| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 01/24/2004 6:45:19 AM PST by Lead Moderator, reason:
This thread has degenerated into a flamewar. No more replies. Sheesh. |
Posted on 01/23/2004 5:23:57 AM PST by Apple Pan Dowdy
I thought President Bush's State of the Union address was fine. It wasn't outrageously long. He drew a bright line between himself and his critics on the war in Iraq, the Patriot Act, Social Security Reform, etc. He delivered it well, and the nudity was tasteful and integral to the plot.
As luck - or bad timing - would have it, I was invited to Manhattan to address the New York State Conservative Party right before the president addressed the nation. It seemed only fitting since the subject of my speech was the conflict between Bush's "compassionate conservatism" and traditional conservatism. You see, conservatives in New York City have suffered more and for longer than conservatives in the rest of America. Trust me, I grew up on New York City's Upper West Side. We felt like Christians in Ancient Rome.
Well, after three years with George W. Bush at the helm, many conservatives are starting to feel like we've been sent to the catacombs. Don't get me wrong. Out in real America where most Americans - liberal and conservative - don't focus on politics every day, Bush is still doing very well. And, even among conservatives, Bush has considerable political support. But among ideological and intellectual conservatives, emotional support for Bush is starting to ebb.
I can't point to anything scientific. But if you pay attention to what conservatives are saying at meetings and in magazines, on the Web and at the think tanks, as well as what readers, friends, colleagues and sources say, there's a definite undercurrent of discontent with the president.
For some it started with his plan to offer amnesty-lite to illegal immigrants. For others, it's his fence-sitting on gay marriage. For others, like me, it was his signing of the campaign finance reform bill even though he thought it was unconstitutional. Or maybe it was his support for steel tariffs. Or the farm bill. I forget.
Anyway that doesn't matter. What unites pretty much all of these grumblers is a deep sense of, well, disgust with how much this administration is spending.
When it comes to taxpayer dollars, this is the second most "generous" administration in American history, second only to that of another Texan, Lyndon Johnson. There may be good aspects to George Bush's "compassionate conservatism," though on the whole I never liked it, but it's clear that compassion doesn't come cheap at the Bush White House, on whose watch overall spending from 2001 to 2003 grew at 16 percent and discretionary spending went up 27 percent. That's double Bill Clinton's rate.
Bush's defenders are eager to point to the war on terrorism as an excuse for increased spending. Fine. But that's only a small part of the story.
Under Bush, spending on education has gone up 60.8 percent, on labor 56 percent and on the Department of the Interior by 23.4 percent . The price tag for the president's Medicare plan alone starts, but won't end, at $400 billion. The farm bill was a pork horror show, pure and simple. More people work for the federal government now than at any time since the end of the Cold War.
Brian Riedl of the Heritage Foundation sums it up this way: "Overall for 2003, the federal government spent $20,300 per household, taxed $16,780 per household, and ran a budget deficit of $3,520 per household."
The reason most Americans haven't heard a lot about all this is twofold. Conservatives have stayed relatively quiet and liberals have controlled the anti-Bush microphone.
Democratic presidential candidates and interest groups have been screeching that the president is gutting education and abandoning the elderly. Obviously this is nonsense on tall stilts, since Bush is spending a lot more on both than Bill Clinton ever did.
In fact, on Medicare and education, for example, the Dems think Bush is being stingy. And a study by the National Taxpayers Union found that each and every one of the Democrats running for president have plans that would raise the deficit even more, from $169.6 billion under Joe Lieberman to - get this - $1.33 trillion under Al Sharpton.
Conservative opposition to such overspending is more complex than the media and the left think. Some just don't like red ink. Others think big government erodes freedom and traditional arrangements. Others believe it slowly inoculates the citizenry to greater levels of social engineering.
Whatever the reasons, conservatives - as opposed to partisan Republicans - have sincere misgivings about the kind of presidency Bush is conducting. A lot of compassionate conservatism is smart politics for the Republican Party, and some of it is even good policy. And, yes, conservatives understand that the GOP is practically the only place they have a real impact in electoral politics.
