Posted on 06/18/2002 9:57:13 AM PDT by jimkress
Edited on 07/12/2004 3:54:48 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Conservative lawmakers and activists disappointed with President Bush's first 18 months in office are calling into question his tactics and strategy in advancing the conservative agenda.
"The president for the most part has been our guy," said House Majority Leader Dick Armey, Texas Republican and a prominent conservative on Capitol Hill. "A few times we disagree."
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
Another possible solution (not for the Senate but the House) would be to inject fresh blood by dramatically increasing the size of the House to reflect the population ratios laid out in the Constitution. In any case, at a time when even many "extreme" conservatives on FR seem to have completely forgotten free market arguments on issues such as the minimum wage and housing subsidies, the short-term prospects for small-government policies (even with a comfortable GOP majority in the Senate) are pretty dismal.
The Constitution has nothing to do with it. It is the people who won't.
Actually, the constitution quote wasn't mine but I think you may be on to something here; the people have been at the trough so long that they may never be pried away until the whole system collapses.
True.
It could happen.
I am not really good at assuming the position.
First of all, I am NOT a " guy " and if you had paid the slightest attention, whilst reading FR ( BTW, I don't recall your nic at all ; yet, you have been a member for a long time. Just wake up ? ), you would knw that. You would also know that I post FACTS ; unlike you and have a great memory. I don't allow the myth makers, nor my own imagination, to interfer with facts.
Oh my, so President Bush is a " country club ", " rich " ( only poor people call the wealthy [ GOD inly knows what " rich " means to you, other than your MARXISTS dribblings and envy !] and you use " rich " as a perjorative. Shame on YOU ! ) , " spoiled " ( ? ) Republican , and so are his friends and other Republicans ? Reagan may have come from a middle class family, with a falling down drunk, abusive father : however , he was STINKING RICH , when he was a movie star, a governor, and yes when he was president. All of his friends were / are " rich " ! WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM WITH PEOPLE, WHO HAVE MRE MONEY THAN YOU DO ? YOU'CE SWALLOWED THE MARXIST CREDO WHOLE, I SEE.
Just which campaign promises, has President Bush renegged on ? Name each one, and supply the date he made the promise, and the date he renegged on it. If you don't, I'll take it as absolute proof that don't know what you're talking about.
This nation has had an escalating problem, with the cost of medicine and health care, since after WW II . No it wasn't the government, which precipitated this mess. IT WAS THE UNIONS ! After WW II, the Unions forced companies to pay for health benefits / insurance. Over the years, these benefits have grown expotencially. The self employed and others, not covered by these plans, pay ( of they can afford to ) gigantic premiums for much less coverage. Those , who either pay nothing, or aqlmost nothing, over use health services , and in turn, that jacks up the prices. YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND MUCH OF ANYTHING, THAT YOU ARE ATTEMPTING TO TALK ABOUT.
Reagan ignored health services, Social Security ( and that certainly WAS a well known problem during his two terms ! ), as well as many other things. HE WAS NOT PERFECT ! I DIDN'T EXPECT HIM TO BE. PRESIDENT BUSH ISNT PERFECT ; YOU FOOLISHLY CONDEM HIM AND HEAP CALUMNY ON HIM, FOR INVALID REASONS !
Reagan IGNORED " tort reforms " . Where on earth are you pulling this garbage from ?
The media and acedemia doesn't bash Bush ? They're both on his side ? ARE YOU INSANE / DRUNK STONED OUT OF YPUR TINY MIND ON DOPE / LIVING IN A CAVE / ON MARS ? You are ill educated, overtly biased, disingenuous, and know absolutely nothing , whatsoever , about either Ronald W. Reagan, George W. Bush, history, politics, current events, Conservatism, the " rich ", the GOP, government, nor me.
Just go back to sleep.
Yeah -- me neither...bad back. Bad knees as well so running is not an option. I also tend to be on the surly side.
The synergy of this combination of defects has potentially serious implications.
Regards
J.R.
Sorry. The "purists" opted to be no-shows. They should be thankful they've gotten as much as they have, considering that it's essentially a gift.
I did not vote for our present RINO Governor, and I will not vote for a second one.
