Posted on 02/28/2006 7:02:23 PM PST by RWR8189
Last week, I published a new book, "Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy." A lot of my friends are not happy with me for writing it, and I have been embraced by a number of people on the left whom I would ordinarily consider my political enemies. Both are mistaken about why I wrote the book and what I hope to accomplish with it.
Some of my former friends on the right have attacked me as an opportunist who sold out his party and his president to get a best-seller. They would not think so if they knew that I started this project knowing that I would probably lose my job with a think tank closely allied with the White House, which I did. My advance on the book was less than the salary I was making, so if I am an opportunist, I'm a pretty poor one.
My new friends on the left are, of course, delighted to find someone on the right who is articulating a critique of George W. Bush. But if they read the book, they will find that my criticism bears nothing in common with theirs. Just because I find fault with a president from my party doesn't mean I've switched sides. On the contrary, I wrote the book in order to help my side win.
My basic argument is that Bush has enacted policies contrary to conservative principles on too many occasions. Some of those that disturb me the most are these:
-- No Child Left Behind Act. Republicans used to campaign on the idea of abolishing the Department of Education. Bush greatly increased its budget, despite a paucity of evidence showing that educational outcomes are correlated with educational spending. No wonder Sen. Ted Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts and Congress' leading liberal, loved it. The "reforms" Bush got in return were far too modest to justify his support for this legislation, and it hasn't even helped him politically. All we ever hear from the education lobby are demands for even more spending.
-- Campaign Finance Reform. I don't know a single conservative who doesn't think that this legislation is a fundamental violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution, the Supreme Court's ruling to the contrary notwithstanding. Personally, I consider Bush to have violated his oath to defend the Constitution by signing this monstrosity, especially since he said he would veto such a bill during the 2000 campaign.
-- Medicare Drug Benefit. This was really the final straw for me. The Medicare system was already $50 trillion in debt in 2003, and we should have been looking for ways to cut its spending, not increase it. The unfunded liability of just the drug benefit added another $18 trillion to that debt, an increase of nearly 40 percent. Sooner or later, this legislation is going to cause a massive tax increase, in my opinion and that of many budget experts.
The book details many other areas where I feel that Bush's policies are totally contrary to Ronald Reagan's. Readers can judge for themselves whether my indictment holds water. The reaction I have received thus far suggests that a lot of conservatives share my concerns and believe that Bush has done deep damage to the conservative movement and the Republican Party.
The last time a Republican president -- Richard Nixon -- sold out his party's core beliefs, it led to huge losses for his party in 1974 and 1976. I think Republicans are deluding themselves if they believe that gerrymandering in the House of Representatives and millions of lobbyist dollars will protect them from big losses this November. It's worth remembering that Republicans took control of Congress in 1994 not because more Republicans voted, but because fewer Democrats did. They, like many Republicans today, were dispirited by a president of their party who took their loyalty for granted.
I think Republicans are also wrong to assume that Democrats will always behave as stupidly as they have lately. One of these days, they are going to get their act together and stop nominating lousy candidates who run awful campaigns. Once Republicans lose the votes of those who are only voting against the Democrats, not for them, they will be in serious political trouble.
I wrote my book so that Republicans and conservatives can start a debate about the future of the party and the movement. If we wait until 2008, it will be much too late. It is important for potential Republican presidential nominees to start thinking about and articulating a vision for the future now. And Republican voters need to ask themselves whether they are satisfied with the direction George W. Bush has led them or whether they would really prefer to get back to the policies and philosophy of Ronald Reagan.
Copyright 2006 Creators Syndicate
When I was growing up the career day folks would come to the highschool and the people from AT&T would make it clear that they would NOT hire a jewish person.
I worked for a pharmaceutical company who fired me when they learned I was jewish. My last name sounded German and that was their assumption.
The name of the company was Ivers Lee. Don't think they're in business anymore.
It's better to keep high blood pressure, diabetes, heart problems under control rather than the alternative of hospitalization.
You can keep your head in the sand but you can't deny that an ounce of preventive care is better than the alternative.
FWIW, I don't think there should be any medicare or medicade, however, it's here and we need to address the issue of cost.
And frankly, ignoring the quality of life is not unimportant.
So why is, for example, Viagra covered?
And frankly, ignoring the quality of life is not unimportant.
Better "quality of life" does not "mitigate the spending down the line." Why should I pay for someone else's "quality of life?"
I disagree we need Govt to do anything for us other than protecting the rights we already had when it was created.
Is prevention the way - you bet it is. Should it be run by Govt? No way. There isn't a single thing that Govt can provide us that the private sector can't do quicker cheaper and better.
Individual responsibility is what the left has spent a century substituting for dependence on Govt. And ergo their political power at American's loss of economic freedom.
