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.

[RinaseaofDs]

If there are any liberals over there capable of rational thought, they may see the pattern created by Bush and Nixon.

Maybe it IS better having an ideologically spineless R in the WH than it is having a D.

It took Clinton to reform Welfare, for example. It's about the only thing he got done.

[aristeides]

It took Clinton to reform Welfare, for example. It's about the only thing he got done.

He also got NAFTA and GATT through the Congress. That's why the movers and shakers saw to it that he was elected in '92.

[reformedliberal]

I for one, do not 'put all bets on one line' unless that line is the Constitution.

---

So, you DO put all your bets on the one line of the Constitution, which is what I said.

I do think you must know that LOR is the fave of all hippies everywhere. Sure there is some good to hold on to in this world. IMO, it is the ability of rational people to enter into rational discussion and solve our various problems in a logical and lawful manner.

______________________________________________________________

Those that are willing to compromise on some things are not willing to defend our civilization from its enemies because they do not believe we have anything worth defending.

---

Where do you get this conclusion? Defense of civilization is not obviated by willingness to compromise *on some things*. Willingness to compromise does not by any stretch imply lack of belief in having anything worth defending.

This is exactly the sort of blanket condemnation of the majority by a minority that earns the far right the nickname of *Taliban faction*.

The far left has no intention of compromising, either. They want us all ruled by some overarching internationalist consensus and you seem to be saying you want us all ruled by an overarching rigid interpretation of the Constitution.

Since neither side has a chance of enforcing their desires thru our present Constitutional process , just what do you suggest? Do we jail or deport everyone who doesn't meet your criteria or whom you judge *guilty* of compromise? Do we return to the law of might, whereby those who are packing the most firepower get to intimidate the rest? Do we restrict voting to those who pledge allegiance to the strictest constructionism? As brilliant as our system is, it was deliberately written so that it could respond to change.
Should we go back to women being denied the vote? To black people being only a fraction of a human being for voting purposes? Poll taxes? Literacy tests? Only landowners being allowed the vote? Appointment of Senators by State Legislators?

The above is rhetorical, as I have read enough of the *pure conservative* side to know that many of this faction would say *yes* to some or all of the above.

There is fear and insecurity in both fringe POVs, IMO. The far left wants a nice safe international consensus so they don't have to think or make hard decisions. The far right
wants hard and fast rules based on the strictest possible interpretation of the Constitution so they don't have to think or make hard decisions. Inherent in both these approaches is a fundamentalism that abrogates discussion, or the inevitable trade offs necessary in a large nation where free people must come together to make difficult decisions that allow us all the maximum freedom w/o endangering our existence.

I do not have all the answers. I value discussion and I have faith in our system to eventually cut thru the hard line partisanships to reach decisions that preserve our liberties, promote our prosperity and keep us strong both domestically and internationally.

Factionalism and infighting are unavoidable. I think the basics of our system as they have evolved over these past 230 or so years give us the tools to respond to whatever threatens us and allows us to promote the general welfare in whatever manner is necessary at a given time.

We have elections every year, somewhere, at some level in this country. That is how we winnow out the best ideas for dealing w/whatever problems we have before us at any given time. I found myself here because, besides being the premier news portal on the Net, this is where I found the most free discussion and exchange of ideas. I have learned a lot and I have been able to change or adhere more strongly my own ideas based on these discussions, some of which I simply read.

As said, I consider myself a pragmatist. Everyone has the right to speak their mind and vote as they choose. We all choose our own criteria for that vote. GWB has shown me that he puts the integrity(as in being a whole), prosperity and survival of our nation ahead of his own political needs. YMMV. I will support the RNC, vote for Bush, vote Republican in my State and local elections. You may do what suits your own philosophy. If we are at odds, well, it has been ever thus in this country and yet, somehow, most of the time, America has managed to survive and to prosper. Even when we have had terrible decision makers and horrid attempts at molding us into something unrecognizable as America, we have managed to prevail. If we all withdrew every time things didn't go our way, we would cede our power to those who seek exactly that. As I understand it, we have majority rule w/protection of minority rights. This may be the 1st time since Eisenhower that I find myself in the majority and yet, I have survived, prospered and do not feel nearly as disenfranchised as I did under the former administration or the Carter administration, for example.

We learn from our mistakes. If we don't, we repeat them until we either expire or finally profit from the experience. America and the Constitution are both larger and stronger than those who either want to go backward to ideas that haven't prevailed or those who want to craft something totally international that would obviate sovereignty.

All that said, it is New Years Eve Day and I will be leaving soon for several days. I consider my participation in this thread over. I am sure we will meet again on other threads and until then, Happy New Year to all.

[Once-Ler]

My point remains valid, however, in that GWB has accomplished more of the left's agenda in the last three years than Ted Kennedy has in his entire career.