If Illinois gets Democrats, we deserve them. It’s what’s needed to wake us up and purge the RINOs from a once Grand Old Party. If we get RINOs elected, I don't want it on my conscience.
As to your other comments - The same to you.
(Nothing personal)
Yes, I am mystified where this notion that conservatives abandoned Bush in 2000 came from. It strikes me as a manufactured excuse to embrace liberalism by falsely accusing conservatives that they did not turn out for him on election day. Even if that were the case, which it is not, you'd think that GW would pursue the generally moderate to conservative course he campaigned on. To do otherwise is to play petty political games or perhaps indirectly acknowledge that his campaign was one big charade to begin with.
I guess we can't bite the collective hand that feeds us. Maybe Bush is re-defining what conservatism is and none of us are smart enough to comprehend his brilliance. Anyway if Bush keeps on going left, at some point he may actually emerge full circle from the right.
Çliñt¤ñ chased some tail and Bush is chasing his own.
I'll respond to only one thing in your post. You complained that I used the term 'rich' as a pejorative. In the current context of our situation in america it is a pejorative. Let me explain to you why.
I'm staying temporarilly in Scottsdale, AZ. Scottsdale is one of the ten biggest cities in america in terms of land area. It has about 450 square miles. It is not as big as Phoenix, but it is bigger than Los Angeles. It is bigger than New York City, it is perhaps 10 times as big as San Francisco.
Scottsdale is ruled by rich liberal republicans. They've made laws so that it is forbidden in this massive piece of land to build any homes for not merely poor people, but also for middle income people. Unless you are in the top 30% of our nation economically, then you can't really afford to buy the houses that are legal to construct in that city. These rich people have literally grabbed a huge piece of land and then passed laws to keep poor people and middle income people out. They've had these laws working in this manner for over 20 years. Scottsdale used to be a normal city that welcomed everybody. But when the rich liberal republicans took over they passed laws against poor people. Now it is only a city for rich people, not because the free market has made it so, but because the rich liberals have made laws to make it so.
There is lots of land among that 450 square miles that is completely uninhabited, the land is cheap, developers have tried to develop on it. However, on this massive piece of land it is only allowed that houses and other residences be built for rich people only, this is done by law, not by the free market.
That is why when you are born rich in america you are born an enemy to many others. The rich people are engaged in dividing us up and they have done so very successfully.
What we see in the republicans today is a special interest group that serves the upper middle class, the managerial class and the corporate class. They are completely tone-deaf to the interests of the large majority of americans.
As I explained earlier, the medical industry is falling apart. we need free market oriented reforms to cut down on paperwork and to cut tort costs, we need this desperately for the poor in america and yet the republicans can't be bothered.
Bush' excuse is to say 'well I'm identical to the democrats on the issues only slightly to the right of them because the pollster told me to do this, the democrats are not doing anything to help on this issue, so I won't either'. Reagan came from a poor family, he would have different sensibilities in this situation.
Unemployment today is triple what it was 40 years ago. Unemployment has been at historically high levels for 30 years now. I've seen 2 republican economists on tv lecuring us that in order to help corporations have a good selection of hungry workers we have to keep unemployment above 6%. Historically our unemployment rate was under 4.0% 90% of the time prior to 1970 if we merely exclude the 1930's from consideration. We used to have the kind of a country where a high school educated dope could easily get a job and support a family with it. We don't have that any more and the republican economist says it's a good thing because we need hungry workers for corporations.
There's a lot of terrible things the government's done to the economy since 1970. The republicans are just as guilty as the democrats in doing those things. The democrats are happy about it because they're communists who want to bring us down. The republicans are willing to accept it because they're too cowardly to stand up to the liberals in the media and because all they really care about is 'upper middle class' and managerial class interest groups. If they can get the economy to perform well enough for the rich to stroke their egos with good returns, but not good enough so that the poor dumb slobs can have families, then this is fine with the Republicans.
In other words Republicans are no better than democrats and we should have complete contempt for them.
But don't take me too seriously nopardons, one propagandist in the night is not going to turn the day. But one day we will turn the day and I will not forget for one moment what the republicans have done to us.
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.