BUT I'M MORE AFRAID OF THE ISLAMIC GOONS THAN I AM OF BUSH'S SPENDING

Nealz Nuze ^ | 1/30/04 | Neal Boortz

[beaureguard]

After all, it is conceivable that some future congress can actually do something to turn back the obscene spending increases we've seen out of George Bush. Not likely, but conceivable. It is far more likely, however, that if we see an appeasement-oriented Democrat take the reigns next year we'll see not only the same level of spending (if not worse) but a weakened posture against Islamic terrorism that will end up costing us lives .... thousands of lives, perhaps tens of thousands.

The bottom line here is that no matter how disgusting Bush's spending might be, no matter how offensive it might be to his core conservative base, there is no Democrat running in this race who would spend any less. Every single Democrat running for congress has a new-spending agenda that ranges from a low of $169 billion a year for Joseph Lieberman, to a high of $1.3 trillion a year for Al "The Liar" Sharpton. Now it's true that every single one of these candidates promises to raise taxes on the evil, ugly, nasty, putrid rich by overturning Bush's tax cuts, but that would only put about $135 billion back in the budget (and that's not counting any reduction in tax revenue caused by the resulting economic slowdown). So each and every Democratic candidate would increase the budget deficit. The frontrunner, John Kerry, would increase the deficit by about $130 billion a year.

So ... a classic damned if you do, damned if you don't situation here. Vote for Bush and you get runaway government spending, but you also get a strong defense and an aggressive war against the Islamic terrorists who want to kill as many Americans as they can, on our own soil if possible, and to destroy the American way of life. Vote for a Democrat and you get the same runaway government spending, but as an added bonus you get the appeasement of our enemy, instead of its destruction. Vote for Bush and you get some appeals court judges who actually have an appreciation of our Constitution .. plus runaway spending. Vote for a Democrat and you get activists judges who will use judicial fiat to enact the leftist agenda ... plus runaway spending.

I understand the strong impulse to punish Bush for his free spending ways by withholding your support in November. The price for sitting on hands could be huge. It could be another terrorist attack on American soil, this time with tens of thousands dead. It could be higher spending, a bigger deficit, and a slowed economy brought on by higher taxes. It could be the end of a dream of Social Security reform ... and the list goes on.

And then ... there's always the hope that in a second Bush term he could actually start dancing with who brung him.

[rhombus]

If we could give the guy a mandate this time (no more Florida's) then perhaps he would be less inclined to pander to the great middle of the road, empty headed self-described "moderates". These people see abortion as a privacy issue, they don't want to see immigration goons breaking into homes to deport people, they see their young kids (20 somethings) not being able to get health insurance and their parents not being able to afford medication. Now before you folks jump on me, remember I'm on your side but we all live amongst these misguided people. We have to educate them without frightening them (or we'll be dancing alone again). It was a hell of a first term for ANY president and Brush has held up admirably and showed us world-class leadership (attack by China, attack by Al Qaeda, cleaning up the messy economy left by Clinton, Turncoat Republicans turning the Senate over to the Rats, obstructionism over judges). In my opinion he deserves another chance to dance with us.

[stylin_geek]

Character counts, and to my mind, George W. Bush has character.

[dawn53]

And then ... there's always the hope that in a second Bush term he could actually start dancing with who brung him

If there is a strategy to Bush's moves, I imagine, this would be it, win reelection, gain seats in the Senate. I don't know if there'd be spending cuts (that's a hard one to believe), but to me, appointments to the judiciary (including the SCOTUS) are a very important issue.

[mgist]

The man makes sense. I support Bush 110%. Even if I didn't, I couldn't begin to imagine what my logical alternative would be. Of course one could vote for someone else or not vote, that would only help put a Democrat in office. None of these candidates are capable of protecting America.

[over3Owithabrain]

Bush has got my vote - but I fear he will lose others. He's just gotta stop this reckless spending. When even the Democrats are using spending as an issue, we're in trouble. We can't just expect Osama to be dragged out of a hole and cruise to re-election. That said, I agree with Boortz - W in 2004! He's a great leader who deserves our support.

