| 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.
So, what do you think Jonah's motive was for writing this "hit piece" (since you completely dismiss that his being a concerned conservative is an option). What exactly, iyo, is his "agenda." Is he a closet liberal? A DNC mole?
So let see... with this logic, if there was a house on fire and a "bed wetting liberal liar" yelled, FIRE.... then you would not believe that there really could be a fire? You would not check out the facts and see for yourself just in case he was right and you needed to take some action..... nope, even if you "smelled smoke" you would say, "I won't be fooled". Great logic!
And this is FreeRepublic...a conservative activist site. Should we not be out there actively engaging each other, as well as our elected Republican officials to move the nation toward a more perfect, constitutional, republic? Or do we settle for BS, band-aid solutions(and most of the time "solutions" that actually add to the problem) from people who have an (R) at the end of their name, and cheer loudly when our side wins? I don't like being played for a fool...the AWB sucks for law abiding firearms owners. It doesn't even remotely address the real problem(s) at hand (unpunished crime, repeat crime, judicial mediocrity, other stringent laws that keep the police from doing their job, etc.)
One of my biggest complaints is some of the pawn dealers who deal on the black market. I think they should be locked away permanently.
Again...this is a crime and judicial integrity issue...not a gun issue.
Personally think law enforcement should be concentrating more on shutting down the illegal gun sales then on individuals buying guns from a gun dealer.
LEO's should be concentrating more on murderers, urban gang activity, rapists, and armed burgulars. The judicial process should be "justice" enhancer...it should help LEO's rather than help criminals.
BTW -- semi automatics I don't have any trouble with at all. Just don't see the need for someone in my neighborhood to have a fully automatic rifle. Maybe if I lived on a mountaintop somewhere I might see things differently. But then I don't see where deer hunting is a sport when you put up a deer feeder, hide in a blind and pick them off as they come to feed.
Again...the AWB does not cover automatic weapons. With the exception of governmental approval, fully automatic weapons were banned from public ownership in the 30's.
What?????
Wow, talk about a skewed perception and faulty evalution.
LOL
Thats no big deal...alot of cheerleaders here are retired or will soon be retiring anyway. /sarcasm
Will you now step up to the plate and try to convince us that a regurgitation of the Brady Campaigns talking points should go unchallenged?
Since this is a forum, and you came to her defense, I assumed you had on opinion on the matter. I would like to hear what it is. Is that too hard to understand? That is why I phrased it as a QUESTION, instead of making it an outright statement.
Care to give it a whirl?
I asked you a question. I reached no conclusion. I have my suspicions... but I'm waiting until you answer to confirm them.
Are you going to? Or not?
You just did one of the "let's paint a broad picture here!"
I guess owning a rifle, shotguns, and a handgun doesn't qualify for Right to Bear Arms which I am 100% in agreement. I am also believe that people buying guns should have to have evidence of a safety course completed or go to one before buying the gun. I also don't believe in instant gun purchases where some hothead can go down and get a gun immediately and then shoot their spouse or whoever because they are mad. Don't see why waiting 24 hours matters.
No one will ever convince me that the same assualt weapons our military use should be in the hands of private citizens.
So sue me for my opinion.
Then I read this part of your post...
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."
Which tells me two things...
#1... PhiKapMom did not say that you were stupid, evil, or both.
#2... You, yourself, recognize this fact by posting... it is the same as saying...
I would quit while I was ahead because this is a battle you are going to loose. You defamed PhiKapMom's character and your own post admits as much.
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.