I wonder if the Bushbots realize they are slowly becoming the James Carville, Paul Begala's of the Republican party.
I'm no BushBot, but the distilled argument against him doesn't seem that strong. Just two points.
Argument One: The President is either hamstrung by lack of control of the Senate and/or is exerting a masterful strategy to regain control of both Houses of Congress AND then will enact a conservative agenda.
The alternative would seem to be gridlock playing into Dashole's hand? No compromise, and hence shutdown the government. Not likely a good way to win in 2002.
Argument Two: The President is doing a masterful job of running the Terror War. Who would you rather have in the White House Al Gore or George Bush?
Well, we could be listening to daiy video cuts from Mullah Omar taunting the Great Satan, saying "Give us the evidence of Bin Laden's involvement." We could still have UBL training thousands of terrorists openly in Taliban camps bolstered by their apparent invincibility. We could still have utter chaos and fear.
We could still have Arafat as the recognized peace partner in Palestine.
We could still have even drier farmers in Klamath. We could be members of Kyoto. We could have California Air Resources Board decisions co-opted into federal law. I shudder to thinks what else.
"Our Team" must win, at any cost.. Even if through "winning" we become virtually indistinguishable from the other team.
And, of course every team has their pom-pom clad cheerleaders..
Al Gore, as president, would have been mercilessly attacked by conservatives for leaving our borders open after 9/11. Bush is wrong on open borders and conservatives should criticize him as they would have Gore.
Bush being a "nicer guy" has nothing to do with it.
I have to admit suprise that some did try to defend giving the Military domestic arrest powers and were willing to throw down the Posse Comitatas Law. Pretty frightening.
this is what it is all about. There are attempts to polarize the one party against the other. This is done to keep our eyes off the "ball", the destruction of freedom and conversely, your enslavement as a serf, who must pay work until May to pay taxes, just as a tenant farmer or peasant in days gone by.
those who are already polarized should ask themselves which comes first? freedom or political party.
the klintonites did the very same thing, being extremely polarized, and the bush kool aid bunch does the same thing now.
time for us to really think about what we voted for, what we hold as the guiding principle.
I submit that it is liberty and freedom, not statism or blind adherence to ANY party or group. Statism vs. freedom. Pick one.
|
|
"Conservatives must defend the Republic, for no one else will. Conservatives must uphold the Constitution because it is clearly under assault. Conservatives must push back against both political Parties, because big government elitism is rampant in both their houses. Conservatives must take on media bias directly and with vigor for the Republic, not the Republican." Thank you for the post! |
|
|
|
Visit: Freeper Tips and Helps for posting photos, links and other HTML goodies. |
|
Hmmm, wait. Is this the guy with the popularity ratings in the mid-70s? Same Bush? *scratch* Why would we need to defend a guy who's not under attack? ;-) I'm more worried about Congress. Especially if the Republicans in Congress listen to people like you... :-)
Unfortunately in adopting this football game mentality most conservatives have forgotten their one foundational principle.
I assume you meant "founding principle" there... ;-)
When it comes to this nation it is NOT about the victory of Republicans over the opposing team of Democrats, but about the victory of the people, the citizens of the United States, over government’s invasive nature.
Well, not entirely. That's the Libertarian line. The conservative line is to have the smallest, most effective government possible -- not to triumph completely over "government's invasive nature". We want tax cuts, or tax code restructing, but very few of us call for complete elimination of all taxes, for instance. The Republicans are the party of limited government; the Democrats are the party of constantly expanding government. I would imagine most conservatives would also agree with me when I say that a "true" welfare system is indeed a good thing; if someone can TRULY not provide for themselves due to a severe handicap, etc., it's the kind, humane, just, American, and conservative thing to do to help them out a little. But I mean a *little*, and only those who need it. Limited, effective government.
For conservatives it is never about big government over even bigger government, or even about small government over gigantic government. The fight is always to keep central government in its place. The people are the rulers and the government is the servant. It is that simple.
Wait, I thought this was about saving the "Republic" -- er, and, in a Republic, the people aren't the rulers. In fact, the Framers specifically modeled us after Rome, not the Greek Democracy -- in which the people WERE the rulers, and, as such, quickly realized they could simply vote themselves money, and promptly proceeded to do so -- which wasn't such a hot economic idea. The government is the only true monopoly, as it is the only entity that we entrust with absolute force in order to mediate disputes. The people are the citizens; the citizens elect representatives who reflect their views; the representatives weigh their constituent's concerns with their own personal philosophies, which may not entirely reflect their constituency's, and then they vote. It's that complex, my bloody-shirt-waving compadre. ;-)
Realize this, the Republicans are part of the government, and as with the other half of that governmental equation, the Democrats, they should be approached cautiously.
Well, no argument with you there.
