Bush's Record Calls into Question His Conservative Label

The American Partisan ^ | June 5, 2002 | David T. Pyne

[Deb]

You wouldn't know a fact if it sat on your face.

[Theodore R.]

Yes, your list is overwhelming, but Rush Limbaugh won't tell his listeners all that you have right here. Have you noticed how boring the Rush program is becoming each day? He just defends Bush's indefensibilities. I knew that the Bush "conservative" tag was phony. As governor, he signed "conservative" legislation that reduced the average homeowners huge property tax bill by $10 a month!!!! And took credit as a tax-slasher for $10 a month. Some local districts actually took back the $10. People will believe anything that they wish to believe, and one of the great mythis is increasingly that Bush has rolled back the liberalism of bILLclinton. Pure myth, as you have pointed out. And he never rolled back any of Ann Willis Richards' liberal policies in the state to my knowledge.

[caddie]

LOL and thanks TJ. -caddie

[JohnGalt]

He draws a government check from the national security industry during the most obscene failure in the history of the national security industry since ancient Troy, and he thinks he has business commenting on Bush's preformance?

[rambo316]

Have you all ever read a book called, "Hope of the Wicked"? It is written by a guy named Ted Flynn and it is on the same lines as, "One World" by Tal Brooke. These two books are incredible and they bring to light what is happening in America and the world. Some of you might dismiss them as conspiratorial but one cannot really argue the historical facts that are stated in these two books.

[rambo316]

Who appointed a member of The John Birch Society?

[caddie]

Thanks rw2,

I think the Libertarians mean well, and, there are some appealing aspects to their philosophy, the best one being that the government should not be doing most of the things it is doing.

But their Achilles's heel is the libertinism that they bind up with their laissez-faire.

To the extent that the legalization of drugs is just about the only principle that they consistently focus on, regardless of the point of departure of the original discussion.

But TJ has piqued my interest in economics and stoked my interest in American history.

Task for today is to read Sowell's thinking on tariffs.

Sowell is a clone of the Founding Fathers, with a mix of common sense thrown in.

If the Nobel dudes didn't have their heads up their @$$e$, they would give him their prize. In totality, his writings are awesome. Regards, caddie.

[Registered]

Phony lists...the last refuge of a coward/liar/phony.

Does that come before or after polling data?

[rightwing2]

Oh, I see. You are unwilling to defend the credibility of your statement. I can't say I blame you. You are indeed clever in wording of your response, but taking off the veil, it's fairly obvious you are struggling. Thanks for playing. Your forfeit is accepted.

My forfeit? How about yours? You never even responded to my list of Bush betrayals of his conservative base! Don't blame me if you never learned to read in high school. That's the fault of our Marxist public education system which I have long sought to abolish. Since you can't seem to read, I recommend getting someone else to read Post #48 for you. Better yet, here is the relevant quote from Bush you wanted courtesy of my good buddy, Registered:

"Consistent with the Mitchell plan, Israeli settlement activity in occupied territories must stop."

President George "Dubya" Bush on the need to liberate Palestine from its Israeli "occupiers".

[rightwing2]

Buchanan talks about appeasement in foreign policy and raising tariffs. He disses capitalism a lot. How is this conservative? His populist rhetoric does sound similar to Hitler's early rhetoric in a lot of ways except he doesn't want to conquer the world.

Buchanan disses capitalism??? Man, what are you smoking? There has never been a greater supporter of the free enterprise system than Patrick J. Buchanan. Your misconceived statements prove that you have no idea what a free enterprise system really is? I’ll give you a hint—it has nothing to do with globalist managed “free trade”. First of all, the word “capitalism” is a term coined by Karl Marx himself the author of the Communist Manifesto. The West has subsequently adopted Marxist economic terms and policies even while the number of Communist countries have been reduced.

Buchanan disses rich capitalist multinational corporations that put America Last by shipping American jobs and strategic industries abroad resulting in the deinstrialization of America. These same rich capitalist MNC anti-American fat cats have no problem building up the greatest mass-murdering regime in world history, Communist China, into the best nuclear superpower enemy that US trade surplus money can buy! You apparently oppose tariffs against Communist China and would favor the current system of US taxpayer subsidized trade with the Butchers of Beijing. How the heck can you sanctimoniously claim that fighting for America and Americans is in anyway a policy of “appeasement” or “dissing capitalism?”