If you can not see a difference between Clinton and Dubya then vote for a loser 3rd party or stay home. I don't have the ability to help you understand why tax cuts, reversals of Clinton's executive orders, PBA ban, and solid foreign policy is a change for the better.

[RinaseaofDs]

Easy muffin!

1st: I'm voting for Bush again, largely because I don't have a choice.
2nd: You didn't address my question. GWB represents, in many ways, one step forward (PBA ban, WOT, Kyoto), and two steps back (CFR, Estrada, ANWR, Gay marriage, Immigration, WTO, et. al.)

You're mad because I'm right. I wish I weren't.

You can't begin to compare GWB to Reagan, but people are welcome to try.

[Once-Ler]

Clinton put the electorate in a moody to alter the composition of congress radically.

Really? The voters were so turned off by Clinton that they punished him with a Republican majority and then re-elected him in 1996. Well...maybe.

Clinton was a factor, but redistricting for house seats, a growing conservative media, more centrist Republican candidates, and realignment of the South were also factors.

We will never know what would have happened if Bush Sr. had won re-election. I can safely propose we would not have had "don't ask don't tell," Soldiers without bullets in Mogadishu, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer on the SCOTUS, Janet Reno burning children in Waco (and therefor no OK city bombing) or sending them back to Cuba, Senator Hitlery, A US President accused of rape, and failure after failure to stop Bin Laden from training Somalis to bring down U.S. helicopters, killing Americans in a military facility in Riyadh, our embassies in Africa and the USS Cole. I think it is entirely possible that we wouldn't have had to wait until Dubya for a Partial Birth Abortion ban.

[Once-Ler]

I think it is funny that you blame Dubya for Estrada, ANWR, and gay marriage and you don't see tax-cuts, nominating Estrada and renominating Pickering and Owen, fighting for ANWR oil drilling, and against affirmative action as steps forward.

What is most telling is when you mention gay marriage. Dubya has not said or passed anything that promotes gay marriage. I guess since he doesn't step out and scream "I hate gays" some see this as endorsement.

I'm angry because I am trying to argue logic with people who are illogical.

You can't begin to compare GWB to Reagan, but people are welcome to try.

I didn't compared Dubya to Reagan, I compared him to Clinton and I find Dubya favorable. You compared Dubya with Ted Kennedy and found no difference.

[StoneColdGOP]

You are aware of Secretary Ridge's pronouncement last week, right?

[RinaseaofDs]

Oh yeah, I forgot about affirmative action at Michigan.

GWB could have said, "Look this has way less to do with gays than it has to do with state's rights." and filed an amicus brief.

Billybob has confirmed that all it would take to break the filibustering of judges in the Senate is a point of order. It's up to GWB to make that call, and so far he hasn't. He's the head of the party, and they are his judges.

I didn't say there was NO difference between Kennedy and Bush. I said that in terms of delivering on the left's agenda, Bush has delivered in ways that only Kennedy could hallucinate about at the end of the bar.

Bush is a good man, trying to build an R hegemony for the next twenty to forty years. His strategy is to concede on issues that he believes aren't really all that important in the long run.

Kennedy is a guy doing what his daddy wanted him to, and continues to do it because it is the only thing he's ever done.

[Once-Ler]

GWB could have said, "Look this has way less to do with gays than it has to do with state's rights." and filed an amicus brief.

There are good reasons why Dubya has approached politics the way he has. Number one is because he is a good man and he thinks what he is doing is the best thing for our nation and the world. Number two is because he is successful with this approach...supporting legislation that can't be passed or can't be implemented is counter productive.

Dubya is not going to support legislation the invades the bedroom.

Billybob has confirmed that all it would take to break the filibustering of judges in the Senate is a point of order.

"Oh Yeah! All Dubya has to do is wave a finger and he can change the immutable laws of nature." Congressman Billybob is smart man and I have a great deal of respect for much of what he has written, but if busting a filibuster was as easy as you claim then it would have happen already. Either Billybob is losing it or you are misrepresenting what he wrote.

I didn't say there was NO difference between Kennedy and Bush. I said that in terms of delivering on the left's agenda, Bush has delivered in ways that only Kennedy could hallucinate about at the end of the bar.

Actually you said Kennedy was an amateur when it comes to passing liberal legislation compared to Dubya. The implication is that Dubya is a bigger liberal. Last time I checked Kennedy was the one crying over his own education bill. Kennedy says he got screwed and fooled into supporting a bill that is vastly different than the one he wrote. The education bill opens the door for standards and testing. That is not a completely liberal idea

[!1776!]

Section 3.1 is a broader summary and that is what the figure "Human Resources" was taken from in the data and the chart in question.

Since everybody thought I would learn more looking it up myself here is what OMB has listed under the "Human Resources" superfunction:

Education, Training, Employment, Social Services, Health, Income security, Social security (off-budget,) Veterans benefits and services,

Going back, a ways, I asked what Human Resources included, but was never given an answer. I did get a diatribe (see post 154) but no direct answer.

