| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
Posted on 05/29/2002 10:02:01 AM PDT by Stand Watch Listen
Is George W. Bush becoming the president who just can't say no? Democrats like to paint him in dyed-in-the-wool conservative colors and portray him as even more of an ideological warrior than was Ronald Reagan.
Few would disagree that he is more conservative than was his father, but saying that leaves out a lot. In short, it lacks a recognition of President Bush's highly developed sense of pragmatism and his readiness to compromise —which is infuriating some conservative luminaries who argue his presidency so far is shaping up to be a disappointment when it comes to domestic policy.
Frustration was evident earlier in the year when the White House started backing moderate Republicans over conservatives in GOP primary races around the country. With spending on government programs set to increase by 22 percent from 1999 to 2003 in inflation-adjusted dollars, according to some analyses, grumbling about Bush is mounting within the Republican Party's conservative wing.
Spending on annually funded programs increased about 9 percent in the last two years of the Clinton administration. In the first two years of the Bush administration it is scheduled to grow nearly 15 percent.
Administration officials say they'll control spending once the current terrorist emergency has passed. But conservative critics say the boost in federal spending under Bush isn't just connected with Sept. 11, nor has there been a White House effort to offset additional dollars for defense and national security with reductions elsewhere.
The irate conservatives point to the president's May signing of the most expensive farm-subsidy package in U.S. history, despite objections even by some Republicans who called it a "protectionist boondoggle." Conservative critics say the measures will make U.S. farmers dependent on federal subsidies and that it represents a reversal in the congressional effort since the mid-1990s to curb a trend toward farm price supports. "We seem to have done a U-turn," said Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) when the bill was passed.
The chorus of conservative disapproval is most high-pitched when it comes to the president's failure so far to veto any legislation that has come his way from Congress, including the recent farm legislation. From libertarians at the Cato Institute to conservatives at the Progress and Freedom Foundation, concern is growing at Bush's reluctance to use his veto powers to curb the free-spending ways of Congress.
Conservatives, including some within his administration, fear Bush fails to appreciate that Congress will be brought to heel only when the White House fires off a veto or two. "Since the fall his aides have kept telling us that they will veto this bill and veto that bill but, when push comes to shove, nothing happens," says a prominent conservative leader.
So far, after nearly 16 months in office, Bush has not exercised a single veto. That contrasts with Reagan, who used to enjoy taunting the then Democrat-controlled Congress by urging Capitol Hill to "make my day" and approve bills he didn't like. Reagan vetoed 70 bills during his first term. Even the "kinder, gentler" George H.W. Bush was tougher than his son — he issued 44 vetoes.
The president's legislative-affairs director, Nick Calio, maintains that Bush often has been able to get his way just by calling attention to his veto power. He has cited a post-9/11 spending bill as an example of where Bush managed to secure some changes as a result of raising the specter of a veto.
But conservative critics are not persuaded. At a private strategy session in the winter, Bush tried to pre-empt complaints by assuring Republican senators that he wouldn't flinch from exercising his veto power. But he was careful not to provide any hostages to fortune by offering examples of what he would strike down.
One of the biggest conservative fears is that the president has bought into the notion that Sept. 11 prompted a sea change in the political outlook of ordinary Americans, causing them to be more willing to tolerate big government and increased government expenditures. Worse still, some argue, Bush is using the terrorism emergency to justify expenditures that have nothing to do with national security.
Cato senior fellow Tom Palmer recently bewailed Bush for justifying farm subsidies on defense grounds. "A national-security crisis provides countless opportunities to camouflage expansions of government power or spending as necessary for the common defense," Palmer cautioned in a Cato policy paper.
The Cato critic also cited the president's State of the Union address, in which Bush promised to increase the funding of police and fire departments, something previously considered to be the responsibility of local governments.
Bush supporters say the president simply is engaging in smart politics. Columnist Tony Blankley, who was the spokesman for former House speaker Newt Gingrich, argues that Bush and his political advisers have made the conscious decision not to get embroiled in a domestic-policy row with the Democrats this side of the congressional polls in November. The idea is to allow the White House to focus the election on national-security issues, which should benefit the GOP.
