years I bought the Republican line that the only way to cut taxes and shrink government is to vote in other Republicans, regardless of their positions on any particular issue. It wasn't long before I began to suspect that reducing the size and scope of government is not part of the GOP game plan.
My suspicions were most recently confirmed by none other than Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie. An Aug. 31 editorial in the Manchester Union Leader—a conservative publication—stated that Gillespie admits the "days of Reaganesque Republican railings against the expansion of federal government are over."
Naturally, Gillespie denied this. In a letter to the editor, he wrote, "I joined the Republican Party because of Ronald Reagan. I believe that conservatives and millions of other Americans are Republicans because they support our positive agenda and share our beliefs, not because they have nowhere else to go."
Gillespie appeared on Meet the Press this past Sunday and again confirmed the fact that the GOP has all but abandoned its goal of shrinking government. As soon as he defined "fiscal restraint" as simply reducing the rate of increase in government spending, his secret was out.
In showing the compassionate side of his brand of conservatism, he pointed out that the Bush tax cut plan is similar in principle to that of the Democrats: "The fact is, the tax burden under President Bush has shifted to the wealthy. If you look at those who make $30,000 to $40,000 a year, since President Bush took office, their share of the income tax burden has gone down from 2.1 percent to 1.9 percent, while those who make over $200,000 a year saw their share of the income tax burden go up from 44.8 percent to 45.4 percent."
On the issue of education, Gillespie remarked, "I charged that Hill harder than anybody, with Newt Gingrich and Dick Armey. We lost. We have to keep moving forward and apply conservative principles to a federal role in education." With that defeatist attitude among its leadership, is it any wonder why the GOP removed as part of its platform the elimination of the Dept. of Education?
As if the hole Gillespie had dug for himself wasn't deep enough, he was interviewed on the Rush Limbaugh Show on Tuesday. (This was an apparent attempt to further clarify his support for big government.) To explain his position on the federal government's current level of social spending, Gillespie offered, "The size of the populace grows every year, and demographics and things affect some of these mandatory spending programs." Of Bush's offer of prescription drug coverage to Medicare recipients, he said, "The Republicans in the Senate campaigned on a prescription drug benefit, and the president campaigned on one. We have to be as a party good to our word to the voters."
When Limbaugh confronted him about the federal government's role in education, Gillespie said that he didn't believe the Republicans "can constantly go back and re-fight old battles." I wonder what this country might have been like had George Washington adopted a similar strategy in his fight against the British.
If shrinking the size and scope of government is no longer the goal of the "conservative" party, then the best we can hope for is a small decrease in the rate of growth. I have spoken to many Republicans who believe that is precisely the attitude realistic voters should have. It's as if we are fraternity pledges who are expected to drop our pants and take our share of whacks from the paddle without complaint. Cries of "Give me liberty, or give me death!" have been replaced with groans of "Thank you, sir! May I have another?" This bend-over-and-grab-your-ankles approach to politics may appeal to some, but I find it abhorrent.
The difference between Democrats and Republicans grows smaller with each passing day. Both parties have obviously resigned themselves to the fact that government is going to grow; the only quarrel is over how fast it should grow and which party should be in charge of that growth.
Quote of the day.
Oh well I hope people are happy with President Dean, they'll deserve it.
Everytime the Republicans have the slightest bit of success...
To what success are you referring? The reduction in federal spending? If the GOP had even the slightest success in reducing the size of government, you might have a point.
_____________
Don't criticize Bush from the Left, but from the Right. Don't swear, just bitch about Bush signing the medicare bill, banning assault weapons and the like. Any neanderthal thing that the president rejects, you bash him for selling out the base. Occasionally, do fake praise of him, then continue. Pretend to be a Tom McClintock supporter, outraged that a liberal like Arnold can be getting the support of the white house.
I don't go there much anymore because it got boring. But I have an active account I haven't used for about 3 months, and that is how I keep it active. The fun part of the excercise is that you create divisiveness there. Even though you might think it is a good thing that President Bush will sign the weapons bill, fake outrage, threaten to never vote for him again, etc.
Oh, and never start your own threads there until you have been "vetted" for a few months. They are ultraparanoid there, and will ban anybody critical who starts a thread shortly after joining. Just get involved in a discussion, throw occasional bones to the Prez for doing some loony right wing thing like getting rid of environmental laws, and then go attack him from the right wing.
It's fun, and it really depresses the hard core right wingers there who believe that Atilla the Hun was a moderate.
Success as defined by winning elections. Spending cuts have yet to happen but we've gotten tax cuts, this will necessitate spending cuts in the future.
Yikes!!
Did it ever occur to you that a republican governing like a democrat is no different than actually have a democrat in office? Unless of course you make a living off of partisan patronage contracts handed out by the GOP.
Success as defined by winning elections.
But what good is winning if nothing is ever done, or if the "conservatives" in office don't even appear to be doing anything? Spending cuts have yet to happen but we've gotten tax cuts, this will necessitate spending cuts in the future.
No one was holding a gun the the president's head when he signed an increase in education spending and farm subsidies. Why not just freeze spending? Even that would be a step in the right direction.
Tax cuts and the successes in the War on Terror would happen with a Democrat?
Unless of course you make a living off of partisan patronage contracts handed out by the GOP.
I wish, but sadly I'm just a poor slob out in the private sector. No contacts.
Given the persistent nature of your posts, I suspect you have your DU memo.
Well, I happen to be persisten because I believe VERY STRONGLY in limited government, and I have not seen any indication from the GOP that they share that same belief.
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.