Posted on 02/13/2006 9:50:57 AM PST by presidio9
Why is he a kook ? He makes a lot of sense to me on the things I've read about him. What have I missed ?
Internationally, he has changed the way the world works and that's no small accomplishment. Now whether people back home feel as though they gain anything from that is another thing entirely, but it's a change that no one else could have done and it was necessary to change the UN and the Middle East.
I had to really think about the energy policy change (which I rolled my eyes at) and then I realized it's to undercut Chavez and the other oil producing tyrants. And it gets the libs all tangled up over details while he is off doing bigger things.
I don't think McCain or Guiliani would have a prayer in a primary. Thank god for that.
I would agree that I would have liked it if he held out for vouchers. I also would have liked to see him enforce fiscal discipline. But he's a man determined not to suffer the same fate as his father. It would be a different matter if security and the GWOT were not looming so large, but he really can't afford a government shut down, whereas Reagan could.
Let me put it like this: there's a difference between principled conservatism and the right-wing version of moonbat-itis.
Paul lost me when he started ranting about neocons ala Buchanan.
Good point re:Chavez. No one's really talking about how Clinton would have ignored someone like him (Bush 41 didn't ignore South American loudmouths). Unlike Clinton, who ignored UBL declaring war on America (I recall that declaration showing up maybe 20 minutes into the nightly news), W is not letting people like him go unanswered. He's just going about it in a smarter way.
:-) Thanks. And I think Chile has a friend of Hugo in power now too, IIRC.
Good points about 42 (the most useless man in America and her husband).
You suck it up like a big boy and move on with your life.
And it is a very good thing that Rush Limbaugh marginalized Pat Buchanan among conservatives.
pat buchanan marginalized himself.
Bruce ought to be bodily catapulted out of the conservative movement for this line alone.
Growth of Federal Government 1990-2005
Doesn't take into account the WOT and Homeland Security.
Real Annual Growth Rate
Sure, W is worse than Reagan--but Reagan was worse than Clinton (or B41).
Real Growth Rate of Entitlements
Doesn't mention the Reagan years
Budget as % GDP
Again, no mention of Reagan
It's not that W is perfect--he's far from it. But neither was Reagan, though some claim he was close to that.
;-) Now who has power of the purse? Why that would be the gutless wonders in both Houses of Congress.
It's fair that the House leadership changed hands in 1994 because Clinton went for the tax increase and then state voters made their reps walk the plank. Newt Gingrich came in with his sweeping conservative contract, which lost traction because Newt (no shrinking violet he) went after what he wanted and blast the consequences.
Both good and bad. He got what he wanted short term, but in the longer term, he made himself a more vulnerable target. When he was brought down, it made for a lot of nervous reps afraid to fail to bring home the government bacon (or cheese as it were). So let's look in the greater context that Congressional Republicans have gone adrift.
That's fair.
Immigration, size of government, payroll taxes, social security, Lebanon, abortion, O'Connor and Kennedy (Scalia excepted) vs. Roberts and Alito, deficits, and increasing the budget argue against that.
Good point. Don't shut down DoD or Department of Homeland Security. I don't have a problem with Agriculture or HHS.
They relate to the issue of federal spending. In that regard, they are selective, but they're also true. And you will find data from the Reagan years. Budget as % GDP is in the last chart. Figure #3 shows real annual growth rate of total govt outlays by President.
You're right, Reagan was far from perfect. So is Bush43. Comparing the two President's is fair, if you use relative data. All this data comes from the President's own OMB. (omb.gov)
Immigration, size of government, payroll taxes, social security, Lebanon, abortion, O'Connor and Kennedy (Scalia excepted) vs. Roberts and Alito, deficits, and increasing the budget argue against that.
Reagan answered the slaughter of American marines by withdrawing from Lebanon.
Don't get me wrong, I loved the guy. And I love Bush. But neither one is or was perfect, and both were head and shoulders above our political enemies. You never get to choose perfect; your choice is always the best available versus something worse.
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.