The downside, as far as conservatives are concerned, is that once the federal spending juggernaut starts picking up speed it can't easily be slowed.
Jamie Dettmer is a senior editor for Insight magazine.
email the author
Yes, I do know how the game is played. I also know that "playing the game" is screwing up the country. I don't have to like it!
Only libertarian deadheads, believe in some idealistic utopian society, where everything is perfect and everyone gets along. That's shear nonsense!
I said I "hoped" and "wished" things were different. That does not mean I don't and can't recognize reality. I also believe in heaven, where everything is perfect. Does that make me a libertarian deadhead, also? (FWIW, our discussion has been going along quite fine without the name calling. I would appreciate that aspect not changing.)
Remember, the Founding Fathers weren't just great revolutionaries, they were the consumate politicians of their day. They knew how to play the political game with the best of them and they usually won out, over the lesser players.
And they set up the rules for the game, which our modern politicians are not following.
To say that American's today, don't have the ultimate freedoms and liberties, of any nation in world history, is to overlook the obvious. Why are so many of you people, so damn pessimistic? I've never heard such doom and gloom BS in my life.
No, in the past we had the ultimate freedoms and liberties. Today, right now, those freedoms and liberties are no longer ultimate. "Doom and gloom" about this is not BS, it is reality.
Here are two collections of articles that explain this in words I don't have: Freedom Essays and Civil Rights Articles
This is by far, the best place to live in the world. Enjoy yourself!
I agree with this. That does not mean I won't do what I can to make it better.
There are good and bad in everything, politics included. However, you can't change human nature. People have different opinions and values and beliefs. It's tough getting a consensus, even among freedom loving American's.
>>>I also believe in heaven, where everything is perfect.
Let's stick to life on Earth, okay?. The hereafter will take care of its self.
>>>And they set up the rules for the game, which our modern politicians are not following.
I don't see it that way. Care to explain, briefly?
>>>No, in the past we had the ultimate freedoms and liberties. Today, right now, those freedoms and liberties are no longer ultimate. "Doom and gloom" about this is not BS, it is reality.
In 1790 America, you had less people and more open space to move about. In 1790, there were about 4,000,000 American's living , over some 868,000 square miles. The nation has grown and its only natural for laws, regulations and restrictions to grow with an expanding population. I appreciate you admitting to being a doom and gloom fanatic. That helps in making my points.
>>>Here are two collections of articles that explain this in words I don't have:
I recognize some of the titles in both links and a brief skim through, tells me all I need to know. The links are for a womens pro-gun website and that part is just great, but the pages you sent me to, are for anti government and anti society propaganda. Just for your information, the internet is filled with an over abundance of these militant trash sites.
No wonder you got annoyed with my term, libertarian deadheads. The term refers to people who want America turned into some utopian society and culture based on radical libertarian principles, of absolute and unrestricted liberty. In such a nation there would be few laws, to regulate and restrict excessive human behavior. In such a nation, morals and ethics would be set aside, in favor of a society where anything goes and law abiding American's can't walk down the street, without looking over their shoulder. Being vigilant is one thing, throwing all caution to the wind is irresponsible. A nation that doesn't respect the will of the people and the laws of the land, is a nation whose future is doomed. Such a nation is exactly what radical libertarians want America turned into. A nation of chaos and anarchy.
But libertarian's aren't just content with promoting a philosophy and agenda that is fringe political extremism. No, they're only satisfied by exposing American's to their radical form of thinking. They want American's to join them and become just like them, reactionary absolutists, who revert to paranoia, distrust and hatred, in guiding their personal beliefs and daily lives. Radical libertarianism has no moral compass and will never be considered and/or accepted, as a mainstream force in American life. That includes all aspects of American society, culture and government.
