CATO INSTITUTE: CLINTON MORE FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE THAN BUSH

Talk is cheap.

With an election 2 months away, he had to start giving his core supporters something to talk about.

Bush also says repeatedly (including during the speech today) that the money spent in Washington is not the government's money ..... it's the people's money.

bush does not believe this, no one in washington believes this. If they did they would repeal the income tax and give us back our money.

bush2 is a big government politician, thats all he'll ever be.

You are right, they left out the REAL problem, which is Congress, where the Libertarian Party doesn't have snow ball's chance in hell of controlling...so as usuall, the LP (with Cato assistance) attacks republicans stupidly thinking this will usher them into main stream political influence....maybe their national canidate can get up to 6% of the vote.

the LP (with Cato assistance) attacks republicans stupidly thinking this will usher them into main stream political influence....

Here's a question.......

Are you satisfyed with the actions of our elected officials over the past 2 years?

Attacking republicans? The republicans deserve to be attacked when they behave like socialist democrats.

Bingo. You're right. There's a lot of people, many of them libertarians, hanging around whining and wringing their hands but haven't a clue on what to do about it. With 1% of the vote they're irrevelant politically.

I'm more interested in specific tactics and strategies to defeat these liberal / socialists. Bush is really a great asset to the cause when he speaks his mind from the heart. I think he's over controlled. I think he's getting bad advice from overly cautious staffers. Also - Bush can only do so much. The real problem is the gutless republicans in Congress. I have no solution other than over time, changing them out, one by one, with conservatives that have spines, that can communicate effectively and that can win votes.

This involves a serious organized grass roots recruitment process like the Democrats engage in. We need tough SOBs that can charm the socks off the sheeple and independents and soccer mom's. The Republicans are about 40-8 years behind. It's like a new ball team going up against the Yankees in the 50's & 60's. This will take many, many years IMHO.

One thing to keep in mind ...... we are looking back on 8 years of a Reagan presidency. Bush has been in office less than 2 years, has had a hostile Senate with which to contend, has had the terrorist attacks and the war to deal with, inherited a mild recession, has had these corporate scandals come to light (more legacy of x42?) ...... and he's still accomplished a lot. Not all that we want ..... and I'm sure not all that he had hoped for. But it is not realistic to expect him to have as much to show for after 19 months as Reagan had after 8 years.

Ronald Reagan inherited double digit inflation, unemployment, a weakened military and a country that was going in the wrong direction. Carter left us with a "Malaise."

In two years President Reagan turned the direction of the country around. The fruits of his policy decisions of the first two years (income tax cuts, indexing rates to inflation, military increases, etc.) were seen in the next six.

Bush has been giving the Democrats much of what they want, enacting their agenda. In return for all his "compromise", what has he gotten? Nothing. They won't even confirm his judicial nominations!

He's not implementing Reagan's strategy of taking 75% of what you asked for and fighting for the rest--the Democrats are using that on him.

Regards,

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.