[beaureguard]

I give him high marks for the WOT. Not real crazy about his spending. Boortz does make sense with this.

[Ophiucus]

The price for sitting on hands could be huge. It could be another terrorist attack on American soil, this time with tens of thousands dead. It could be higher spending, a bigger deficit, and a slowed economy brought on by higher taxes.

Say it early, say it often, say it LOUD!!!. The price is too great for whining about a third party or staying home.

Work to get a candidate more in line with your "true" conservatism in the 2008 primary season. The next four years are too important to screw up with a Rat.

[Blzbba]

I'm not afraid of the Islamic goons. At least with Islams, I can just avoid flying and 7-11s. There's nothing I can do to stop the domestic overspending of our President.

To the Islamic goons, and as a practicioner of the 2nd Amendment, I say (and quote):

Bring 'em on!

[Elkiejg]

Work to get a candidate more in line with your "true" conservatism in the 2008 primary season. The next four years are too important to screw up with a Rat <

One sure way President Bush would win in a landslide - with GOP and RAT votes is to VETO any budget/bill from Congress that has ANY pork in it. Cutting all the pork would reduce the deficit by a tremendous amount.

[dawn53]

I've posted this on several threads lately, but I'll post it again.

If someone had told me on 9/12/2001 that we would make it to 1/30/2004 without another terrorist attack, I would have had a hard time believing it. IMHO, somebody is doing something right.

If someone had told me on 9/12 that we would have ousted the Taliban, taken down the regime of Saddam Hussein, sending weapons inspectors into Libya and possibly Iran, I woud have had a hard time believing it.

Partial birth abortion is banned, tax cuts were passed, marriage as an institution is being addressed, all positive conservative issues.

I'm tired of the rants, some conservatives are beginning to sound like Democrats. Especially that woman on Rush yesterday who was calling Bush a coward (man did that get to me). I don't think he's pandering for votes, he's doing what he thinks is right. Unfortunately, what he thinks is right doesn't always follow conservative thinking

[Sloth]

I let my tag line speak for me.

[Rocko]

I'm not afraid of the Islamic goons. At least with Islams, I can just avoid flying and 7-11s.

Nobody in the twins towers were flying.

[smith288]

I let my tag line speak for me.

Mine too.

[7thson]

I agree, he does make sense. Especially the last couple days with what we have seen coming out of Israel. They complete a deal to release dozens of prisoners for a few dead bodies, and what does it get them. A promise that more of the same will continue plus another bus bombing. For once, I wish that after a bus bombing, a ship from the Sixth Fleet fired a missle right into Arafats HQ. Then the President comes on the airwaves and tells the terrorists in Palestine - come to terms.

[stevem]

In days of yore, when the term "compassionate conservative" first appeared on the scene, the bad guys told us there was nothing compassionate here, just an evil conservative dressed in sheeps clothing.

What if the shoe is on the wrong foot. What if he really isn't conservative at all, just "compassionate." Then all the spending makes sense. Being simply "compassionate" doesn't require common sense in domestic funding. Neither does it require worrying about how to pay for grandiose invasions of the treasury. Hubert Humphrey was one of the worst "most compassionate" citizens in US history, and he no longer cares in the least how his schemes are paid.

H.W. Bush was not conservative. How far from the tree is the acorn expected to fall?

[dawn53]

He's championed conservative issues, just not "all conservative issues."

[MissAmericanPie]

There is no need to get all scared that the WOT won't be run the right way, it's gonna be over by this June anyway.
US troops are going to be leaving Iraq by this summer at least that is what is being said.

So as far as voting goes, you need to take the WOT off the table, it's a non issue or soon will be.

[eyespysomething]

He's gonna get my vote this year, but local and state, and congress level seats had better watch out. I'll help get people into office that will block all this crap.


2008 they will have to work for my vote, and if its anything like it has been, they won't get it.

Because yes, the dems will spend more, and do nothing re: nat'l security.