Lifting excessive taxation on working American's and thereby reducing the size and scope of our bloated federal bureaucracy is one thing. Reducing abusive and excessive restrictions and regulations, is an admirable undertaking and something I fully support. But expecting reasonable, sensible and pragmatic American's to agree, to the principles of libertraianism, is like asking for people to devolve and return to a time, when survival of the fittest was the name of the game. Libertarians want to destroy 10,000 years of civilization and return mankind, to the animal kingdom. If you want that to happen, you'd better pray for an all out, total nuclear conflict. That's about the only way, such an extreme reality could ever exist.
They created the Constitution, which sets up guidelines and procedures for running a minimalist govt., with major restrictions on govt., with a goal of restricting govt. tyranny.
Our current govt. does not follow those guidelines and in very few ways resembles that established by our country's founders.
Each politician swears an oath to uphold the Constitution upon taking office. By deliberately and knowingly breaking this oath, they are not "following the rules."
The nation has grown and its only natural for laws, regulations and restrictions to grow with an expanding population.
1. I have heard that the printout of our laws takes approx. 12 feet of shelfspace. Many are minutae (sp?), and some are obsolete and ridiculous. This is not, IMO, "natural."
2. Also, many of these laws are unconstitutional, and thus should not have been created in the first place. There is nothing "natural" about them, either.
...the pages you sent me to, are for anti government and anti society propaganda.
As you have said, no one is perfect, and our govt. is run by humans who make mistakes. Some mistakes should be corrected. You may call that concept "anti-govt.," but I disagree.
Some form of govt. is necessary for society to run smoothly. But as for America's current govt., I think some mistakes should be corrected. My ideal govt. would be America's return to a govt. as established by the Constitution (not some form of anarchy, as you seem to think).
As stated in one of the articles you so calmly dismiss as "propaganda:"
The United States is not a "Free" country, nor is it governed by "The People." Only when a country founded on laws, follows those laws is it legitimate. All governments will cross the line from time to time and the people and/or laws will reign it back in. The US Government has entirely destroyed the line and the law is not enforced against it. This is defined as a "Police State" anywhere else in the world it occurs. We even send our troops to free people living in such conditions while pretending it's not happening here.
Yes, my opinion of our current govt. is pretty negative. I do not understand how people can think that everything is just fine, when the country more closely resembles old horror stories from the USSR than those from the great history of the USA.
You know that bill was passed by large numbers of Republicans in the House and the Senate. Knowing it had that kinda support in Congress why should have Bush vetoed it?
Polls show Bush with a much higher approval rating among Republicans and conservatives;
"Bush's job approval rating among Republicans is in the low 90s and a bit higher among strong Republicans, according to an Ipsos-Reid poll and others.
Georgia Republican Chairman Ralph Reed said most conservatives he talks to are quite content ``the ball is clearly moving in the right direction.'' That gives the GOP the latitude to reach out more on health care, education and other issues, he said."
from;BUSH EXTREMELY STRONG WITH BASE Associated Press | 31 May 2002 | Will Lester
You are wrong. Most American's don't have a clue of the scope and seriousness of the crimes Clinton and company committed. That information was kept from them by the liberal media. For example, most of the media didn't even bother to tell the public about the alleged rapes. They didn't mention Sid Blumenthal lying under oath in an impeachment trial about lying under oath. I doubt 5 percent of the public are aware of the nefarious circumstances surrounding the death of Ron Brown. It is not that the public is lazy or would want our government to move-on in such serious matters as election tampering, blackmail of Congress, treason and murder. It is that this information was DELIBERATELY kept from them. And this information is STILL being deliberately kept from them ... but this time by the GOP.
Here is just one of many examples. The RNC website didn't even bother to mention the Riady Non-Refund disclosure, a blockbuster issue if there ever was one for the Republicans. Imagine ... the democRATS are caught accepting MILLIONS of illegal contributions from a foreign source with strong ties to the Red Chinese Military. When this is discovered they claim they have returned the money. Then the man who gave the money, while under a plea agreement which he looses if he lies, tells the judge that they did NOT give back the money. And the RNC and GOP ignore this. Unbelievable ... BUT TRUE.
These are NOT dead issues.
There is NO statute of limitations on TREASON and MURDER. Ron Brown, by all appearances, was murdered (along with 34+ others) to keep him from testifying about the illegal fundraising being done by the Clinton administration and the trading of US Secrets and restricted technology for those contributions. And the GOP doesn't seem to care. Wonder why?