You think these guys turn quick on former friends? Just wait til you see the about face that will be done once McCain wins the nomination in '08.
It'd be funny if it weren't so sad.
Hear! Hear!
Last week, I published a new book, "Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy." A lot of my friends are not happy with me for writing it, and I have been embraced by a number of people on the left whom I would ordinarily consider my political enemies. Both are mistaken about why I wrote the book and what I hope to accomplish with it.
Guess no one pointed out to Bruce that the Admin HE was part of ran larger deficits both in dollars and as a % of GDP. Just another senile old RINO selling out to the Junk Media. Republicans on Kneepads rejoice, you have a new caucus member.
We must do something to cut down the costs. The consequence of people living on a fixed income and not getting medical checkups while they're still reasonably healthy is not something I want to see continued.
Better to get blood pressure advice, nutrition advice, diabetes checks.....these are things that are silent diseases that if treated early can prolong good health.
Add to that the DONNER PARTY REPUBLICANS, and you can see we are in for a very rough ride.
You are directly insinuating that people are too stupid to take care of themselves and have no clue as to which lifestyles they lead are healthy or not.
Just because some Govt programs are so entrenched does not mean they can not and should not be incrementalized away just as they were foisted upon us by elites buying votes with OPM in direct conflict with Govt's original mandate of protecting our pre-existing natural rights. Free peoples plan their own lives - we don't need no stinkin "legislators" thinking for us. ALL Fedl programs should be summarily phased out - and only those with merit enough should be transferred to the states where they always belonged to begin with, and where the voters, NOT the SCOTUS, are the arbitors of legislation THEY, not big business influenced pols, deems necessary to themselves.
Read this great essay please!:
http://www.mises.org/story/2060
Yes, I think people are too stupid to understand basic nutrition. We can't just step over the bodies and go on our way, feeling so superior.
Hell yes - what do you think private accounts for SS and MSA's for health are all about?? Getting Govt out of our business and letting free markets make it just as affordable as computers have become.
The whole system is rigged as welfare for corporations thanks largely to FDR's court.
Here's a good one to watch too:
http://www.cato.org/realaudio/cbf-02-15-06.ram
Bartlett may not have it 100% right, but 90% is good enough. His main premise is correct.
BTW, I would guess you're a boomer. If so, then why have you not known, as I have for about 30 years at minimum, that SS was a bad deal and probably wouldn't be there for us anyway?
This isn't new. So those many people who have known have had to make other retirement arrangements that view SS as the mere supplement it always was from it's inception. Who in their right minds ever thought it was to be one's sole source of retirement income? No one I've ever met.
Those ignorant enough to believe they can make it on SS alone are of the same duped socialist leaning breed who re-elected FDR 3x.
Look, SS is but a Democrat re-election slush fund. The difference between SS revenues and outlays has NOT been invested to compound since the worker/retiree ratio was 44:1 in the beginning, and which difference, even if only invested in T-bills, by now would have had the long term benefit of compounding so as to make the system self supporting by now.
I wouldn't have near the problem with it IF politicians hadn't been raiding it from the beginning and it was instead compounding in a trust fund decreased only by benefits paid.
That it has been rifled to buy votes and used to expand other Govt fiascos should tell you something, besides it's being the constitutionally illegal redistribution of incomes denied by the Equal Protection clause.
FDR's stacked courts rewrote the constitution - the previous courts having shot down almost every socialist unconstitutional New Deal boondoggle that came before.
At 53 I'd opt out given the chance to have only the money I put in back right now. I can certainly grow it faster than the dismal and criminal sub-2% SS return we are stuck with now.
Do you know where the idea of Govt pensions came from? Or graduated and high tax rates, or Govt run schools, or the redistribution of incomes?
It's better to keep high blood pressure, diabetes, heart problems under control rather than the alternative of hospitalization.
So why is, for example, Viagra covered?
And frankly, ignoring the quality of life is not unimportant.
Better "quality of life" does not "mitigate the spending down the line." Why should I pay for someone else's "quality of life?"
Thanks, Hillary.
Reagan is viewed in such high esteem by conservatives not only for the principles he believed in but also for his enormous patriotism and love for country. People like to see that no matter how passe today's politicians may think it is.
Thanks, and I agree with what is said in the Cato clip; I think if many of the critics actually read what Bartlet wrote they would get a very refreshing view of what conservatism has been, and is, all about and how George W. Bush has in so many ways betrayed it. Want to talk entitlements, failure to protect our borders, reckless spending, flip-flopping for votes? Read the book! And not only that book but the polls that OVERWHELMINGLY show that Bush is NOT a conservative. I don't care about FDR or Harry Truman or Adlai Stevenson -- I care about the present BETRAYAL of conservatism! And that's about "W".
Add to that the DONNER PARTY REPUBLICANS, and you can see we are in for a very rough ride.
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.