Maybe Bush is Right On

Intellectual Conservative ^ | 30 January 2004 | Raymond Green

[softengine]

Much has been said about the Bush administration’s handling of sensitive issues to conservatives like illegal immigration and entitlement spending. The criticism is both broad and intense, coming from traditional allies and longtime foes. Though the criticism coming from opponents is severely hypocritical, it scars no less.

Conservatives are consistent in their disparagement of excessive government spending and amnesty programs for illegal immigrants. This, however, leaves no one to thoroughly explain Bush’s policy strategy because his adversaries stringently attack for the sake of power regardless of policy. Though I don’t personally condone the liberal approach of the current administration’s handling of these specific policies, I do understand the strategy involved.

As conservatives, we must force ourselves to look at the big picture. Our country faces a crippling moral dilemma; the tort system cost our economy an estimated $233 billion in 2003; we desperately need a national energy policy; we need to continue reducing the overwhelming tax burden in our country; our intelligence gathering methods must be vastly overhauled and improved; it is critical that the defense of this country continue to be improved and grow; and we must continue to fight the war on terrorism as we currently are or we will find ourselves in the same war on our soil in coming years. This is a minor explanation of what the macro picture currently looks like.

We can safely assume atheists will continue to embrace – and even encourage – the degradation of morality and religion in this country; trial attorneys will never propose tort reform; environmentalists will not support any realistic energy policy; those dependent on government subsidies will fight any tax cut; and liberal anti-military, anti-intelligence, anti-war, special interests-appeasing politicians will put our country at great risk if left in charge of such issues. These people are Democrats and for this reason alone it is critical that Republicans maintain control of Congress and the White House. Fortunately, this isn’t where supporting the Bush administration ends.

President Bush and company have trademarked setting traps for Democrats. He trapped Democrats into supporting the war by initiating the debate just before elections and trapped Democrats into making the capture of Saddam Hussein an issue. He trapped Democrats into opposing an entitlement to seniors and he, not Howard Dean, forced the Democrats further to the left. Bush has taken Democrats’ issues from them and set the stage for an election based primarily on national security – not a Democrat strong suit.

So we come to Bush’s base supporters. Needless to say, we are not happy – but we must be smart. I pose the following questions to ponder: (1) Will excessive government spending and entitlement programs ever be reformed with Democrats in office and (2) Does politics end when Bush’s term ends? The answer to both is obviously no. The end goal is to place Republicans in Congress strategically to outlast Bush. Bush has been accused by allies of repeating his father’s mistakes. I strongly caution against trying to use a slight majority in Congress to overhaul our country in one term – we’ve seen what that brings before.

Our country faces a number of critical issues we must address in coming years. The easiest to fix is (a) excessive government spending and (b) illegal immigration – if, and only if, Republicans are in office. Excessive government spending can be weaned down over time with a Republican majority in Congress (and it will in due time). Illegal immigration can be solved with technology, a slight bump in spending, and a determined Republican president. Neither, however, can be fixed unless steps are taken to regain a firm control of Congress and overall politics.

Do I agree with amnesty or excessive spending? No; quite the contrary. But I disagree with – and to a great extent, fear – the radical agenda of the left. It will, and has already begun to, destroy this country. It is critical we take control and if a bump to the National Endowment for the Arts silences a few artists, amnesty shuts a few radical Hispanic groups up, and a prescription entitlement makes a few seniors happy, so be it. These policies may not make an overwhelming difference in polls or make many people vote for Bush who wouldn’t have otherwise, but they change the image of Republicans and set the stage for a long-term Republican takeover.

Right or wrong, that is the Bush strategy. Choosing not to vote for him on these specifics simply counts as a vote for his opponents. He may be taking his voter base for granted; however, he may just be assuming we’re smart enough to figure out what is going on. Politics will outlast President Bush; he simply hopes it is politics dominated by Republicans who can eventually take on the issues we are forced to swallow at present.

[hoosiermama]

I think it has something to do with the two cupcakes I just inhaled!

They're evil for some, but not for me!

Difference of black and white vs shades of gray...... Now Hillary things "W" is evil.....but then again....... By thinking "W" is evil it puts her in company with Hillary. .... In that case..DO two evils make a RIGHT?...on the other hand....you know it has to be Bush's fault somehow....maybe he doesn't like cupcakes?

