Posted on 02/11/2004 11:00:20 AM PST by Lando Lincoln
While President Bush may not be a conservative’s perfect president, the alternative should shake any discontents to active support of the President.
As a conservative, I agree with most of the criticism that has been leveled at President Bush amongst Republicans and conservatives. While I support the President’s foreign and defense policies, I think that the Administration has tried to do the impossible—preempt the Left on their own issues. Republicans were not put on this earth to increase the size of government, create massive new programs like Medicare, spend billions of dollars on AIDS in Africa, fund the UN renovation, expand the Federal role in education or pursue a reckless policy of granting amnesty to illegal foreigners working in the US. None of these initiatives by the President will, in the end, take votes from the Democratic core base. Democrats are much better and far more willing to outspend any Republican program that expands the Welfare State. The strong suit of Republicans is limited government, lower taxes, individual responsibility and strong national defense. Karl Rove may be right that some of the President’s big government initiatives may neutralize some independents. In any case, conservatives could have hoped for much more in a Washington where Republicans control both the White House and Congress.
Having said all that, I intend to do whatever I can to reelect President Bush. The reason is simple. The alternative is unthinkable. A tax increase by rolling back the President’s much needed tax relief will not go to reduce the deficit but to fund massive new social programs, especially some form of universal national health care system. The stimulus of tax relief will be gone and the deadweight of new taxes and government program will lead to a much larger deficit. Moreover, the hue and cry over the deficit is only logical if the deficit grows as a percentage of GDP over a period of years. Economic recovery can shrink the deficit in a relatively short time -- provided there is no new spending. A Democrat will give us the worst of both worlds -- higher taxes and higher spending.
A Democratic economic policy is also lethal to the American middle class and small business. The repeal of most taxes to the “wealthy” proposed by the Democrats are really to two-income families that are just getting by and are clearly the backbone of the middle-class and small business owners who pay income tax; their business is not a corporation but a family business that is a sole proprietorship. An increase in dividend taxation or capital gains will put the financial markets in a tailspin and further retard the growth of new or expanded business activity.
Universal health care has an interesting twist that few seem to be discussing. If people are concerned about possible invasions of privacy because of the Patriot Act, imagine the access to private information available to Big Brother when he gets his hands on your medical records. Once the government is subsidizing our health, how long will it take before certain health lifestyles or diets become a matter of government concern over its citizens? Should we expect a universal health care system to deliver the same value as our compulsory educational system? In fact, the Democrats are likely to create an even greater rift between the Haves and Have-Nots in healthcare by allowing only the wealthiest Americans to pay for private services. Besides this, universal health will either bankrupt the economy since the demand for healthcare is virtually without limit or it will require the government to ration healthcare. Do we really want the delivery of healthcare to become a matter of political bargaining? Imagine the hypocrisy of those who are adamant that the relationship between a doctor and patient is sacrosanct when it comes to abortion, but would make almost all medical procedures a matter of public policy mandates in the future. Imagine your worst nightmare of an HMO and then increase that exponentially and you begin to get the real meaning of Universal Health Care. As for the eventual bill for this service, look to the past at all other federal entitlement programs. To make matters worse, no Democrat is going to support Medical Practice Tort Reform which is contributing to the skyrocketed growth of healthcare costs.
How will Democrats deal with other issues of free market choice for individuals? No Democrat supports any level of privatization of Social Security for retirement. There is no support for school vouchers or alternatives to the monopoly of the public school system. Finally there is no support for private Health Savings Accounts among the Democrats. While Republicans will at least look for market-based solutions to public policy issues, the unions and bureaucratic constituencies of the Democrats virtually insures no such innovation.
On the matter of illegal immigration, the Democrats are more likely to pass a liberal new amnesty program than any GOP administration. The reason is that the Hispanic community seems to be “in play” and this is one constituency the Democrats really need to lock up in order to strengthen their position on the West Coast and in the Southwest.
One can only imagine the kind of social activist judges and Supreme Court justices that would be appointed by the Democratic nominee. The Federal Judiciary will begin to resemble the lunacy of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. Can any responsible citizen sit home and allow the judiciary to lunge to the Left? This alone should energize conservatives. The dismantling of all religious tradition or symbolism in public life is likely to continue with a Democratic President and a liberal judiciary.
