| 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.
Would you please define what you mean by "assault weapon?" Do you mean an "ugly semi-automatic gun" or a fully automatic rifle?
When you have something substantial to add to the debate... I'll be happy to discuss the Prescription Plan with you.
Q Ari, a new subject. The House Republicans have apparently broken with the President over the issue of the assault weapons ban. Is reauthorizing assault weapons ban a priority enough for the President to do some of his own arm-twisting to try and get the House to allow a vote?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think the President's position is clear and the President supports the reauthorization of the current assault weapons ban. We are working right now with the Congress on the issues that are on their plate, that they're focusing on right now, and then Congress, of course, is going to leave for the Memorial Day recess. I mentioned the AIDS initiative and the tax cut, the growth initiative that are pending on the floor this week. The President doesn't set the congressional calendar or schedule. We'll continue to work with the Congress, and they know the President's position.
Q Does the President believe that the bill -- excuse me, the law that's on the books right now has taken steps to alleviate crimes?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, there's a study underway to determine that, and the study is still pending. The President said in the 2000 campaign that he supported the assault weapons ban because he thought it was reasonable. He stated then that he would support the reauthorization of it, and he states that again today.
Do a Thomas.loc.gov search for the applicable bill numbers. Same search criteria. McCain is in on one of them. This is my big "conservative/not conservative" litmus test. This is my line in the sand. Molon Labe.
Just because someone disagrees with you, doesn't mean you have to name call and put words in her mouth.
PhiKapMom's opinion is as valid as your opinion... even if she does not hold the same views that you do.
So it is OK for her to hold the opinion that people who share my opinion are stupid, evil, or both is Ok... but then my opinion of her mental state isn't?
Get a grip. PhiKap is regurgitating every debunked myth and ad homenim that the Brady Campaign has ever tried to distort the issue with.
More like a spiteful sulk.
Is it possible to get through to you that the AWB has nothing to do with fully automatic rifles? (Those weapons are heavily restricted to civilians and governed by the National Firearms Act of 1934). Why do you refuse to acknowledge this fact?
As for the rest of your rant... perhaps we can continue the conversation when you are more coherent.
No.
Some of us really can and do employ "informed speculation".
Others, such as yourself, do not.
In damn near every post PhiKap posts another myth about gun owners and firearms in general. Advocating bans and licensing is the same as saying, "You are either too criminally evil or too stupid to own a firearm of this type."
As previously stated... get a grip.
Yes, more vile than murderers and terrorist cells.
Oh, brother.
Twits? Yes. "Most vile creature in the country"? LOL!
Have you been following this thread, or did you just jump in here feeling the need to defend Bush? Here are just a few of the facts:
However I am not ready to roll over and play dead on so many important issues just for the sake of "keep quiet or we may end up with a Democratic President".
I loved his line in this last SOTU about not needing a permission slip to defend ourselves. Damn straight we don't.
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.