Replies

I've never considered President Bush a genuine Conservative, but over the last three years he has earned a fair measure of my respect. In any event, the alternative was brain-damaged Marxist robot Algore so there was no question about who to vote for in 2000.

However, if Mr. Bush turns his back on this crucial 2A issue, I believe I will have seen enough to undo whatever earned support I hold for his administration. Why help elect politicians that betray the trusts that is given them? There is simply no excuse for support of a continued ban and any fool that holds that opinion knows nothing about firearms, the Constitution or the grassroots base that put Mr. Bush into the White House.

As a side note, I'm actually of the opinion that we, as Conservatives, have a good deal to be thankful to the Krinton administration for. For starters, Krinton energized the conservative electorate like nobody else in the last hundred years. The second biggest thing X42 did was to awaken masses of citizens to the peril that he and the Left posed to the Republic. In spite of despising the slimebag, I have opined from time to time that it might not have been such a bad thing to have a few more years in the pressure cooker for the populace to really see things clearly - if the Republic and our Constitution could survive Krinton II.

Well, we now have the fruit of our anti-Clintonism efforts in the Bush II White House. So far the report card on a range of Conservative issues has been fair to middling. Now, the candidate that our friends in the leadership of the Republican party (no staunch allies of freedom themselves thesedays) deemed the best choice for America, is now alligned with freedom-loving Conservative notables like Schumer, Feinstein and Clinton.

What am I missing? Could the diehard fans of Mr. Bush help me out on this one and help decode the brilliance of his end-run strategery on this basic, grassroots, fundamental freedom, 2A issue?

As a side note, I'm actually of the opinion that we, as Conservatives, have a good deal to be thankful to the Krinton administration for. For starters, Krinton energized the conservative electorate like nobody else in the last hundred years. The second biggest thing X42 did was to awaken masses of citizens to the peril that he and the Left posed to the Republic. In spite of despising the slimebag, I have opined from time to time that it might not have been such a bad thing to have a few more years in the pressure cooker for the populace to really see things clearly - if the Republic and our Constitution could survive Krinton II.

You wanna know what else the Rapist-in-Chief (William Jefferson Clinton, come on down... this IS your "Legacy"!) did? Get ready to have your mind blown.

In terms of Government Spending, you know who was the most Economically Conservative President since Eisenhower? Ronald Reagan, of course. (This is an important statistical measure, because excessive Federal Spending actually kills real human beings. It represents the matter of "Government spending away Mommy's cancer-medication dollars faster than Daddy can earn it"). Despite the burden of almost single-handedly defeating the entire Soviet Empire by himself (with a little help from Maggie Thatcher and the Pope), the growth of Government Spending as a percentage of Gross National Product essentially halted under Reagan. In other words, under Reagan, Government DID NOT "spend away Mommy's cancer-medication dollars faster than Daddy could earn it". Even if our Conservatism is purely pragmatic, that's a noble accomplishment.
But in terms of Government Spending, you know who was the second-most Economically Conservative President since Eisenhower? BILL CLINTON. If this be Heresy, let me remind you -- it is still Fact. And why is it a Fact? Is it because Bill Clinton himself was such a Fiscal Conservative? No, it isn't. It is because Conservative Democrats (such as Treasury Secretary Lloyd Bentsen, who KIBOSH-ed Clinton's "energy tax") and Conservative Republicans (like Majority Leader Gingrich, who was at least a Fiscal Conservative at the time) opposed Clinton at every turn, in spite of him.

When was the last time that "conservative" Republicans ever opposed Bush's new spending programs -- the largest since LBJ -- in spite of him??

There's a reason why Wall Street likes "gridlock" -- you can never trust Democrats to oppose the growth of Big Government, but you can trust Republicans to oppose the growth of Big Government -- when Democrats are in Power.

Of course, I'd love to be proved wrong. If Republicans will oppose the growth of Big Government while they are in Power, I'll eat my hat -- on a half-shell, with cocktail sauce.

But I don't expect to eat my hat any time soon. Matter of fact, if past performance is indicative of future results, I'm prepared to Bet on it.