Buchanan is a conservative’s conservatives. Always has been and always will be. He makes Dubya look like a veritable Marxist in comparison. Then you have the gall to repeat the Commie smear that Buchanan’s rhetoric sounds similar to Hitler’s. Oh well, I guess that blows away any pretense of your imagined conservative credentials. You know they say that a man is best defined by the enemies he makes rather than the friends that he keeps. Great statesman and the Lord's greatest prophets throughout history have never been short of enemies for the truth is perceived as offensive by many in each successive generation of humanity. Buchanan, a great statesman in his own right, is no exception. With enemies like you and the rest of the liberal internationalist hordes, Pat Buchanan’s conservative stature is made all the greater so by all means keep up the Commie smear talk.against him.

TJ wanted low revenue tariffs instead of an income tax he did not want "protective" tariffs.

No, that is false. TJ wanted moderate revenue producing protective tariffs, just like virtually all the other founding fathers of our great republic. One-hundred and fifty years of tariffs built America into the most dynamic, most expansive economic power on the planet as conclusively proved in Pat Buchanan’s book. Why, you ask? Because the tariff has been declared by classical free market economists, most notably the founding fathers, to be the least oppressive method of taxation yet imagined by man. This is because it taxes only indirectly by raising the costs of certain goods. Unlike the Marxist graduated income tax whose abolition Pat and I have long favored, there is no direct taxation involved and no oppressive intrusion into individual privacy. There is no state power of enforcement. No IRSS to intimidate law-abiding Americans. Moderate revenue based tariffs are what built the US into an industrial powerhouse by protecting our industries against UNFAIR trade practices like dumping, not FAIR competition.

Best of all, the tariff is an elective tax, which means that if you don’t want to “pay it” as an American you don’t have to. All you have to do is avoid buying those foreign goods which were subjected to a tariff. So let’s review the benefits of the tariff—increased revenue, drastically lower or abolished income taxes, evisceration or abolition of the IRSS, more and far higher paying US manufacturing jobs, a more solid and reliable US economic expansion the re-industrialization of the United States, the defunding and de-industrialization of our enemy Communist China and more. The restoration of sensible moderate revenue based tariffs would mean the reduction of US reliability, dependency and vulnerability on foreign sources for the production of both economic goods and strategic military systems so that the US would not be cut off and unduly effected in a national security crisis. Far greater economic and military self-sufficiency for the US. Did I miss anything?

[rightwing2]

Good point. It's to bad that so many of these so-called conservative challenges to Bush's politics have to ruin their objectivity with what are down-right dishonest claims. A 90% approval hardly sounds like an alienated base to me.

From the article: "alienating many of his conservative supporters in the process."

Dishonest claims?? This is a fact that Bush has alienated many of his conservative supporters with his illegal alien amnesty, signature of the Democrap "Congressional Majority Insurance Bill" $150 billion farm subsidy bill, global warming report to the UN, etc has been reported in every rightwing newspaper and journal in America, which you apparently have never read. Your crying about it doesn't make it untrue. Its not my fault that you are one of the 90% mind-numbed blind Bush robots. Oh well, at least the real conservatives like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and David Limbaugh are making a case that Bush needs to take a stand for conservative principles against he radical Democrap left for a change.

[rightwing2]

I noticed with great glee that you failed to rebut my very long and specific list of Bush's record and instead focused your attempts at propagating your disinformation on a failed attempt to address some of the valid concerns about Bush mentioned on the article. Anyway, thanks for conceding my arguments! ROTFLOL!

[rightwing2]

Oops. Gross inconsistency here on your part. "The author is right" on calling steel tariffs conservative, yet you oppose farm subsidies and call them liberal, when they are along the same lines. It appears that not only are the arguments of this author that you hold in such high esteem incorrect, but you do not even know what your own arguments are, you just want to bash Bush for the sake of bashing Bush. See through you, we do.

