Posted on 05/29/2002 8:44:38 AM PDT by Zack Nguyen
Why should Republicans bother to vote GOP next November 5? Inexplicably, President Bush and congressional Republicans are giving their party base myriad reasons to go fishing on Election Day.
Republicans and Democrats have proven to be pigs in a bipartisan pen on pork-barrel spending. While some Republicans still treat taxpayers' dollars with reverence, too many more stand gleefully at the trough, snout-by-snout, with their Democratic colleagues.
This Congress is set to hike federal spending by 15 percent over just two years, more than quadruple the inflation rate. Most of this does nothing to fight terrorism.
On May 13, Bush signed a $191 billion farm bill that boosts agriculture subsidies by 80 percent. Congress even included $100 million to provide rural consumers "high-speed, high-quality broadband service." The Heritage Foundation estimates that this 10-year bill will cost the average U.S. household $180 in new taxes annually.
Bush's education department budget grows from $35.75 billion in 2001 (when he arrived) to a projected $57 billion in 2005. That is a four-year, 59.5 percent increase in federal school outlays. Bush's Leave No Child Behind initiative promotes testing and higher standards, but does little to advance school choice.
Bush signed the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance-reform law. It treats the disease of legal bribery with a prescribed overdose. As if there were no First Amendment, it will restrict political activists from purchasing ads critical of political incumbents within 60 days of elections.
Bush dropped an anvil on free-marketeers this spring when he imposed 30 percent tariffs on imported steel and a 27 percent tax on Canadian softwood lumber. This has created throbbing headaches among world leaders who have grown weary of Bush's self-mocking free-trade rhetoric.
Bush has applauded a Senate bill by liberal Republican Pete Domenici of New Mexico and arch-liberal Democrat Paul Wellstone of Minnesota that would force company health plans to insure mental illness and physical ailments equally. Costs will soar as employers underwrite medical care for anxiety atop angina.
Enough.
A popular conservative president should steer Congress starboard. A May 14 - 15 Fox News poll of 900 adults found Bush's job approval at 77 percent (+/- 3 percent). Alas, like his father (who achieved 90 percent favorability after the Persian Gulf War), G. W. Bush guards his political capital like an heirloom rather than invest it for even greater gains.
When Democrats smeared appellate-court nominee Charles Pickering as a racist, Bush, for instance, should have held a press conference with Pickering and his prominent black supporters from Mississippi. As Charles Evers, the brother of slain civil-rights activist Medgar Evers, said: Pickering "was standing up for blacks in Mississippi when no other white man would." Bush avoided such bold action. A thousand cuts later, Pickering's nomination fatally hemorrhaged in the Senate Judiciary Committee last March.
Bush could have enhanced the prospects for petroleum exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. He could have invited local Eskimos to the Rose Garden and let them explain how oil development would lift them from poverty. Better yet, Bush could have taken the White House press corps to ANWR to unmask its potential oil acreage as a barren mosquito farm. Bush avoided the ANWR fray, thus clinching that proposal's Senate demise.
Beyond speaking softly in his bully pulpit, Bush never has touched his veto pen. Had he threatened to reject some of this absurd legislation, fence-sitting GOP congressmen would have yielded and defeated (or at least improved) these bills. Absent Bush's leadership, they climbed atop the gilded bandwagon rather than fall on their laissez-faire swords. Republicans should worry that their demoralized stalwarts will do what they did in the last midterm election: Stay home.
The proportion of self-described conservatives at the polls fell from 37 percent in 1994 to 31 percent in 1998, Voter News Service reports. Frustrated with a "Republican Revolution" turned free-spending self-parody, the party faithful sat on their hands just enough to cost Republicans five House seats.
If they don't reverse this parade of white flags, Washington Republicans similarly may shrink or lose their House majority and dash their plans to capture the Senate — not because they advanced their free-market principles but because they betrayed them and thus surrendered their claim to power.
Dubya isn't a dictator but he does have the constitutional to veto. He also has the constitutional authority not to propose more government programs. BTW, what does "not being a dictator" have to do with Dubya's recent initiatives to *increase* the size of government. In fact, I thought that a dictator (your word) would like such big government initiatives.
Grow up!
Chalk it up as another unappeasable.
Good day to you, sir.
1. Reagan won the Cold War and buried the Evil Empire.
2. Reagan's tax-cuts laid the groundwork for the greatest peace-time economic boom in global history.
I never said he was a god. He was just a president, just a politician. But I know one president who could --- and still possibly might --- learn from President Reagan.
The GOP should "take the Senate" to do precisely what? Enact Dubya's budget busting (non-veto program of more welfare, higher tariffs, farm aid, and "mental health" parity...or are you claiming that Dubya (and his GOP Senate yes men) *really* have different views?You and I are probably a lot closer in opinions on the issue than you think. I too would love to see a Republican President ride in on a White Horse and smite all Liberalism everywhere. But it's not going to happen.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, a Republican Senate will give us lower taxes, stronger military and better judges than a Democratic Senate will. That's not perfect conservatism... but it's worth working for... worth voting for... worth sending in campaign contributions for.
What incredible nonsense. Show me just where in the Constitution it says that a politician isn't allowed to change parties. Oh, I know, he was elected essentially under false pretenses. That's true; but if you sacked every politician who did that, neither party would be able to fill a city council.
99% of the Congress, including your precious Republicans, violate their holy oath on a daily basis to support and defend the Constitution. I don't hear you calling for civil war about that!
I wonder if you would be so upset if Jeffords had switched from Democrat to GOP and gave them control of the Senate. I bet I wouldn't hear the word "illegitimate" come out of your mouth then.
This is all about Party over country. You think I'm too hard on Bush? Take this crap over arming pilots. John Magaw (who made this ridiculous decision) is in the executive branch of govt. OK, pop quiz, who do people in the executive branch work for? Ding Ding! That's right, the President. So why hasn't he done anything about this?
I'll spare you the trouble of answering, I've heard the line from the apologists so many times I know it by heart. "Gee, he has to do that, because if he upsets the Brady Bunch that'll upset the soccer moms, and Representative Zoop will lose his seat. So it's just tactics, comrades, tactics." In other words making sure that the guy who's polishing the seat of that chair with his butt is wearing a lapel pin with a picture of an elephant on it is more important than the lives of the taxpayers riding in those planes.
#243: Texasforever On Republicrats
(I put the #243 in the title because some browsers seem to get hung up on #242, which contains a photo.)
Sure.
Reagan was brandishing his veto pen before he was even sworn in. Jesus, George, VETO SOMETHING!
Examples please.
Heh. Too bad the only things either major party cares about is re-election or the status quo. Once upon a time, Republicans cared about trimming the budget and the size of the government, but....with various elections every other year and their move towards the middle, that is holding true less and less.
Don't get me wrong, I would love to see either a Republican or a third-party candidate that would put their election on the line and say they were going to trim the government (and reign it in) at all levels, and I think they would do well. But the party leadership probably wouldn't let that happen.
"Popularity in the realm of fools is impotence in the realm of values."
L. Peikoff
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.