Rumbling on the Hard-Right

The Washington Times ^ | December 30, 2003 | Stephen Dinan

[GunsareOK]

President Bush is beginning to anger certain hard-line conservatives, particularly over fiscal issues, the way his father did in the year before he lost to Bill Clinton in 1992.

It's not clear how deep the dissatisfaction goes, and whether it will translate to damage at the polls in November.

[Texas_Dawg]

You wouldn't know a Nazi if you were looking right at him. You need to brush up on your history. By using this rhetoric you insult the soldiers who had to face the Nazis of WW2. No comparison.

Haha. Of course the national socialism proponents in the US are not out killing Jews, building Autobahns, nationalizing industry, etc. right now. They don't have the power. But if you don't think that Pat Buchanan and his friends would be totally up for doing some of (if not all of) the above, with a more modern, American spin on each, then you haven't been paying attention to Pat Buchanan or his fans on the FRinge.

[Lael]

Well, considering the chances of him losing are about 0, your statement is pretty pointless.

You are right.

But will you be right Jan 13,2004 when Vincente Fox visits and expects to get "Shmeered" with an Amnesty program in any of its guises???

Maybe you love 'em in Texas, but in California [see Recall Exit Poll results], or in Arizona [Bush pulled off a squeaker!], or other areas that were close?

[Texas_Dawg]

What gives you the right to judge whether or not people here are conservative or not?

Common sense and a dictionary.

[At _War_With_Liberals]

Thanks. Enough is enough already. The relativistic argument that spending/debt is really LOW is BS.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Common sense and a dictionary.

Yeah, common sense that God gave bread mold.

[!1776!]

The percentage listed under each image is the percent spent of total spending on Human Resources averaged over each term. Fiscal year data is displayed

I think I asked for a definition of what Human Resources was in the chart provided.

Your reply says human resources up front, but then begins mixing in social programs.

"Human Resources" is unclear in the chart title. If the chart was supposed to reflect "social spending" why not just title it as social spending?

To me, Human Resources could possibly include social spending, but would seem more logical for salaries.

That makes the information unclear, and therefore the intent questionable. If it is a combination of salaries and social programs then the data needs to be bifurcated to separate the two for a true picture of social spending as related to total outlays. Your response doesn't clarify that though, it uses "Human Resources" as in the chart, but switches to social programs for the rest.

Why?

[Taliesan]

I wish I could make this into a 10,000 word post, but it really is extremely simple.

There will be two realistic candidates. Vote for the most conservative one of the two.

Anything else is stupidity.

[hawk1]

Bush has no intention to stop the invasion. He will only encourage it. He hides behind double talk to defend his disastrous immigration policies. It is remarkable that politicians ignore their voters on this issue. Arnold seems to have the same problem. The license issue apparently will be revived in Jan. Too bad for California, McClintock was not elected.

[At _War_With_Liberals]

"Even so, are you willing to take the chance that a conservative judge steps down, for one reason or another, with another "Clinton" in office?"

No.

[pogo101]

Your argument that the great conservative Bush will appoint SC justices is bullsh**.

I understand you're not convinced Bush will pick "another Scalia" (or whomever is to your liking). But isn't it fair to say that Bush's SC (and other federal court) picks will be FAR more to you liking than would Howard Dean's or Dick Gephardt's?

[!1776!]

The president swears an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. That makes the "one issue" the United States Constitution - "the supreme law of the land." That Constitution includes an amendment protecting our "liberty teeth" - the 2nd Amendment. But perhaps you can tell us "how [our RKBA will] be reclaimed under" any Republican president who ignores the Constitution he swore to preserve, protect, and defend? Is it magic? Something that automatically happens when a Republican is elected? "The world wonders"...

Once again, how will our RKBA be reclaimed under a liberal President?

That said, which branch of government is responsible for writing laws under the Constitution (one hint - each them also take a similar oath to uphold the Constitution).

I'm not willing to help the left whittle more of my 2nd amendment rights away by putting someone who would take over with a chainsaw in charge of the agencies responsible for implementing laws written by Congress.

[q_an_a]

so who are you voting for? are you going to do what happened in 2000 where Dean says, "I won the popular vote." and then hope for an electoral college win? What is your strategy and who do you think would be a better manager of the presidency?

[hchutch]

Quite frankly, given the current state of the world, I question whether the paleo-conservative values are in this country's best interests.

Personally, if folks like Sam Francis are not outright racists, then they either are involved with racism's first cousin - or they have no problem with those that do. I will not support any candidate who holds to that sort of ideology.

[Hillary's Lovely Legs]

The same winning strategies of the CRA nutjobs.

[Who is John Galt?]

Apply your "common sense and a dictionary" to Dubyah's declared position on the Clinton/Feinstein 'assault weapons' ban, compadre.

(I know real Texans, and I must admit - you dodge issues like a Vermont liberal... ;>)

[JohnnyZ]

Your argument that the great conservative Bush will appoint SC justices is bullsh**. You have to rely on them DYING to even make the case.

Actuarial analysis tells me the odds are strongly in favor of at least one vacancy on the Supreme Court in the next 5 years. I'd estimate the chances at:

0: 10%
1: 40%
2: 30%
3 or more: 20%

Rehnquist is 80. Sandra Day is 74. Stevens is 84. Ginsburg is 71.

Bush has a strong record of nominating conservative justices, and has even gotten many of the most conservative past the Democrat filibuster gauntlet.

[FairOpinion]

I don't know about this particular chart, but I was told that other similar once including spending on Homeland Security as "social spending". Just goes to show you, how far some people go to try to present Bush in a bad light.

I bet the Dean campaign help them with the numbers.

[Zipporah]

Paleo-conservatism has nothing to do with race. It has to do with the constitution.. my holding those values is neither racist or 'socialist' (whereever that label came from).. now how do define racism? What candidate has a 'racist' ideology? The last one I can recall is David Duke..

[WayneM]

Great post!

There's a whole lot of real conservatives who will vote for Bush simply because he is the lesser of two evils.

Amid out of control pork barrel spending, gay marriages, and runaway illegal immigration (soon to be rewarded by a Bush-sponsored amnesty program) we will hold our collective noses and go to the polls to cast our votes for someone who is a politician first and a conservative second.

[jwalsh07]

I'm one of the "hard-line conservatives" who won't be voting for Bush.

I'm one of the "hard-line conservatives" who will be voting for Bush.