Wrongo! There is no inconsistency at all in my arguments, only in your own duplicitous "doublespeak." It just so happens that I agree with the author's praising of Bush's decision on steel tariffs as a fine conservative decision in the proudist tradition of our founding fathers. I have congratulated Bush on having the vision to protect our military strategic industries from certain death at the hands of our many unfair trading partners like Russia and Japan and enemies like Communist China. How am I bashing Bush when I have complimented him on this very issue which you bash him for??

You seem to oppose the further de-instrialization of America and our increased dependency on foreign markets for our strategic military requirements. Hardly, a conservative position! I agree with the author's general worldview on conservatism which seems to put America's interests first and foremost above the interests of globalist anti-American multinational corporate fat cats that traitorously support the ongoing US arming and economic enrichment and prolonging of our Communist Chinese enemy in power. Tariffs are not subsidies. That is a bold-faced liberal internationalist lie. Tariffs are an indirect tax, far more benign than the Marxist income tax with a multitude of beneficial economic, revenue, and national security effects which I have articulated in post #230. Tariffs do not impede or restrict our free enterprise system at all, unlike some other more oppressive methods of taxation. Direct government farm subsidies on the other hand are socialist in nature and in opposition to the free market. The GOP Congress virtually eliminated in the mid to late 1990s. Now, Bush has brought them back from the dead and like a vampire he has made them larger, stronger and more offensive than ever.

Finally, your statement that I am somehow "bashing Bush just to bash Bush" is a lie. After all, I was one of his militant defenders during the election dispute with Gore and I protested on his behalf in front of the Supreme Court building on decision day. With his latest betrayals of the conservative cause like his signature of the Democrap "Congressional Majority Insurance Bill", Bush has sincerely and deeply disspointed me. If conservatives do not unite in urging him to take a stand against and fight against the liberal Democrat "enemy" and start implementing some conservative principles, than there will be no hope that Bush will change for the better.

My objective here in pointing out his shortcomings is to ensure that every Freeper casts an informed vote in November. I am not urging people to vote against Bush in the general election. My vote is up for grabs as I will reserve judgment as to whether to vote for Bush in the general election based on whether he starts taking a stand on some conservative issues or not. However, at this point, I am urging all conservatives to do everything they can to replace him with a real conservative like Alan Keyes in the Republican Primary in 2004.

[rightwing2]

So what? Perhaps you should re-read the editorial (or at least the last paragraph). The author claims that Bush has lost his conservative base. Howlin posts an article that suggests otherwise.

Wrong! The author said that he had "alienated many of his conservative supporters." He didn't say that he lost his conservative base, he just said that a few of his more high profile liberal policies had ticked them off. It is you and your RINO ilk that are being disingenous by trying to reinterpret what the author actually said more to your own liking.

[rightwing2]

You wouldn't know a fact if it sat on your face.

Your resort to rude personal insults and your failure to specifically rebut EVEN ONE of the points of my long list of Bush's betrayals of his conservative base demonstrate conclusively that you are totally at a loss over how to challenge my rhetorically and factually superior points. Thanks for your de facto admission of defeat.

[rightwing2]

He draws a government check from the national security industry during the most obscene failure in the history of the national security industry since ancient Troy, and he thinks he has business commenting on Bush's preformance?

Not sure what you are talking about? I can only assume that you are referring to Bush's decision to unilaterally disarm the USA of 75% of its strategic nuclear deterrent. I hardly see how that impairs the credentials of the author of this article particularly in view of his political credentials. However, I do share your dissolution with Bush's national security failures in these areas.

[rightwing2]

Who appointed a member of The John Birch Society?

Buchanan appointed a FORMER member of the Society, Ezola Foster, as his VP running mate. Personally, I thought she represented a solid conservative choice all things considered.

[rightwing2]

Yes, Sowell has always been very good on conservatism and has been very complimentary of Pat Buchanan in particular.

[rightwing2]

The American System, on the other hand, is based on the Christian principle of class cooperation. Industrialist and employees working together for the benefit of the commonwealth of the nation.

Exactly correct. Again, best wishes on your run for the Lt. Governorship of your state. Your country needs you and it is high time that real conservatives answer the call to political service in increasing numbers to combat the continuing leftward trend of our country into gradual slavery and perhaps even oblivion at the hands of supranational organs and institutions like the UN.