Posted on 01/31/2004 6:27:08 PM PST by 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.
More correctly what explains the shift of the Senate back to Democrat control after the 1986 election did not have to do with amnesty voters, but conservative voter apathy and failure to vote. Fat, dumb, and happy from the prosperous Reagan tax cuts, and a sense of well-being at <$1/gallon gas, conservatives got lazy and self-assured all at the same time.
Conservative apathy abandoned Reagan right at the peak of his success, just like some on FR would have us do for Bush. Such conservatives fail to see the big picture and like spoiled little kids who don't get their way IMMEDIATELY, they pick up their marbles and go home in a self-righteous huff. Then they'll pretend to impress us all here with how they vote their "conscience," even if it happens to result in Democrat victory.
Here's what voting their self-righteousness got us:
I'll just continue to thank every last one of them for the Iran-Contra investigations (1987), Reagan's subsequent inability to get Bork on the SC (1987), Bush 41 forced to compromise the No tax Pledge with a HOSTILE Congress (1990), the DEM. Senate Maj. leader Mitchell-delaying-Capital-gains-Tax-reduction-induced recession of 1991, and lastly the 8 subsequent years of the Clinton presidency which began with conservative abandonment to Perot or not voting for Bush (1992). Big thanks to the lot of you!
I hope you are all proud of yourselves and congratulating yourselves on your personal efforts to promote morality at the ballot box.
Constitution Party = founded by Howard Philips and a pack of digruntled John Birchers. The same Howie Philips who called Reagan a "useful idiot" on Crossfire following the Rekjavik summit where Gorby blinked and the USSR was dead 3 years later. Oh yeah. THAT guy.
A great post that ends in a litany of insults?
Admitting your problem is the first step toward healing.
Two wrongs don't make a right but two Wrights can make an airplane! :-)
"Perfection is the enemy of the good."
Bush isn't perfect -- just good enough.
Not a legitimate function of government. End of Story.
Well, gee... I don't recall throwing the word "stoopid" your way. If you feel it fits, however, I won't be rude enough to disagree.
I can't believe they could wear themselves out! (nor you) :-)
Thanks, Meg
I am very serious too. I don't want those people to be happy. I want Gore, Carville, Clinton, any Democrat you can name to SUFFER from being out of power. I want the GOP victorious and dancing and laughing in thier liberal faces. I want MoveOn.org crushed and bleeding. I want Al Franken to explode with frustration. I want Peter Jennings to pop an artery. I am beyond fed up with Democrats. Dialogue is futile. I don't want to hear their crap. I have heard it all before. I only want to defeat them by any means necessary.
Shame be upon you.How dare you point out reality for the True and the Pious conservatives, you know the ones spouting pap from DNC talking points, the ones who are thinking Wesley Clark might be their savior, the ones who would not be satisfied if Bush walked on water, having just cured cancer and strangled Bin Rotten .How dare you, sir, even suggest their newest messiah might be a crapweasel,You might damage the fragility of such delicately superior beings, so high on the evolutionary scale they look up to toasters.
Really> CONSERVATIVES did that?
I think you are blowing smoke.
I'd just like to see him explode.
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.