[texasflower]

Henchman, I hope you carefully consider the points that Ophiucus made in post 68.

They were excellently presented and I agree completely.

[Sloth]

The easiest to fix is (a) excessive government spending and (b) illegal immigration – if, and only if, Republicans are in office. Excessive government spending can be weaned down over time with a Republican majority in Congress (and it will in due time).

Complete and utter fantasy. Only a liar or a fool describes "fixing excessive government spending" as easy. We HAVE a Republican majority in the Congress -- and control of the White House -- and they are spending like mad.

[ezo4]

Ill know how to vote in september.

[olliemb]

Holden you are sooooo wrong. "nary a difference between Bush and his opponents"

Kerry, Clark, Edwards,Dean, Lieberman--liberal causes promoted with gay marriages, no God in schools or games, litmus test for judges, prochoice as much as the day of delivery for Clark. Dean worked at Planned Parenthood as a doctor. All promise to increase taxes and all (except Lieberman) soft on defense. All would ask the UN for permission to defend ourselves. Some think that courting Arafat, Castro is the way to go.

No sir, the Bush that I know is not at all like these guys.

[Cacique]

btt

[ilovew]

You get to vote in September?

[olliemb]

Where is the spending $$ going? Tell me what programs you would do without. Could it be the medicare drug bill. Well, I know that if you can have people take their meds, the long term effects of illness with its increased morbidity will be lessened. It will take time but I guarantee you a jalopy works better with TLC and frequent tuneups than one that has never been worked on. I for one can only imagine that is one $$ program you are talking about. Do you really think that the democrats would have made it for less? And now that Bush has control of the medicare drug bill, there then will follow control of the social security.

Without a doubt, the strength of the republican control in white house and congress will be evident in the second term. Don't you ever wonder why the democrats want to be in control so much? It is about controlling the agenda and forcing their liberal views on us.

[olliemb]

You are tired.

[hoosiermama]

Curly? Why not Moe? Oh, I know: there aint no Moe

[gatorbait]

never made that devil's bargain and are free to vote our consciences in November

But you did make a pact with Evil and your conscience must rival Ted Bundy's in its depth of denial.

[olliemb]

You sound like you are on a diet and trying to rationalize about eating. For goodness sake, Bush and the democrats are not cupcakes. LOL!!!

[gatorbait]

but watch the conservative purists flame!

They're not conservatives, they are populists with the screaming zealotry of their socialist bed mates.

[Tamzee]

Sorry... calling Bush a "socialist" makes you appear not any more mature or politically aware than the left appears when they him a right-wing extremist.

Is Bush 100% conservative? No... we knew that when he ran. Could we ever get a 100% conservative into the White House? Nope, not with the heavily liberal voting public in our country. Conservatives who are severely disappointed in Bush need to grow up and navigate the political system in the real world. He is greatly to the right, has character and is a fantastic world leader.... most of all, he LOVES our country and is fighting to protect America as a sovereign nation.

[gatorbait]

The Lesser of 2 Evils is Evil Still

I am getting do damned sick of this bit of sophistry. Admit you really want a Democrat in the Oval Office ,okay? Stop with the purity of your "conservatism" If you have to tell me, then you just don't have it.

[windchime]

AP, I commented on the article, with which I agree, in post #7. After reading subsequent posts, my early comment unfortunately still applies.

[Peach]

An excellent post, prairie. Hope you're doing well.

[Ophiucus]

That'll only happen if we do 2,4,6!

I'd add to the list - development of ANWAR and the Gulf of Mexico currently undeveloped by Mexico.

[gatorbait]

BUSH, he can do no wrong, and if you don't agree you are stupid.

I disagree the President can do no wrong;he's human and politics is not an exact science.However the spirit of your post would tend to verify the latter half of your statement.

[Askel5]

=== but they change the image of Republicans and set the stage for a long-term Republican takeover.


Unfortunately, this "image" change is not exactly skin deep but rather has and only will continue to exact pounds of flesh.

Intellectuals who "Maybe" think Bait & Switch is the best possible (or least evil) of all tacks to take "Maybe" should drop the pretense of selling themselves as "Intellectual" conservatives.