Bush and His Big Gov

WorldNetDaily ^ | 10/05/2002 | Kyle Williams

[sheltonmac]

The Republican Party, it seems, is now domestically divided among two extremes: those who are blindly supporting President Bush and those who aren't domestically supporting the president based on his actions while in office.

However, many of us have been caught up in the middle, undecided, and staying as spectators in this situation. The truth is, Bush is a very likeable guy, and he knows what he's doing. Most conservatives long for the time when the great Ronald Reagan was president, and Bush has filled that gap for some.

Yet, we have seen questionable actions by President Bush that Reagan would despise. Politics is a game and, in that game, you will have to compromise on issues and legislation to gain political capital in order to push for those core principles you believe in – that's the way it works. That means you will not compromise your core beliefs.

In addition, the real and pure conservatism submits itself to the Constitution and will follow it to the end, not supporting unconstitutional programs and bills. Unfortunately, this is a rare breed of conservatism in Congress and in the Oval Office today.

To make the case for this, we must outline some of the key programs and bills to be supported and signed by the president since the start of his administration.

President Bush and his White House buddies passed the USA Patriot Act after the Sept. 11 attacks. This has got to be one of the most freedom-grabbing bills for some time and specifically goes against the conservative principle of smaller government.

Bush pushed for, agreed with and signed the farm legislation this past summer. This bill, which is in the stack alongside other unconstitutional legislation, takes money from one person's hand and gives it to someone else – a legalized theft operation that the Constitution does not allow. Again, this bill also goes against the conservative principle of smaller government.

Campaign finance reform is another one of them. Yes, this is the same bill that Mr. Bush vowed not to support and to veto during the campaign. Still, with all his political capital, he signed the legislation. This legislation destroyed a key element of basic freedom – something real conservatives usually like to keep.

Another issue in the pile is the Homeland Security legislation. While Congress has yet to pass this, the White House has practically authored it, demanding certain components and financial plans. Although security is a must in the post 9-11 world, the proposed Homeland Security Department will amazingly increase government, the power it has, and will suck up billions of dollars from the budget.

Lastly, you have the Sept. 11 charity program, which gave millions of dollars to each victim of the terrorist attacks. While this may sound fine, it goes back to the concerns of Davey Crocket that a precedent such as this will open the spigot of the federal budget and allow for any victim to receive some sort of severance pay – such an ability is economically unfeasible.

Our president has done many things for conservatism, such as opposing the International Criminal Court and the Kyoto Treaty, as well as being the leader we need in the war on terror. But on core, constitutional issues he let us down, and he continues to let us down.

We keep hearing from the neoconservatives that it will be different when Republicans take over the Senate, but I'm not so sure. I'm anxious to find out what the excuse is going to be from Republicans when they do take over the Senate.

I really wish I could support President Bush on domestic issues, but I can't. My principles are stronger than my emotions, and I hold true to that. I will not sacrifice those principles for a likeable guy.

George W. Bush is no conservative.

---

Kyle Williams is 13 years old, home-schooled and lives in a rural community in America's heartland. His column title, "VERITAS," is Latin for "truth." He particularly enjoys following current news events – and writing about them – and is extremely interested in politics. Kyle believes he may one day have a career in journalism. For now, he offers his unique perspective to the readers of WorldNetDaily.

[Howlin]

Who really gives a damn what Reagan did?

The author of this piece?

[Howlin]

and has the possibility of being elected President.

Well, now you've done it. That's an argument they do NOT like; prepared to be flamed!

[CPI News]

My husband has an IQ of a genius and can't even spell sixth grade level words...

Tell him I feel really sorry for him.

[Sabertooth]

Reagan signed just as many spending bills that brought the budget into huge deficits and Reagan didn't have a war to contend with.

Well remember, Reagan did have the Cold War, which was a lot more expensive than the War on Terror has been thus far.

Like Reagan, Bush has a divided Congress, so the Democrats still have a lot of leverage on spending. One reason I'd like to see the GOP hold the House and take the Senate (aside from the sheer novelty of it!) while holding the White House is that the Republicans will finally have to put up or shut up. Other than the occasional filibusters, they'll have an opportunity to pass and implement an agenda that will hopefully be a constructive change from what's gone on the past 50 years expanding government.

[marajade]

"Tell him I feel really sorry for him."

Why? With technology and the use of newer software with spellcheck it makes his life easier.

My husband doesn't need your pity.

[Joe Hadenuf]

Fine, President Bush is not conservative enough for you. Name me one person that is conservative enough for you, and has the possibility of being elected President. You can not do it.

Do you really think the average Joe on the street has any say on who gets nominated for President or has any real decision on sits in the Oval office? If anything, he will have a choice of two people, put in position by members of an exclusive club...That's it.

