Posted on 11/07/2006 8:33:44 AM PST by watsonfellow
The Weekly Standard is bold in stating and supporting its ideology. Only it is not the traditional limited government conservatism devised by the movement's founders. The WS forthrightly informs its readers that George W. Bush is a "big spender," subheading a recent piece informing its readers that, "under Bush, the era of small government is over." Moreover, there is not much limited government conservatives can do about it. "Governing majorities can't stand still" the executive editor informs, they must spend more and more money on national problems because "that's what the public expects." Bush and the GOP Congressional leadership will take some symbolic steps to seem as if they are cutting government and they will "probably" get away with it even among limited government conservatives, for whom there is little if any editorial sympathy.
They are the ones who advocated a "national greatness conservativism" re: big government, a la massive budget deficiets, out of control illegal immigration.
And they would abandon us at the drop of a hat.
Let's win one more for the Gipper, abandon the WS defeatest crowd and eject them from the Conservative politic.
Amen...
Considering the WS has about as much influence as the rag you are peddling, its a push. Both are useless.
--They are the ones who advocated a "national greatness conservativism" re: big government, a la massive budget deficiets, out of control illegal immigration.--
That should read "national greatness NEOconservatism" ...
Of course that is bascially empire-building, nation-building, cosmopolitan-psuedoconservatism, whatever you want to call it. If the editorial board of Weekly Standard are real conservatives (in the Robert Taft, Russel Kirk tradition), then Rosie O'Donnell is the next Miss Universe.
IBTZ
I absolutely cannot stand Bill Crystal!! What a pompous, arrogant jerk.
I stopped reading the Weekly Standard a year or two ago.
I like Fred Barnes...Crystal should be classified as
a RINO...loves McCain...'nuff said. Jake
Bush's federal spending is actually about the same as Reagan's when viewed as a percentage of GNP (or GDP).
Bush's federal spending is actually about the same as Reagan's when viewed as a percentage of GNP (or GDP).
It's still way too high, and nobody in Washington seems to have any interest in lowering it.
Defense spending is one thing, but entitlements and pork are out of control, and that's now more our fault than that of the Dims.
BK and company--fair weather friends. They were all for liberating Iraq until it became messy.
AGREE 100%
"Bush's federal spending is actually about the same as Reagan's when viewed as a percentage of GNP (or GDP)."
That's really not a meaningful comparison.
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.