There has been no accounting of what happened in Filegate that we can trust. We STILL do not know how many ILLEGAL files were really taken. We STILL do not know if those files were returned. We STILL do not know if the information in those files is STILL on DNC databases and computers. We simply do not know whether Republicans and our representatives are being blackmailed. And the GOP doesn't appear at all interested in finding out. Wonder why?
And if you can't see the difference between the highly politicized efforts of Fiske, Starr and Ray (all Clinton approved by the way and all who did things that make their efforts HIGHLY suspect) and what an HONEST DOJ and FBI could do, you can only be a democRAT.
As I've said. NO EXCUSES. Bush either upholds his oath of office and duty according to the Constitution to FAITHFULLY EXECUTE the laws of this land or I will join Paul Ross in not voting for him should he run again. But I'll do more. I'll be a persistent thorn in the side to those on FreeRepublic who choose to cheerlead for Bush and ignore his deriliction of duty. As far as I'm concerned, there is nothing that Bush can do that is more important than protecting the sanctity of our election process and ensuring that our representatives are not being blackmailed or murdered. Terrorists can't destroy what our country stands for but Bush can ... if he ignores these matters, proving that leaders and party members are indeed above the law ... if he makes it possible (likely!) that democRATS will do the same (or worse!) in the future ... if he sends a message to Republicans that suggests the laws will only be enforced if it is politically expedient (because then Republicans will be more likely to commit and cover up crimes too).
NO EXCUSES, move-on'er.
The growth of the federal government has been under way, since early in our nations history. Every president and every Congress has enlarged the federal goverment to some degree, with special emphasis on the last 70 years, of creeping liberal-socialism.
However, President Bush isn't responsible for the excessive growth and taxation that has occured for the last 200 years. He's been in office for less then 17 months. How much change Bush will be able to bring about, within the parameters of the governing political system, is directly related to how much control Republicans and specifically conservative-Republicans, will have in the Congress. Its that simple.
We agree, taxes are too high. Bush worked hard to get American's a tax cut. I thinkm it could have been bigger and take effect sooner, but it was a huge accomplishment. I suspect there will be more tax cuts down the road under the leadership of a Bush administration.
We agree, government is too big and intrusive, but the amount of reductions in the overall, size and scope of the federal government, is directly related to who the electorate votes into office. The will of the people, is still the greatest power in American politics. Many American's are frustrated with the direction the country is taking. IMHO, your remarks reflect a deep rooted anger and a strong paranoia, over the direction America is heading. You want change and you want it now! The problem is, you have no substantive plan in how to get there. Just a fringe political philosophy, that falls flat on close inspection.
You see elected government officials, breaking their oath of office and acting in all sorts of unconstitutional ways. I call most of that behavior, politics as usual. Everything gets back to the basics of life. In this case, the basics of life, is politics.
>>>1. I have heard that the printout of our laws takes approx. 12 feet of shelfspace. Many are minutae (sp?), and some are obsolete and ridiculous. This is not, IMO, "natural."
The fact is, it's a natural progression. But like I said to you, "reducing abusive and excessive restrictions and regulations, is... something I fully support".
>>>2. Also, many of these laws are unconstitutional, and thus should not have been created in the first place. There is nothing "natural" about them, either.
Who says they're unconstitutional? People who disagree with them. People like you and people like me. We just approach it very differently. To get the laws changed, you have to work within the political system. This is simple stuff. Why are you having such difficulty understanding, how our political system works? It hasn't changed, since the time the Founding Fathers created it.
>>>As you have said, no one is perfect, and our govt. is run by humans who make mistakes. Some mistakes should be corrected. You may call that concept "anti-govt.," but I disagree.
Some form of govt. is necessary for society to run smoothly. But as for America's current govt., I think some mistakes should be corrected. My ideal govt. would be America's return to a govt. as established by the Constitution (not some form of anarchy, as you seem to think).