[marajade]

"Well remember, Reagan did have the Cold War, which was a lot more expensive than the War on Terror has been thus far."

I'd like to see some stats... I've heard going into Iraq could be as much as 200 bil... That's a lot of dough...

[Joe Hadenuf]

Uh, I was referring to the poster, not the author, when I stated, "who gives a damn what Reagan did, or any other administration"....

[marajade]

I care what Reagan did but it 20 years ago...

Its time to look forward...

[Howlin]

Um, the author is the one who brought it up.

[CPI News]

Why? With technology and the use of newer software with spellcheck it makes his life easier. My husband doesn't need your pity.

Last time I wrote a report my spellchecker told me I misspelled a word that my dictionary said was correct already. Crazy computers.

*laughs at how he was able to distract marajade so well*

[justshe]

My experience on this forum has led me to the following conclusions:

1. If you have differing opinions re: some of President Bush's actions/policies, but overall, support him, you are a Bush-bot.

2. If you have differing opinions re: some of President Bush's actions/policies, and thus cannot support him, you are a Bush-Basher.

3. If you 100% support all of President Bush's actions/policies, you are a Bush-bot.

4. If you 100% disagree with all of President Bush's actions/policies, you are a Bush-basher.

There is a HUGE disconnect here in logic. And yes, I see MORE of the generalized, broad-brush tactics and ALL IS LOST attitude from the Bush-bashers. Expecting the candidate to be a GOD is MUCH more prevalent, imo, on the Bush-basher side.

I have consistently seen the 'constituitionalists', big and little "L" libertarians, as Bush-Bashers. And they seem to attempt to portray themselves as 'above' those who can't see the their issues. VIABLE alternatives/solutions, that are reality-based, are not forthcoming from this faction. Beyond the extremes who WISH for the Dems to win and thus hurry along the distruction of America..all we get are their stated intent to vote against ANY Democrat and Republican. Most of their postions are doom and gloom based and rely on fear and paranoia to advance their cause.

On the Bush-bot side, I HAVE seen more positive, can-do, one-step at a time attitudes espoused. I don't think this is accidental or naive. I think it is a solution-oriented attitude that IS more reality based. They do NOT expect a reincarnation of a GOD as a candidate. In most cases, no single issue is going to dissuade them from the goal-line.

The difference between these two factions is glaring to me.

[marajade]

I wasn't distracted... I have yet to see where you have responded in a substantive way to any of my posts... Who is laughing now?

[Joe Hadenuf]

I read it. It is from a 13-year old boy. Um, the author is the one who brought it up.

Yes he did...LOL!

[thepitts]

George W. Bush is no conservative.

Exactly.

And even a 13 year old can see it.

[CPI News]

My last post had a lot of substance. Computer spellcheckers stink. I never intended to reply to the others, because I don't have time to get in a real debate right now. Just thought you might want to know that spelling isn't the least important thing in the world. ;)

[marajade]

"And even a 13 year old can see it."

Well I think many posters on this thread have pretty much debunked his theory...

[Howlin]

Now, I'm confused about who said it........LOL. Was it Nancy? :-)

[Joe Hadenuf]

George W. Bush is no conservative.

"Exactly. And even a 13 year old can see it."

Hell, even Ray Charles can see this....

[thepitts]

President Bush and his White House buddies passed the USA Patriot Act after the Sept. 11 attacks. This has got to be one of the most freedom-grabbing bills for some time and specifically goes against the conservative principle of smaller government. Bush pushed for, agreed with and signed the farm legislation this past summer. This bill, which is in the stack alongside other unconstitutional legislation, takes money from one person's hand and gives it to someone else – a legalized theft operation that the Constitution does not allow. Again, this bill also goes against the conservative principle of smaller government. Campaign finance reform is another one of them. Yes, this is the same bill that Mr. Bush vowed not to support and to veto during the campaign. Still, with all his political capital, he signed the legislation. This legislation destroyed a key element of basic freedom – something real conservatives usually like to keep. Another issue in the pile is the Homeland Security legislation. While Congress has yet to pass this, the White House has practically authored it, demanding certain components and financial plans. Although security is a must in the post 9-11 world, the proposed Homeland Security Department will amazingly increase government, the power it has, and will suck up billions of dollars from the budget. Lastly, you have the Sept. 11 charity program, which gave millions of dollars to each victim of the terrorist attacks. While this may sound fine, it goes back to the concerns of Davey Crocket that a precedent such as this will open the spigot of the federal budget and allow for any victim to receive some sort of severance pay – such an ability is economically unfeasible. Our president has done many things for conservatism, such as opposing the International Criminal Court and the Kyoto Treaty, as well as being the leader we need in the war on terror. But on core, constitutional issues he let us down, and he continues to let us down.

And lets not forget the wildly popular conservative idea, amnesty for illegals.