Skip to comments.Bush has been a Moderate all Along (and He always campaigned as such )
Posted on 10/26/2005 10:17:22 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
click here to read article
We can always count on you to contribute the dumbest trite soundbites.
Overall spending did go up under Reagan. But Reagan was successful in cutting welfare and entitlement spending, shifting those funds to his defense buildup. And Reagan did cut non-defense related discretionary spending during his first term. Bush has done absolutely nothing to reduce spending, or slow it down.
>>>>Reagan appointed Sandra Dee O'Connor, an unconfirmable Robert Bork, and Anthony Kennedy.
Reagan was lied to by Meese and Schultz when it came to O'Conner. Kennedy had the support of the National Right to Life organization and other pro-life groups. After a few years on the court, Kennedy fell into the liberal beltway trap that effects many SC justices.
>>>>Reagan cut and ran in Lebanon.
That's a cheap shot. Reagan came to understand that Lebanaon was an untenable situation. Reagan approved a plan to take out a Iranian revolutionary Guard barracks. It was Cap Weinberger who nixed that plan and he was the one who pushed to get the Marines out of Lebanon. The fact remains, we're still not sure who was to blame for the Marine barracks bombing.
>>>>Reagan gave amnesty to illegal immigrants.
And if the IRCA of 1986 was enforced the one time amnesty deal would have been just that. Instead, the feds ignored the IRCA of 1986. Bush wants to make the same mistake againm, by leting millions of illegals into the USA. One mistake is enough.
>>>>Reagan never hit hard at terrorism other than one attack on Libya.
Reagan's #1 priority was fighting the Cold War. Btw, Reagan won the Cold War. Second, terrorism wasn't the issue in the 1980`s, it is today.
>>>>Don't get me wrong -- I LOVED RR and considered him a great conservative President...
If that's what you believe, then stop undermining the Reagan legacy, just to lift up the Bush record. Thaqt's wrong and PresBush would be the first to tell you so.
"Whatever hack the RNC tosses up next will the only choice. Do you understand? To state otherwise will cause you to be ostracized from the 'group'."
Well, be honest. That IS TRUE, isn't it?
Are you expecting a Libertarian to be elected?
Are you expecting a Constitution Party candidate to be elected?
Are you expecting a Conservative Party candidate to be elected?
Be real: it's the Republican party candidate, or the Democrat party candidate.
Work as hard as you can to get the most conservative Republican who can win the general election nominated.
And where would you place Kerry on your scale if "Mike Dukakis is one exception?" In the mushy middle along side Bush? Kerry's voting record in the Senate places him IMO right along side Dukakis as a hard-core liberal and next to the looney left crook Al Gore once he advanced to the national scene, but let's just call them all what they are - socialists.
An easy claim to make....out of context. Beirut and 241 Americans is not New York City & Wash. D.C. with almost 3,000 dead. Furthermore, Reagan still had the Soviet Union to deal with, especially in the Middle East. The wise move was to leave. Your defense of Bush with the accusation of cowardice toward Reagan does not do your case any good, in fact, it harms it. Try some other strategery.
"Or yesterday for that matter (Goldwater)."
Good point. Anyone who thinks a true conservative who speaks out about conservatism can be elected as POTUS is fooling himself.
Centrists win elections.
Why is it that whenever I see the phrase "principled politician" the laughter wells from deep inside?
If that were true, Carter and Clinton never would have been president. Candidates on the left who pretend to be centrists win elections if they dupe enough fools into voting for them.
I guess in your Alice in Wonderland world, "conservative" means exactly what you want it to mean, no more and no less.
National level is really a toss up but in most instances the best choice seems to be a Republican Congress and Democratic President. End effect is gridlock. They can't vote on how to waste the money or start wars for all the bickering. Or do you relish the fact that a Republican government in two branches has foisted over $1 trillion of domestic waste on us for the foreseeable future?
Reagan never got spending ...
Reagan gave back tax...
Reagan cut and ran...
Reagan gave amnesty...
Reagan named moderate...[big mistake]..
Reagan never hit hard..
Don't get me wrong -- I LOVED RR
Yeah, right. We can tell by your posting of a pissing all over a Reagan's grave reply. Do you love Bush so much, that you are willing to turn your back on Ronald Reagan?
That's exactly what happened in both cases. Carter was considered a moderate in comparison to McGovern, Humphrey, Udall, etc. No, he was no Scoop Jackson or George Wallace -- but that wing of the 'Rat Party is gone and the 1976 Carter was pretty close to 1992 Zell Miller. Carter himself has drifted Left since his political demise in 1980.
As for Bubba, he invented running as a centrist. He came to fame via the DLC. After the 1994 debacle, Morris convinced him to head more towards the center. In fact, his signing of welfare reform was more conservative than liberal.
I had no use for Presidents Carter or Clinton, but they governed much farther from their Left Base than Bush is from his Right.
Only because that's who both parties consistently put up for election.
I'm done playing their game and will now vote for someone who actually supports my positions. If the Republicans don't want to throw the White House to Hillary than they can either nominate a real conservative. If they don't then they shouldn't complain when the conservatives in the party stop marching in lockstep to the left with them.
I'm not the one turning my back on a Republican President. I haven't threatened to leave the party, contributed to attack ads, or derided his supporters as bots. IMHO Reagan and GWB were and are Great Presidents -- GHWB less so and Carter, Clinotn and LBJ were each disasters. (Nixon is more complex).
Do whatever you like, as you will.
Unless you work toward getting someone who can be elected nominated in one of the two major parties, know that it is irrelevant, and I have no doubt you do know that. Your "libertarian", "green", "constitution", "conservative", "liberal" vote means precisely zero to how nominations get done, and who becomes elected in this country. No level-headed Republican strategist ever looks at such voters saying "what can we do to gain their vote" because there is no net gain by doing so.
This is precisely why I don't make any effort to sway such people. Bluster doesn't help. Working, as I've done for forty years now, to nominate and elect at least a marginally more conservative Republican can help change this country, and it has done more than all the libertarians or self-described "conservatives" combined have accomplished.
"Only because that's who both parties consistently put up for election. "
And why is that, do you suppose? Remember Goldwater? I do.
All I could know was what the rest of the country was seeing and reading on tv and the net. Bush may have been doing the right things, but more importantly, a leader has to be seen doing the right things. This, Bush did not do, just as his father didn't with hurricane Andrew in FL. It is a blind spot the Bush's have.
BTW, I wish you a speedy recovery from your afflictions caused by Katrina.
I noticed the author characterized conservatives disgruntled with GWB as "neocons." I supported William Knowland for Governor of California in 1958; and voted for Nixon and Goldwater for president in 1960 and 1964, respectively. Not just neocons out here. But W was never more than a Hobson's choice to me.
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.