Libertarians, like you, want to take America back to a simpler time in our history and have everyone follow the Constitution, which was the only law of the land, which existed at the time. That's living in an imaginary dream world. It will never happen. If the American government of 1790, replaced the existing federal government of today, you would have chaos and anarchy. There is no way to make such an abrupt transition and hold together our orderly and law abiding society.
That's why conservatives prefer gradual development to abrupt change and believe, the only way to attain real changes in government, is through an incremental political process. If you want to get there in a hurry, that's called a revolution.
>>>As stated in one of the articles you so calmly dismiss as "propaganda:"
I'm defintiely not calmly dismissing such political propaganda. I'm quite disturbed by most militant political pronouncements and your linked articles are no exception. Whether they come from libertarians, anarchists, liberals, socialists, or pure totalitarians, I am opposed to such radical rhetoric, ideas and change.
>>>Yes, my opinion of our current govt. is pretty negative. I do not understand how people can think that everything is just fine, when the country more closely resembles old horror stories from the USSR than those from the great history of the USA.
The United States of America, of which I've had the honor and privilige to live in, for almost fifty years now, doesn't resemble the old Soviet empire, in any way, shape or form. You better stop reading all that militant anti-govt trash and stop being so damn pessimistic about life.
A little optimism goes a long way.
It wasn't released to the media. Man you are so full of BS. Gonna call you "BSChooser" from here on. Chit. Would you qucking fuit and go BACK to DU where you came from?
Many Republican supporters cannot or will not face the fact that Bush has high jacked the Party and taken it forever left. Ronald Reagan said when he left the Democratic Party, that he didn't leave his party, his party left him.
The same has happened here, the leftward tilt that Bush has forced will not turn back right, ever, only more and more left. Only "moderate" Republicans have been bullied onto the ballot, over the objections of the conservative base. Now they are asking for yet another failed "Republican Revolution", only with moderates this time. (yawn) Sorry it just doesn't inspire me.
It is pitiful little comfort to conservatives for the Republican Party to survive, if conservative issues have no future in that Party, and have in fact been asked to remove themselves from the new "Big Tent". If you vote for them, your sending a message that you accept and approve of this new direction, and you may. But for me, this is a critical and more patriotic, last ditch effort, to slap them back right, if possible.
I don't think giving them what they want, while they deny my conservative agenda for another string of years and set themselves, in liberal concrete, assuming everyone is with them and approving on the band wagon headed Left is any kind of an answer.
By writing in a conservative like Tancredo I figgure I am sending them the message, "go right young man". If they don't get it, or appreciate it, too bad, for me they are a dead Party and I will not work to delay their demise.
And you are a foul mouthed, lying move-on'er. Every single one of the items I mentioned was indeed available to the mainstream media.
All of us here at FreeRepublic were aware of the rape and assault allegations. It was NBC that investigated the story but delayed showing it until AFTER the impeachment vote and even then they only showed it ONCE following demonstrations outside NBC studies by Freepers. To this day most of the other mainstream TV news organizations have not even mentioned the rape of Broaddrick. Most of the major papers have never even mentioned it. In fact, the LA Times recently went so far as to unilaterally edit an article by George Wills to eliminate any reference to the alleged rape and abuse of women by Clinton. Don't try to tell us the mainstream press didn't know about this story. Many of us were calling them daily about why they weren't reporting it.
Don't try and tell us they didn't know about Sid Blumenthals lies either. During the impeachment trial, CSPAN showed the House Managers catch him lying under oath yet NOT ONE mainstream news organization or paper reported it. They knew about it and your a LIAR to suggest they didn't.
And as far as Ron Brown is concerned, you are LYING here too. If we here at FreeRepublic knew about the accusations of the military whistleblowers you can be sure the mainstream media did too. Some of those whistleblowers were even doing interviews on select radio programs. It is disingenious to suggest that the media didn't hear about the story since many of us were calling them about it. In fact, either ABC or NBC (I don't remember which) did a special on the internet and made a point of linking the "crazies" at UFO sites to those suggesting a conspiracy regarding Ron Brown's death. But they didn't ever tell their viewing audience what that conspiracy was about ... like what the military pathologists were saying. Their story was done to discredit the story and for no other reason.
