Posted on 03/08/2006 7:08:13 AM PST by beeler
If the ancient political wisdom is correct that a charge unanswered is a charge agreed to, the Bush White House pleaded guilty yesterday at the Cato Institute to some extraordinary allegations.
"We did ask a few members of the Bush economic team to come," explained David Boaz, the think tank's executive vice president, as he moderated a discussion between two prominent conservatives about President Bush. "We didn't get that."
Now why would the administration pass up such an invitation?
Well, it could have been because of the first speaker, former Reagan aide Bruce Bartlett. Author of the new book "Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy," Bartlett called the administration "unconscionable," "irresponsible," "vindictive" and "inept."
It might also have had something to do with speaker No. 2, conservative blogger Andrew Sullivan. Author of the forthcoming "The Conservative Soul: How We Lost It; How to Get It Back," Sullivan called Bush "reckless" and "a socialist," and accused him of betraying "almost every principle conservatism has ever stood for."
Nor was moderator Boaz a voice of moderation. He blamed Bush for "a 48 percent increase in spending in just six years," a "federalization of public schools" and "the biggest entitlement since LBJ."
True, the small-government libertarians represented by Cato have always been the odd men out of the Bush coalition. But the standing-room-only forum yesterday, where just a single questioner offered even a tepid defense of the president, underscored some deep disillusionment among conservatives over Bush's big-spending answer to Medicare and Hurricane Katrina, his vast claims of executive power, and his handling of postwar Iraq.
Bartlett, who lost his job at the free-market National Center for Policy Analysis because of his book, said that if conservatives were honest, more would join his complaint.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
So I guess you can't refute any of the facts.
I don't know if I'll bother to vote in November.
Very good post.
Apparently you are only conservative if you are against gay marriage, not if you are against big government.
Do not vote or vote for a third party or may be the dmeocrat party but stop making silly threats.
Trade Policy Analysis No. 19 October 15, 2002
 |
by Daniel Griswold
Daniel Griswold is associate director of the Cato Institute's Center for Trade Policy Studies.
"I don't know if I'll bother to vote in November."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Statements like this and one wonders why the Republican Party is coming apart at the seams.
Perhaps you should eat more Wheaties and give that spine something to hold it up.
Thanks J. That goes two ways and I appreciate your clarity.
I try to learn from my own experiences. Sometimes, it's the hard way. ; ).
In the end, I am not here to win rebuttal wars. I am here to sharpen my critical thinking skills so I can help win elections and move the ball down the field. What one says is nice, but it is what one does that counts.
I am very sorry to hear that, because you will lose the most by it.
You would be probably shocked to know how many people, who I absolutely know will vote against my candidates, I encourage to go vote. It is a fundamental right, and more over a fundamental responsibility, of anyone in a free society.
If Iraqis and Afghans can do it when they face potential death, you show yourself for the coward and hypocrit you are when you take for granted your own freedom.
I can respect third party voters. I have NO respect for nonvoters.
Bush's poll numbers are not low because he's too conservative.
You can sell conservatism. Bush has failed to in his several years in office.
What threat? I'm not threatening anything. I'm just not very motivated to vote this year.
Well, I ain't Republican. I'm independent.
That's not the issue. No one on FR says GWB is worse than Gore or Kerry, but is that a good standard? Is the credo that so long as our guy is not as terrible as the RAT, we should be happy with him?
I think the Meirs mess was a perfect example. Because many of us spoke up and did not just swallow the garbage, the better result was achieved. The same should be conrinue to be true, especially on the borders issue.
True.. Many are wroth to call him a RINO.. and don't see that RINO's are faux democrats.. Wonder what will happen when republicans generally see this.. if they ever do.. Even on free republic.. Loyalty is a good thing up to the point you become an enabler.. then its not..
Actually, in the article that started this thread, IIRC Sullivan said he would rather have voted for Clinton than Bush. Freepers have endorsed impeachment of Bush.
Criticism is fine, but a lot of this stuff is way over the top. It helps the Dems, and that hurts us all.
As a noted Bushbot, I wanted Meirs to get her hearing. THere is no way of knowing if we got a better result.
Everyone is aware that immigration is the basis for most of this criticism of Bush. Someone else will have to argue that though, I have sworn immigration threads off!
Thanks to all for a reasonable thread.
Sure can, I just haven't seen any around lately.
The reason immigration is such a big issue is that it impacts so many other issues and is in your face everywhere you go, every time you pick up a phone, every time you get a wrong number calling you, etc etc.
Very true.
It might also have had something to do with speaker No. 2, conservative blogger Andrew Sullivan.
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.