Bush is jettisoning his principles for what?

National Post ^ | June 13, 2002 | Mark Steyn

[ishmac]

I agree. Electing republicans is at best a "holding action" by which we fend off the worst. Until there's a massive grass-roots movement to install real conservativism, the drift leftwards will continue.

[RJCogburn]

It seems that the normal Republican response to a bad program proposed by the left is a to offer a 'lite' version of the same thing. Not only does this mean the leftists still get their way

Right. A wonderful example of that is Medicare, which also allows us to view the long term [I wanna be like Common Tator, so I used a little bold ;^)] effects.

Back when Medicare was getting done in the 60s, rather than say 'no, it is a bad idea and an improper area for government' the AMA conceded (with their Republican allies) the notion that the government had a role and offered a 'Medicare lite' called eldercare. The ballgame was over then

We see what we have now....a huge program that costs more than ten times what it was estimated it would cost at this time, proposals for more programs, increased regulations, paperwork, and more difficult access to care.

[Miss Marple]

Lots of Republicans think the Contract With America was why we won. I don't.

To this day you can't find very many people who knew what was in it. The Congress was won because Clinton moved too far left.

I think Newt knew this was going to happen, and he issued the Contract so that he could claim a mandate on those issues and get them voted on. It was very smart, and I am glad he did it, but I don't think it is why we won.

In every election we have lost (Bush 41 seems to be the one I remember so I will talk about that) the democrats have moved the center to the left by portraying Republicans as uncaring and out of touch. This is what they did to Bush 41. Remember how they went on and on about the economy, until you would have thought he was Simn LeGree? Remember how they portrayed him as out of touch with regular Americans?

The thing the right has to realize is that a lot of people are afraid of us. I have a family that is all over the political spectrum. Several of them are actually worried about Republicans being in control. We have allowed the left to demonize us.

Tator is right. You have to move the center over to our side. There is NO other way to win. If our ideas stood by themselves and could convert people, why wasn't Barry Goldwater elected? Why did Reagan have such a hard time with Congress?

In a perfect world, people would be convinced by the power of our ideas. We do not live in a perfect world.

[Texasforever]

When you have moved to the "center" and adopted all those Demo ideas and have won,--Uh, what have you won?

I will answer that when the dems are in control of all 3 branches.

[caltrop]

What principles? In Texas he expanded the government dramatically and, when it came time to appoint vacancies to the Texas Supreme Court, appointed jurists who moved it to the left. His first proposal in Washington was to expand the Department of Education while cheerfully ensuring a new, friendlier tone by going along with the Democrats. He has thrown the conservatives who elected him a few bones (miniscule tax cuts, appointments to the courts - none of whom he'll fight for), a limited amount of red meat to chew on (Defense increases) and a better posture on the 2nd Amendment which he allowed his appointment John Magaw to promptly toss in the ash heap the first time they had a chance to back it up by allowing pilots to be armed.

Face it, the guy's a Rockefeller Republican. He believes in government and, while he doesn't want to say so, knows taxes will eventually have to go up to pay for it all. If the Democrats are smart enough to nominate someone who can successfully pretend he's a moderate, Bush could easliy wind up back in Texas in '04.

[christine]

"The key to understanding the American system is to imagine that you have the power to make nearly any law you want. But your worst enemy will be the one to enforce it." ~ Rick Cook

[Texasforever]

In Texas he expanded the government dramatically

Really? I have lived in Texas for 30 years and he sure as hell didn't "expand" government in 6 of those 30 years. Do you have any examples?

[F16Fighter]

"We have allowed the left to demonize us."

The Democratic left tried but failed to demonize the GOP during the Gipper's run when he laughed at and treated their distortions and lies as lies. Then he beat Carter, and hammered Mondale into submission. THAT is something the GOP has refused to do since.

Steyn is right -- Dubya ought to slam his 80% approval rating and bully pulpit and bludgeon the Rats on a number of conservative issues WITH THE TRUTH. I think it'll work with most Americans...

Quite frankly, if George Bush can't convince Americans with truth and principles, insead of smoke and nirrors, the Republic is already well on its way to hell in a hand basket.

[LibKill]

I voted for W with much faith in him. It was not blind faith. I knew that he would make me unhappy sometimes.

The alternative was AlBore. I knew for a fact he would just be a mouthpiece for Klintoon. I also knew for a fact that AlBore would make me unhappy 365 days of the year.

It ain't rocket science.

[DreamWeaver]

Among the lucky "farmers" piling up the dollar bills under the mattress are CNN founder Ted Turner, ABC News bloviator Sam Donaldson, the oil company Chevron, and dirtpoor hardscrabble sharecropper David Rockefeller of Chase Manhattan Bank. Federal subsidies are aimed at the largest, most profitable farming operations, so, if you've got a small dairy operation in Vermont or New Hampshire, you'll be getting precisely nothing.

I have found that not many people are aware of this very important fact.

[Miss Marple]

President Reagan could laugh at the press and the dems, because he won by a large margin. (He still didn't control Congress, by the way.) The people were willing to support him, but they still didn't give him a Republican Congress, did they?

President Bush has a very closely contested election, and a media and democrat party that has been Clintonized. Should he attempt to bludgeon the democrats from the bully pulpit, it is likely it would never get air time.

What he is doing is going to all these local appearances, where he gets local coverage in places like Des Moines and Little Rock. The local press covers him, and the Beltway Press pays no attention.

Do I wish that President Bush could make a national speech laying out all that's wrong with the Rats? Sure. But I am also realistic enough to know that this would be pointless and could possible open the President up to a full-scale attack. This would not be productive, plus the networks probably wouldn't carry it.

[F16Fighter]

I was aware Reagan didn't "control the Congress", but certainly held appreciable sway and clout despite that fact (remember the "Reagan Democrats"?).

So you feel that Dubya's 80% approval rating is tenuous and fragile at best and that he should hold on and wait until there is a chance the Senate once again is in GOP's hands perhaps?

As for the media ignoring Dubya should he opportune at launching some political capital from the bully pulpit, that is a point that is arguable. IMO, there are now many more media outlets that would give Dubya and our side a fairer shake than in the past. I think it has something to do with ratings ;-)

[Teacher317]

He still didn't control Congress, by the way.

No, but he had 53+ GOP in the Senate for almost all of his 8 years.

[caltrop]

All you have to do is look at the 40% growth in the Texas budget, far in excess of the rate of inflation. How could you miss it?

[caltrop]

That should read "the 40% increase Bush presided over"