The final issue is one of national security. Certainly no one can believe that a Democratic administration will strengthen our intelligence and defense capabilities. It was under Democratic administrations that the CIA and other intelligence agencies became decimated and hand-tied. The Democrats have almost unanimously voted against nearly all major new weapons systems. At a time when we are in fact living in a Third World War, we can not go from a Churchill to a Chamberlain. It is disingenuous for the Democrats to glob onto intelligence deficiencies when they are largely the culprit for lack of human intelligence or material resources in the important area of espionage. In fighting a terrorist enemy, preemption is the natural policy and that requires intelligence first and foremost.
While President Bush may not be a conservative’s perfect president, the alternative should shake any discontents to active support of the President. Moreover, in the area of determining the security threat to the West and taking action, the President may go down as one of our greatest leaders. For the sake of the hope of more prudent domestic policy, judicial restraint and national security, there is really no choice. As for much of the domestic agenda, can we afford to sacrifice the good for the perfect?
Scott Shore is a political commentator and management consultant in Providence, Rhode Island.
You are wrong.
We are going to support the best candidate. It would violate MY principles to do anything that would help elect the WORST candidate.
In truth, he is a traitor. I am no more impressed by his being a veteran than I am by Lee Harvey Oswald, Jeffrey Dahmer, or Timothy McVeigh's veteran status...
14 posted on 02/11/2004 3:19:26 AM PST by ambrose ("John Kerry has blood of American soldiers on his hands" - Lt. Col. Oliver North)
Thanks for the non-response and the point that I never said that. I expected no less from your sort. Doesn't change the fact that under this administration this nation of states rejoined UNESCO. Again I ask, is that called 'stealing the issues' from Democrats?
Nice goal!
Too bad there will be no man who wants to do that and who can be elected president in this century. (At least, until FEDGOV actually goes broke.)
And all this time I thought it was President "Read My Hips" who did it to himself. But of course, to be a true neocon one must blame others for one's own failings.
That must be what you really want,
Perhaps you can show me where I said that?
Aren't we cute. I use my own name, so you know perfectly well my sex.
And I think that you also know perfectly well, what a real Conservative is. He may differ from some of his fellow Conservatives on some issues, as on the priority between issues. But certain things are basic. If the issue has to do with the Federal Government, the stand has to be consistent with the written Constitution. Nothing is more basic to the Conservative, who is trying to preserve heritage and traditional values, than Truth and the sacredness of oaths. There is no authority for Federal action--for Federal existence--outside the Constitution. You will not find any Conservative, who understands our system, who will disagree with George Washington's well known admonitions, that "Honesty is always the best policy," and let their be "no changes by usurpation."
Beyond that, a Conservative favors the minimal expenditure of public resources; the maximum dependence on individual responsiblity; the maximum encouragement of self-reliance (a major trait, which has often distinguished the traditional American from his old world cousins in Europe, and from his South of the border neighbors, who are and have been, far more apt to look to collective solutions for individual problems).
A Conservative, generally, treats others with the respect that he would have in return; he respects the different values that Americans from different States have always had; and the different cultures of the rest of the world, but unapologetically seeks to preserve his own; as well as the sovereign independence of the United States.
I could go on. But the Rovian folly flies in the face of the whole spectrum of Conservative values. Certainly if Rove told Congressman Tancredo to stay away from the White House--as was reported here last year--he threw down the gauntlet. And you are kidding yourself, if you believe that Rove will not cost the President millions of votes, if he stays, and continues on his present course. Fifty years ago, the head of the American Legion told a Convention that "The time for apologetic Americanism is gone forever." I agreed with the man then, I agree with the man now. Rove has got to go!
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
Who is pointing the finger here? The Dems tricked him into the "Read my lips" thing (by promising spending cuts) and they tricked a lot of conservative voters into not reelecting him....and then Clinton showed us what a real tax increase looked like (and reteractive, to boot).
But of course, to be a true neocon one must blame others for one's own failings.
The duped point the finger at Bush and take no blame for their part.
I didn't ask you or anyone else what you wanted. It's obvious - what you don't want (President Bush) tells me what you MUST want.
We keep having to break it down for you, for some reason. There are only two possible outcomes in November: President George W. Bush, or President John F. Kerry. You malcontents always say you're not voting for Bush. That leaves President John F. Kerry. It's that simple.
You've made your choice, and you chose the Democrat. Don't try to make it look so noble.
And there must be 500 posts telling you you're not going to get it with this president, so why bother asking for it?
He's doing the best he can; not good enough for you? Too damn bad; go find another candidate.
But quit telling US that unless we agree with you we're not conservatives.
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.