The object then of conservative participation is not to protect one half of the governmental equation, but to protect We the People.
Well, actually, as Buckley put it, the job of the conservative is to stand in the middle of the road of history and yell, "Stop!". The object, ideally, of EITHER party's participation, is to balance the need for government against the evils of a bloated, bureaucratic-filled, government. In other words, to keep the government honest and, as we have given the government the monopoly of force to mediate disputes, as I said earlier, to make sure that the government is protecting "We, the People".
A reality check gives a very different picture. A picture of a President without a philosophical center, and one who engages in set piece political thinking planned far in advance of real events, with political considerations the only goals.
Ah, so 9/11 was planned far in advance of "real events" and political considerations are the only goals for the response? :-) Uh, and those tax cuts, which actually WERE planned in advance, those aren't at all helpful to "We, the People"? Sure as heck helped this "People" right here. ;-)
It is time for the Bush apologists to recognize their mistake and to stop making self-defeating arguments in the President's defense.
Again, what are the Bush...ahem...supporters...supposed to be apologizing for? We've got a guy in there with great poll ratings, a solid moral center, who has delivered on tax cuts and...oh my, I *must* stop apologizing! :p Seriously, could you tell me what Bush, or the, er, "Bush apologists", need to apologize for? :-)
Instead, many conservatives continue to strain mightily to explain clearly liberal tendencies from the President as something else.
Hmm. I'm starting to wonder if you didn't mean to write this piece about John McCain...or maybe if you could pass me some of what you're smoking. ;-)
Argument One: The President is either hamstrung by lack of control of the Senate and/or is exerting a masterful strategy to regain control of both Houses of Congress AND then will enact a conservative agenda.
Bull. We already got tax cuts through -- that's possibly the most important issue for most conservatives. School vouchers? On their way. Increase in military spending? Done.
This argument is usually offered in defense of the President breaking a campaign promise (Campaign Finance Reform),
Please! If you truly are a conservative, you should know that...conservatives HATE Campaign Finance Reform. It's a limitation of free speech. And that goes against our...er..."foundational", was it?...principles. :-)
or advancing the liberal agenda (Education Bill).
Okay, you just went from "He broke a campaign promise, damn him," to, "He kept a campaign promise, damn him!" Are you against vouchers, as well? I'm curious.
The necessity of using this strategy is blamed on the President's powerlessness in the face of the loss of the Republican's slim Senate majority because of the defection of the RINO Jeffords, or as a way to disarm the Democrats and the media. Now there is a LOT that is laughable in this argument, yet it is seriously offered by many conservatives.
Duh. The Senate will tie up the partial-birth abortion bill. Do you dispute that? The Senate has refused to confirm a single Bush appointee. Do you dispute that? And woo-hoo, yep, that's laughable! Wow, that's a knee-slapper! Man! Did you take humor tips from Al Gore, or what? And if so, was it pre-beard Al or post-beard Al? :-)
Even with the loss of the Senate, again, we've gotten tax cuts through. Perhaps the Congressional Republican Leadership requires apologists -- they're weak-willed and afraid of their own shadows -- but I still don't see why I should be apologizing for Bush.
The major flaw with this argument is the illogic of the President playing best friends with Senator Ted Kennedy in order to disarm liberals or initial some masterful strategy to offset the Jeffords defection.
Dear God, that bit with Kennedy is at best anecdotal and basically a puff spin piece released to show "bipartisanship in action". Take a look at Kennedy's voting record, compare it with the decisions Bush made as Governor of Texas. I think you might find a gap. In fact, I think they might still disagree! Really! I know, it's hard to believe...I mean, after all, the media said they're "friends"! And the media, as we know, is NEVER wrong!
And, um, am I reading you right here? Do you actually think we're trying to get Teddy KENNEDY to defect to offset the balance? Er...no comment needed on that one.
How much would it have taken for the President to try the same with Jeffords earlier and to prevent the defection in the first place? Clearly the Jeffords defection was a bungling of that RINO’s ego.
Bungling of his ego?!?! Jeffords' move was entirely INSPIRED by ego. The Republicans offered him practically everything he wanted, had meeting after meeting with him, in order to try to not get him to defect. This is simply uninformed. If you really need me to post links detailing the pains they went through to try to keep Jeffords from jumping ship, I'll do it, but surely even you can't be so inane you couldn't run a search on it yourself.
Yet just as surely there is no masterful strategy in running off a RINO so you can be best friends with Ted Kennedy in order to win back the RINO Senate you just lost by running off the RINO…OK enough.
Indeed, enough, the run-on sentences were getting a bit silly. Again, are you telling me that you really think it's a Republican plan to court TED KENNEDY to cross the aisle? Whoa, Nelly! Ever heard of a guy named Miller? He was the one we were hoping we could get to cross the aisle...quite conservative for a Dem. But TEDDY? I gotta laugh at you on this one. :p
The President and his people caused their problem in the Senate.