So, while I haven't dug in any deeper (and the devil is always in the details ain't it) it looks like the numbers used for Human Resources include many areas and functions (and subfunctions) in the budget.

Another aspect missing from that plot is a notation of how much increase in mandatory spending items (within the Human Resources superfunction) was already built into the programs.

Of course, I don't want anyone to have to actually think about this too much. And me, being a moron according to some, probably couldn't figure out any more detail.

It sure was a perty picture though...

[Dont_Tread_On_Me_888]

Thank you very much. I follow current events in the world scene very closely and read a lot and follow some message boards but do not post very much. But sometimes, a hot button comes along for me. Wish I had more time. Thanks again and I hope to discuss things with you later.

[Dont_Tread_On_Me_888]

It seems you are trying to make some case that can cover up the fact Bush has increased spending far more than anybody expected, including the liberal Democrats.

The Categories you refer to are the same comparative categories an accounting that goes back all the way to JFK and before.

What Bush has in HR so did the previous presidents. Some of the spending is discretionary. The point is it is apples to apples comparison here.

Ronald Reagan, as the data showed, was able to cut HR spending by about 5%, and that was with Rostenkowski and the Democrats clawing at him to be a liberal with spending. But Reagan held firm and was able to cut HR and increase spending for the military.

Sad to say that the trends in this data look very ominous.

[Dont_Tread_On_Me_888]

It sure was a perty picture though... What happened to it?

[Who is John Galt?]

You have already blamed Dubya for something he hasn't done (extended the AWB.)

Wrong. You should learn how to read:

Seems like 'Dubyah' declared that he would sign a renewal of the Clinton/Feinstein 'assault weapons' ban if it were offered to him. Of course, he may not get the chance - if the Republicans in Congress have any balls ( a debatable notion ;>). Or he could (properly, for a REAL "conservative" ;>) change his mind.
117 posted on 12/30/2003 12:37:38 PM PST by Who is John Galt?

Time will tell. Many of the real conservatives who were elected in '94 promised to limit their time in office - and are therefore no longer present to influence the matter. Let's see what the left-over political pragmatists actually pass into 'law'...
It will be even tougher if the President signs a bill banning those same firearms, don't you think?
…And how will this situation be improved if Mr. Bush signs, as he has promised to do, a reimplementation of the 'assault weapons' ban?
240 posted on 12/30/2003 2:11:26 PM PST by Who is John Galt?

I deal in facts: in 1994, 1 out of every 5 voters was a gun owner voting Republican. If the frigging Republican Party refuses to recognize that almost 20% of the actual get-out-of-the-house-and-drive-to-the-polling-place-to-wait-in-line vote are gun owners, then the Party truly is the 'Stupid Party.'
307 posted on 12/30/2003 3:24:15 PM PST by Who is John Galt?

We'll see if Mr. Bush signs an extension of the 'assault weapons' ban. If it's as bad as (or worse than ;>) the original 1994 "libs version," what precisely would be the difference?
398 posted on 12/30/2003 5:42:18 PM PST by Who is John Galt?

You do know what the words “if,” “may,” and “could” mean? And you do understand what the phrases “time will tell,” “let’s see,” and “we’ll see” mean? Or don’t you?

“You now know that you are ignorant” - and I didn’t have to quote “a liberal website” in the course of your education.

'It is too easy to refute the left fringe party hacks'…

;>)

[Once-Ler]

Tell us what a wonderful "conservative" the president is when it comes to 'gun control.'

I did and you welcome.

[Who is John Galt?]

...you seem to think the libs...are a better choice.
Maybe I'm dense, but I just don't get it.

I have never suggested that "the libs...are a better choice." What I do think is this: telling a politician a year in advance that you will vote for him even if he makes the wrong decision and screws you, indicates that you possess (in the words of Conspiracy Guy) "a streak of stoopid a mile wide"...

;>)

[Wild Irish Rogue]

" You are aware of Secretary Ridge's pronouncement last week, right?"

You mean this sentence,which is conveniently left out of many discussions.

''I'm not saying make them citizens,'' Ridge said. ``They violated our laws to get here. You don't reward that kind of conduct.''

[Who is John Galt?]

WIJG: Tell us what a wonderful "conservative" the president is when it comes to 'gun control.'

O-L: I did and you welcome.

Wrong again. Check the dates: every bit of info you posted from your "liberal website" relates to Governor Bush, not President Bush.

You really should learn how to read.

;>)

[HardStarboard]

>>>It took Clinton to reform Welfare, for example. It's about the only thing he got done. <<<

Clinton vetoed welfare three times if memory serves and signed a version that had virtually all Republicans voting in favor and just enough Demolishcrats to get it through.