And like I said, the RNC website didn't even bother to mention the Riady Non-Refund disclosure, a blockbuster issue if there ever was one, but the story was out there for anyone in the media to report. As far as I know only Fox News ever reported it. ABC, NBC and all the rest of the TV "news" networks, the LATimes and dozens of major papers all sat on the story. They DELIBERATELY hid it from the public. You are a LIAR to even suggest it wasn't released to the media.
Now since I was prevented from replying to your last comment to me on the other Bush thread because it was deleted because of the type of foul mouth language you seem to like to use, I'm going to do so now. You wrote:
What does Weisbergs comments about Klayman have to do with Bush? </>I
Because recently we seen some of those self-proclaimed conservatives who are defending Bush (you and Howlin, for instance) putting forth the ludicrous notion that Jacob Weisberg, a strident Bush hater, is a source that is "accurate" and worth believing at FreeRepublic. And we saw Howlin, who first introduced Weisberg as a credible source, and whom you chimed in to defend when I asked her to cite a source for a claim she made, say the Washington Post and Slate are credible sources too. Now these don't seem the sort of sources that conservatives like you claim to be would cite as authoratative, do they? So it makes one wonder when you attack the notion that Bush is violating his oath of office and the Constitution by not investigating the crimes that Clinton and his democRAT supporters committed the last 9 years whether you aren't infact a democRAT defending Clinton.
What does Klaymans comments about Clinton/Brown have to do with Weisbergs comments not being accurate on Klayman?
You misunderstood. It's your belief in the accuracy of Weisberg as a source that is the issue. Since you believe that, perhaps you aren't very credible when it comes to what you say about Klayman or the failure of Bush to investigate the many Clinton era crimes. And since you mention Brown, perhaps you might explain some of the incriminating facts in the case ... why the government has simply ignored its own expert pathologists who say Brown might have been shot and should have been autopsied; how the original of the x-ray and photos which seem to back up those pathologists' concern disappeared from a locked safe at AFIP; why AFIP management lied about the case and destroyed the careers of the military whistleblowers rather than simply tell them why they were mistaken; why Brown's plane simultaneously lost both transponder and radio contact when it was still 8 miles from the crash site; who the identity of the 2nd survivor mentioned in Ira Sockowitz's report to State is; how the mechanic in charge of the missing beacon, which disappeared just before the crash and which some suggest could have been used to spoof the plane into crashing into a mountainside like it did, really died? Or perhaps you can explain why Howlin says it wasn't murder but refuses to provide her reasons (other than to cite democRATS, a bogus Clinton era report, someone who had nothing to say about the Brown case and unnamed "others").
Seems to me, from Bush's point of view (and Republicans), Klayman and Weisberg are on the same side of the fence. In fact, maybe in bed together. You don't know Larry. He is a liberal, protecting them. Add it up.
Reality check. Weisberg slams Klayman, BIG TIME. Weisberg slams Bush, BIG TIME. Weisberg does not slam democRATS. Klayman went after Clinton much worse than he EVER has gone after Bush. And Klayman, despite what you say, is still targeting certain Clinton and democRAT 'improprieties'. So how do you come to the conclusion Klayman is a liberal and in bed with Weisberg? Don't be ridiculous. He may be an opportunist or he may be independent. But whichever, he certainly isn't a "liberal". But those, like you, who use him as an excuse to dismiss the crimes that Clinton and the democRATS committed or excuse Bush's failure to investigate those crimes, might be. Add it up.
Let me tell you this: You either ARE Klayman (in which case, f*_k you), or you work for him.
UNTRUE on BOTH accounts ... and just the sort of foul language and non-fact-filled response we've come to expect from move-on'ers who are doing everything in their power to make sure that calls for Bush to investigate the crimes the Clintons and democRATS committed the last nine years get no traction on this forum. Isn't it odd they also happen to be some of Bush's biggest cheerleaders on this forum too?
I want them both to do their job ... or haven't you been paying attention.
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.