Um, it's always pleasant to give statements and not back them up with facts. Again, I'll post links to everything Jeffords was offered if you need it, but surely a writer of your enormous...uh...well, you must have something that's enormous, maybe a lump in your head somewhere, anyway -- you shouldn't even need any links for this. The efforts to woo Jeffords to stay were virtually unmatched. He was offered the sun, moon, and stars, and he jumped for political gain and...because he's Jeffords, and like McCain, operates on ego-fuel even more than most Pols.
The President and his people badly bungled the political end game in the Senate.
Again, how? Do you have any facts here?
The simple answer to the Bush apologists is the right answer. This President has no conservative center and is unable to initiate a conservative agenda.
Er, right. Like, he hasn't appointed any conservative cabinet members. Rumsfeld is a raging liberal. He hasn't gotten tax cuts through. He hasn't come out in support of school vouchers. He hasn't nominated conservative justices that are being held up in Senate confirmations...right. :-)
What kind of TV reception do you get up there on the dark side of the moon? Just wondering. :-)
Argument Two: The President is doing a masterful job of running the Terror War. Who would you rather have in the White House Al Gore or George Bush?
The answer is who cares.
I do! *raises hand* Anybody else? Anybody? Can I get someone to second this? Happier that GW is in there than Al Bore? I would happen to think a few would agree with me here, maybe just a *few*. :-)
This argument seems to have its basis in the “likeability” of Bush over the tree stump Gore. Granted!
Wow, you get sillier the more you go on. I didn't think that would be possible. The argument *has* its basis in the mettle of the administrations. We have, at Secretary of Defense, the only man to ever serve twice at that position. The Vice President is also quite familiar with war. Condie Rice is not exactly a limp-wristed liberal, either. I wonder who Al Bore would have put in his cabinet...no, rather, I *shudder* to think who he would have put in his cabinet. He also would have micromanaged the war, spent too much time dallying with the UN, and there is of course the question of whether his administration would even have had the guts to go ahead and prosecute the war at ALL, much less finish it in six months or so and get ready to move on to Iraq. ;-) Silly, silly man! Hehe.
Would a conservative initiate TIPS
Yes.
a new massive “Homeland Security” bureaucracy
Yes, although the "bureacracy" is actually intended to be a consolidation of other bureaucracries...indeed, a most conservative idea, collapse bureacracries into one cabinet position.
continue the massive influx of Muslim immigrants, maintain wide-open borders
Absolutely. Conservatives believe in free trade and legal immigration, last time I checked. Locking down the borders to, say, Canada, costs...a LOT...is a waste of troops...and, you know what, food tends to spoil -- it'd wreak havoc with trade.
and propose new police powers for the military while resisting the use of the military on U.S. borders?
Yes. See above for the border concerns, and if the people demand new police powers for the military, which they are doing, the conservative would do so. Why not?
Other than bombing the Taliban out of power, a job the U.S. military is well trained and able to do, how has the President ensured the safety of U.S. citizens?
I would wager to guess that he's worked closely with the Israeli Secret Service and other intelligence organizations to freeze the assets of terrorists, so they have more trouble funding their activities, that he's calling for a Cabinet-level Homeland Defense position, and that he's on his way to taking Hussein out of power and thus removing one of the nastiest terrorists on the planet. But I could be wrong. Given your line of reasoning here, I reckon I should be asking myself: WWPBD? (What Would Pat Buchanan Do?)
The war has been sidetracked successfully by our Arab “friends” into the Palestinian question and the Bush families need to repay the Iraqi black eye.
1. To suggest that prosecuting a war against Saddam Hussein, a man who gasses his own people, and who has had at least four years to pursue a rogue chemical, nuclear, and biological terror arsenal -- and robustly so -- is at best petulant, and at worst...well, pretty much like the rest of this -- dangerous nonsense that sounds like it should be coming from a liberal.
2. The war has been "sidetracked" into the Palestinian question? First, we're not prosecuting a war there. Second, for the love of God, where do you think Hamas operates? Where do you think Islamic Jihad operates? Where do you think we get INTELLIGENCE on these groups? ISRAEL. And to fool yourself into thinking that the War on Terror can somehow be separated from the Middle East turmoil, or SHOULD be separated from it, is about as smart as flying to Munich, handing Czechoslovakia over to Herr Hitler, and then proclaiming "peace in our time". Then again, far be it from me to bother you with such trivial details as world history...
The only progress in the Terror War is the home front war against U.S. citizens. You don’t believe that?
No, I don't, you silly, silly man. Or are you just randomly typing characters like a monkey? Might explain this nonsense you're spouting.