But I'm not sure George Bush understands how much he is asking from those who brought him to the dance.
I am all for Right to Bear Arms
Actually, you're not.
And contrary to conventional wisdom, I think it will. ....It'll probably be attached to some "anti-terrorism" bill, and few congresscritters will want to be seen as both "pro-terrorist" and "pro-assault weapons." That's how it's going to get done. And if there's another Columbine or D.C "sniper"-type incident, you can bet the farm on it passing.
Keep the pressure on, amigo.
Duh!
Boy, these guys don't miss anything.....
But don't you realize with Bush's open borders policy Ted Kennedy is right? We will have to have this kind of increase, and maybe much more in the years to come. That's the problem, people aren't looking at the future and the horror that will be brought on America by Bush's open borders.
How sad that Republicans could make such a great showing in the 2004 election. Let's face it, the Democrat candidates are a sorry lot. So much good could be done if we could get a majority in the Senate. But this open borders policy will cause me to stay home on election day. Because I say, what's the use?
Bump. You have it bang on. Plus they have monopolized the GOP 'stage'. How many, many, many times also have we heard either Andrew Card or Karl Rove chortling, 'Where Else can they go?'
Interestingly though, with the almost complete collapse of his polling advantage, coincidental with his Open Border madness, GWB may realize he has been sold a bill of goods. Foolishly abandoning the bird in the hand for the hypothetical 'two in the bush'. The squishys are NOT moving to support the GOP. They never will. They will ALWAYS be told what to do by the NYT,CBS,ABC,NBC headlines.
This is why the 'moderates' or just 'undecided liberals' as Limbaugh says, NEED TO BE DE-PROGRAMMED of their cult-like allegiance to liberalism. Thence, we need a conservative at the bully pulpit, to do the de-programming. This is what Reagan did.
Same here!
Bush should support the Kennedy proposal. In fact, he should propose a $250 billion increase himself. That could pull in a lot of crucial undecided votes in November.
That is our strategery now, isn't it?
You obviously didn't read the link I provided. Please do.
This political system is a rigged game. GW says where are conservatives going to go? Answer is, nowhere.
But just because you think it is a good idea, I need to sit through a class written for dumbasses for TEN TO TWELVE HOURS and pay upwards of $150 for the class! Above and beyond that, I need to PROVE I'm not a criminal despite our "innocent until proven guilty" legal system.
All to exercise a Right the Founders considered so fundamental to freedom in this country they included protections for it in our Federal Constitution. If you have to ask permission, it isn't a Right.
Be a frightened little rabbit if you want, but never assume that the rest of us are as stupid and evil as you seem to think we are.
I guess I don't have a right to my opinion without ridicule. Don't think macho types are into milk and cookies either!
My Dad had rifles, shotguns, and I think a handgun but you know what he wasn't macho about it and used them for hunting. Automatic weapons he was not in favor of owning because they could fall in the hands of people not qualified to use them. Guess he should be serving milk and cookies too?
Whatever...some people shouldn't have internet access/an automobile/alcohol/etc either, those things have fallen into the hands of people not qualified to use those things too.
You miss the point...if conservatism is about preserving the Constitution, preserving our freedom, and preserving our rights as free U.S. citizens; an AWB is not the solution to having assult weapons fall into the hands of crimminals (which they already do...and no ban is going to change that anyhow). The solution is to prosecute and punish those who commit a crime with an automatic weapon. Lock them up, send them to the electric chair, have them rot away in prison to suffer the consequences of their actions. Out of all the "reforms" we've been seeing out of this administration (Campaign finance, Medicare, and now immigration) the two that are needed the most, and the two that the Republicans (up to this point) have been soft on, are Tort Rerform and Judicial Reform (i.e. getting judicial vacancies filled, by conservative judges; whatever that means now). Any other solution doesn't cut it...its just a delusional government usurping of power band-aid on an obvious problem. Have criminals suffer for their actions...leave me alone with my right to defend myself and my family. There's nothing "macho" about that, unless you consider preserving and protecting the life of yourself and your loved ones "macho".
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.