Posted on 01/31/2004 6:27:08 PM PST by softengine
Much has been said about the Bush administration’s handling of sensitive issues to conservatives like illegal immigration and entitlement spending. The criticism is both broad and intense, coming from traditional allies and longtime foes. Though the criticism coming from opponents is severely hypocritical, it scars no less.
Conservatives are consistent in their disparagement of excessive government spending and amnesty programs for illegal immigrants. This, however, leaves no one to thoroughly explain Bush’s policy strategy because his adversaries stringently attack for the sake of power regardless of policy. Though I don’t personally condone the liberal approach of the current administration’s handling of these specific policies, I do understand the strategy involved.
As conservatives, we must force ourselves to look at the big picture. Our country faces a crippling moral dilemma; the tort system cost our economy an estimated $233 billion in 2003; we desperately need a national energy policy; we need to continue reducing the overwhelming tax burden in our country; our intelligence gathering methods must be vastly overhauled and improved; it is critical that the defense of this country continue to be improved and grow; and we must continue to fight the war on terrorism as we currently are or we will find ourselves in the same war on our soil in coming years. This is a minor explanation of what the macro picture currently looks like.
We can safely assume atheists will continue to embrace – and even encourage – the degradation of morality and religion in this country; trial attorneys will never propose tort reform; environmentalists will not support any realistic energy policy; those dependent on government subsidies will fight any tax cut; and liberal anti-military, anti-intelligence, anti-war, special interests-appeasing politicians will put our country at great risk if left in charge of such issues. These people are Democrats and for this reason alone it is critical that Republicans maintain control of Congress and the White House. Fortunately, this isn’t where supporting the Bush administration ends.
President Bush and company have trademarked setting traps for Democrats. He trapped Democrats into supporting the war by initiating the debate just before elections and trapped Democrats into making the capture of Saddam Hussein an issue. He trapped Democrats into opposing an entitlement to seniors and he, not Howard Dean, forced the Democrats further to the left. Bush has taken Democrats’ issues from them and set the stage for an election based primarily on national security – not a Democrat strong suit.
So we come to Bush’s base supporters. Needless to say, we are not happy – but we must be smart. I pose the following questions to ponder: (1) Will excessive government spending and entitlement programs ever be reformed with Democrats in office and (2) Does politics end when Bush’s term ends? The answer to both is obviously no. The end goal is to place Republicans in Congress strategically to outlast Bush. Bush has been accused by allies of repeating his father’s mistakes. I strongly caution against trying to use a slight majority in Congress to overhaul our country in one term – we’ve seen what that brings before.
Our country faces a number of critical issues we must address in coming years. The easiest to fix is (a) excessive government spending and (b) illegal immigration – if, and only if, Republicans are in office. Excessive government spending can be weaned down over time with a Republican majority in Congress (and it will in due time). Illegal immigration can be solved with technology, a slight bump in spending, and a determined Republican president. Neither, however, can be fixed unless steps are taken to regain a firm control of Congress and overall politics.
Do I agree with amnesty or excessive spending? No; quite the contrary. But I disagree with – and to a great extent, fear – the radical agenda of the left. It will, and has already begun to, destroy this country. It is critical we take control and if a bump to the National Endowment for the Arts silences a few artists, amnesty shuts a few radical Hispanic groups up, and a prescription entitlement makes a few seniors happy, so be it. These policies may not make an overwhelming difference in polls or make many people vote for Bush who wouldn’t have otherwise, but they change the image of Republicans and set the stage for a long-term Republican takeover.
Right or wrong, that is the Bush strategy. Choosing not to vote for him on these specifics simply counts as a vote for his opponents. He may be taking his voter base for granted; however, he may just be assuming we’re smart enough to figure out what is going on. Politics will outlast President Bush; he simply hopes it is politics dominated by Republicans who can eventually take on the issues we are forced to swallow at present.
Thought of our conversation the other day when I saw this.
Why?
He is.
Ok .....something about this smacks of a subtle concotion of one-part hypocritism and two-parts feigned ignorance. Let's imagine that it was Clinton who instituted the amnesty program, or the patriot act, or even the (in my opinion rightly deserved) war in Iraq. Were it Clinton people would automatically have circled in for the kill ....an instantaneous reflex action. The amnesty prog (under Klintoon) would have been a tactic to garner more questionable votes, the patriot act would have been one mroe DemoCrap way of increasing govt size and establishing control over everyone, and the war on Iraq would have been some 'wag the dog' crap.
However if it is 'one of our guys' there is some questioning, usually followed by 'it is a smart plan by him that we will all realize after some time.'
Now, i support GW in a myriad of ways. For example the Iraq war in my opinion was a good thing. And who knows .....maybe even the amnesty prog is some terribly cerebral master-stratagem that will bear fruit some time in the future, and that will astonish us all in its intricacy and intelligence. However what bothers me is when people automatically support something just because 'one of ours' said it ......support it (and most of all do not have stupid in-fights) .....but i seriously think it would be prudent to investigate whatever topic it is before jumping on it.
Asbestos underwear on!
this ditty is loaded with inuendo. With all due respect, on the face of it, this is one of the most asinine things I've seen in long time.
Why?
It gives Liberals something to bitch and moan about!!!
Gov't spending can be controlled, and if the deficit negatively impacts the economy, it will suddenly become a prime political issue as it did in the early 90s.
The class warfare arguments are wearing thin, and tax hikes will not be the automatic answer to deficits, as the libs currently assume.
Entitlement reform will be the movement of the next decade. It is certain. The FDR libs are dying, the new generation is more conservative and not enamored of the 1960s. The Gen Xers will simply refuse to mortgage their lives for a bunch of retirees who got theirs, legislated themselves massive entitlements, and are now demanding more. It ain't gonna happen -- they are going to be cut off.
I used to believe that at one time, now it's more like the Republicans take a nickel out of both pockets instead of the democrats taking a dime out of one pocket
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.