Citizens of the United States are searched randomly at U.S. airports
No! Oh no! ANYTHING BUT THAT!!! I don't want to be...*gasp*...searched! Oh, wait, I happen to recall random bag-checks *before* the War on Terror...oh well. Don't mean to bother you with facts again or anything.
and the borders are unsecured.
Oh, Mr. Buchanan, you're back! Glad to see you. Need I remind you this country was founded on free trade? And this free trade would not be so free if we stopped border traffic to a trickle? This would cost us trillions of dollars right as we appear to be bottoming out of a recession. Yeppers, there's sound economic thinking! No knee-jerking here! :-)
Airline pilots are searched by low paid federal McSecurity workers and not allowed to secure their airplane by flying armed
Er, correct me if I'm wrong, but the bill is now being debated in the Senate to arm pilots. Oh wait, I'm not wrong, don't bother correcting me. ;-) Guess who spearheaded the effort? Ahh, Mr. Mineta, a member of that liberal Bush administration you hate so much. :-) Now, on this one I'm not entirely certain, someone refresh my memory, but as far as I know the security workers are still only under the supervision of Federal employees. And wait, I thought you didn't want the Government "intruding" on things? So, er, your answer to searching people certainly wouldn't be to federalize the security force, would it?
. Islam, the "religion of peace," and their mosques are protected by the Political Correctness Police
Actually, no, those would be protected by freedom of religion. Freedom. Liberty. Those little things we're fighting to save and preserve? Yeah. Those things. So, what, do you advocate destruction of mosques? Ah, yes, that's a very reasoned idea.
while the meter reader is being recruited to spy on your home.
Oh, my my my. Another George Orwell. Interesting, I haven't seen any friends dragged off in the night, nor have I heard any reports of it. I think the NY Times would rather relish a story like that. And, I guess, if the meter reader notices that a man with a Turban is storing large amounts of fertilizer...he shouldn't report that, right? Nah. Too much Big Brother stuff. Spooky! :p Silly man.
Stationing troops on the U.S. borders is resisted for “historical” reasons while military policing of the U.S. civilian population is seen as a good idea.
First, we do have troops on the border, just not as many as you want, apparently. Second, I'll refer you to my earlier points -- it's not being resisted for "historical" reasons, it's being resisted because it would cause massive trade problems, and would have massive negative economic repurcussions. And policing the citizens? We've been doing that for years. Really, the only change is a more paranoid public, a loose plan from Homeland Security for a way for the ordinary citizen to report suspicious behavior, and more racial profiling.
All of this and more demonstrate at best a President detached from serious conservative positions, and without a conservatives grasp on the Executive branch of government. At worst, well he might just believe this stuff. In either event a conservative defense of this President is as wrong headed, as it is dangerous.
All of this and more demonstrate, at best, a writer enamored of Pat Buchanan who doesn't bother to check his facts before writing something, and who lacks a conservative's grasp on what conservatism actually means. In either event, your completely wrong, and moreover, dangerously wrong.
Conservatives must defend the Republic, for no one else will.
What exactly does "defending the Republic" entail besides your wondrous idea of sealing off all borders?
Conservatives must uphold the Constitution because it is clearly under assault.
From liberals who want to remove "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance, maybe...
Conservatives must push back against both political Parties, because big government elitism is rampant in both their houses.
How about we just keep an eye on the proposed Administration plans and make sure that they don't go too far? I'll admit, I'd like to see the Republicans in Congress do more to reign in government, but not on your inane terms. They'd do it, too, if they weren't so scared of their own shadows with an uncertain election year coming. In the interim, I'd rather have the Republicans in there than the Democrats. And, er, how do you suggest we "push back against both political parties"? Form another one? Maybe call it...Libertarianism? Hmmm.
Conservatives must take on media bias directly and with vigor for the Republic, not the Republican.
Okay, well that's possibly the only sane thing you've said, and I agree with it.
As for Bush, the only grievious misstep so far, on my conservative spectrometer, is the issue of steel tariffs, which a Buchananite like yourself...probably likes. :-) Unfortunately, true conservatives know tariffs are bad policy.
The President’s Clueless Conservatism is nothing to be an apologist for.
And your factually inaccurate, inane, badly-written post is nothing to be proud of.
--KL
Someone sent me this link in my email. I've read it over the past few weeks. Lots of different topics, but they stay up a day or two. Thats the only problem. But, the articles are very interesting, however. Click
President Bush is the most popular and powerful conservative in the country.
Moderation in the pursuit of extremism is no vice.
Perhaps a more dynamic and imaginative leader could create the conditions for a more conservative agenda. I doubt it would make very much difference just now, but Bush isn't that leader. He's not without talents, but they are more those of a national, rather than a party or factional, leader. In this, he's more in the mold of his father or Eisenhower or Washington, than of Reagan or the Roosevelts, who were as skilled at partisan and ideological command, as at national leadership.
