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.
Moving on, that was a nice job you did of selective quoting and stitching sentences together while leaving out the pertinent sentences in between. When you use those methods, you can "prove" just about anything you want. But if you'd care to quote the relevant portions of my paragraph, then we can have a rational discussion about it. Somehow, however, I suspect it would be unnecessary, since I think you already knew that what I was saying wasn't how you characterized it.
Sure, he'll take it into account on one level, but if you support him actively chances are stronger that he'll pay closer attention to what you have to say.
Either you're wrong, or Bush and the Republicans have extremely liberal supporters. I'll go with the former. Politicians do what they need to do to get elected. Those that don't, don't remain politicians for very long. It's that whole Darwin thing.
Constitutional power granted to the President doesn't have anything to do with the skill that a person who holds that office has to be able to nutralize his opponents issues.
The fact remains that you're still giving him credit for something, but not allowing him to take the blame for the exact same thing.
"Your point" remains? From your last post: "The chances of another election as close as 2000 are infinitesimal...."
When the chances of an event are infinitesimal, it's generally rather difficult to predict when it will happen. Unless you've had some success at this sort of thing?
Nader's candidacy subverted the strength of the Democratic vote, and some in the media were too stupid to realize that. These are the kind of boobs in the media industry who supported Eugene NcCarthy in '68, Shirley Chisholm in '72, and Kennedy in '80. They turn to Nader's Green because Gus Hall's Commies are no longer on the ballot.
You're still not seeing the big picture. They lose individual elections here and there, but in the process they're able to maintain "the socialist vision of the Dems" regardless of who's in power. IOW, they understand that politicians and parties are simply means to an end, not ends in and of themselves. I think you're still not getting that. Then again, maybe you are, judging from the next quote from you I've highlighted.
Bill Clinton is the actually the Republicans secret weapon and he will single handedly do more to damage his party than any other Republican or Karl Rove could even think of conspiring to do.
Am I reading you right, now? Are you telling me that Clinton was good for conservatism? Does this mean you don't bear any grudge against all those conservative Perot voters? Well, hallelujah! That means you should have no objection at all to CP voters either, because if it gets Kerry elected, just think of what he could do for conservatism! (especially with a GOP/CP majority in the election)
You and your CP clan are and will be of no value to long term conservative successes. Your kind never have been. CP positions are about as self-contradictory as they are useless snake oil designed for the consumption of equally useless malcontents, so often seen in conservative failures of the past. Predictably so, I might add. Why should this generation not have their supply of these failure peddlers as well? It is said that the poor will always be with us; so too will poor thinkers inspiring their unthinking lemmings, it seems.
Just keep stepping into your circular firing squads and the successes accorded those like you who already have a string of political darwin awards to boast of will surely be awarded your sucker's prize this time around too.
Always vote for the lesser evil or God will kick butt....bigtime.
Call it old as you may but some truths are timeless whether you want to admit to their wisdom or not.
A conscience that lives contentedly knowing it is helping the enemy is about as valuable as the conscience of any Nazi who ever lived who tried to hide behind his consciencious attention to "duty."
Such an appeal to one's conscience is not only meaningless, it is often harmful. An observer might fairly wonder what sort of "conscience" such a person has to begin with.
There's more than just a little bit of projection in that statement. My prior post to you pointed out two major self-contradictions you've put on display that you refuse to acknowledge. I'll let the transcript speak for itself.
Who's "rules?" And where for that matter did I call anyone a Nazi? One cannot simply slap a knee-jerk prohibition on illustrations that blow away a position simply because the illustration mentions Nazis and remain credible in the argument. You mistakenly think by whining about it that you've won some illusory point in an argument. All you've really done is attempted to stifle speech with which you disagree, because you simply have no credible counter-point.
While that may be your own "little" personal third rail of posting credibility, it is hardly so for anyone else. You might want to brush off your 6th grade English texts and learn how and when nouns are used as subjects. Concenrate particularly on parts of speech known as appositives. Failing that, we'll all be content with the knowledge that you do not read with much ability to comprehend, and will attempt to shut down debate in which your positions are fast losing ground with phoney "rules" that you simply make up and mistakenly think any (non-existant) defining consensus on FR cares anyway.
And plausible-deniability protestations about how you didn't "really" call him a Nazi aren't going to help you.
That question doesn't make any sense. Why would they ever try to "court" someone who they know is already going to vote for them no matter what? It's precisely the undependables that need courting.
Moderates who can't stand the far left seem to be a much more solid base from their viewpoint. In light of this, it would appear that we shouldn't be suprized when the moderates are the people to whom RNC decides to kow-tow.
Threatening to leave isn't much of a threat to the party leadership since these people were never there to begin with. It is our job to convince them that we are valuable. It is pretty late in this election cycle to try for such a sea change, though.
You could say that too ... not that you did of course, but you could. Hypocrite.
Play much chess? When I see a check-mate I don't usually dawdle around and drag it out -- Nazi references sometimes just help put the debating opponent out of their intellectual misery sooner.
You just have a way of stepping all over yourself, don't you?
After a single post you declare check-mate? Anyway, thanks for admitting that the Nazi crack was meant to shut down debate - exactly what you're accusing me of doing.
A SINGLE post? Are you that daft, man? OK, so you don't play much chess then. Answers that question. Little wonder you don't recognize check-mate, but residing in a land of blissful CP-think ignorance, as you do, clearly this is not the only kind of thing that so easily gets past you. You've been playing games on this thread long enough and I've check-mated you with your own logical inconsistencies too many times already.
I decided yesterday that you were just getting too boring, so I decided to start posting to someone else for a change. But then you jumped right in and decided to respond -- not that you couldn't, of course (as though that poster needed any help from you). But you just kept coming back for more, trying to impose imagined rules of discourse which exist only in your mind.
I know I really got to you yesterday and stripped off your silly, self-hating, CP-style "conservative" veneer and showed it up for what it is. I know it probably must hurt, bruised ego and all.
You remind me of that Joe Palooka blow-up boxing dummy I used to punch out when I was 6 years old. You just keep bobbing up and getting your head handed to you repeatedly. Does your nose squeek when it gets punched like Palooka's did? One of these days, just like that dummy, you'll spring a leak, deflate, and be tossed away. But that can be some one else's mess to pickup after.
Real conservatives won the argument against phony conservatives like you long ago when they quit imagining splinter parties (e.g., "Tax-payers Party," "American Independent Party") and forgettable campaigns that went with them and realized that success would only be acheived within the current system. Instead, we united behind Reagan and the rest is history.
You'll just choose to be the butt of history, and that's fine. I'm just finished with responding to any more of your vapid postings for now.
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.