The Republican spending orgy

Boston Globe ^ | 7/20/2003 | Jeff Jacoby

[AAABEST]

...not the "perfect conservative"

Heh. Your inane post indicates that GWB is just imperfect.

I used to call Lyndon B. Bush a "pseudo-pinko", now I realize he's not a pseudo anything. He governs as a full blown active socialist, almost as if he holds conservatives in contempt for what they did to "daddy".

Then when we complain about it, we have to listen to blockheads attack us and miss the whole point by ascribing imperfection to the biggest spender in history.

Is a sack of dog crap "imperfect"? No, it's stinks thoroughly.

[Dane]

Then when we complain about it, we have to listen to blockheads attack us and miss the whole point by ascribing imperfection to the biggest spender in history.

Wow the use of the "royal" we again. Are you the king/queen of the perpetually malcontnent.

Is a sack of dog crap "imperfect"? No, it's stinks thoroughly.

I'm sorry but your above hobby is not one that should be publicized on FR, IMO.

[WOSG]

IMHO, you guys are arguing past eachother.

Of course there is no way in Hades a Liberal Democrat, who is espousing all these things we are talking about (higher spending, new welfare programs) is an improvement on Bush.

That is absurd, even just on this issue and leaving aside the crucial matter of national security where Bush/GOP is miles ahead of Democraps.

But a fiscally responsible Conservative administration is better than a 'RINO-style' Republican administration that caves to Democrat spending and regulation demands and priorities. The Republican version of prescription drug cost 1/2 as much as the Democrat version. That mkes is $500 billion instead of $1 trillion in 10 years. The question is why we should allow even that.

Why should a Republican-led House and Republican Senate do *anything* that advances Liberal agenda instead of conservative agenda?

If we shut up like clams and make no noise, then all Bush administration will get pressured on is from the LEFT. So he will drift leftward. Why? Bush is a 'triangulation' politician - I saw it here in Texas where he let the RR Republicans stay to his right and even picked fights with them. Sometimes you see it in his disagreements with DeLay.

This latest example - the Democrat demand for a welfare payment increase - aka earned income tax credit increase. bush caved immediately. Delay said no. Same on assault weapons - Bush says he wants to keep the ban - DeLay says no.

As far as I can tell, we are a few DeLay's and Santorum's away from a fully RINO-ized domestic agenda! Scary indeed how few principled conservatives are in Washington DC with the place awash with Republicans in power.

Constructive criticism of *OUR* leaders and *OUR* party, the guys we walk precincts for, sent money for, voted for, went to rallies for, etc. is needed and is *OUR* duty as citizens and Republicans (if you are a Republican; if you are not, you've no business telling loyal republicans how to behave).

[WOSG]

Voting every 4 years for President in the general election consists of perhaps 1% of potential political involvement.
The pointless and couterproductive exercise of voting for a 3rd party candidate is perhaps an example of "road to hell is paved with good intentions".

The Perot voters had their 'say' ... and yet, democratic processes have a way of channelling desires. The Republicans in 1994 tapped the "Perot" voter and brought to DC a frugal and focussed Republican majority. (It has subsequently lost its way after getting demagogued into reflex behavior by Clinton. The Bush spending spree is a consequence of that reflex behavior; to stop it, we have to make Bush and GOP realize that it doesnt help them politically.)

If you are concerned about this issue, write letters to editor. Write to Congress. Write to the President.
Send angry notes to the RNC with nonfilledout donations.
Waiting until nov 2004 is a stupid way to face an issue we have TODAY and can do something about NOW.

[AAABEST]

"Wow the use of the "royal" we again. Are you the king/queen of the perpetually malcontnent. I'm sorry but your above hobby is not one that should be publicized on FR, IMO."

[Dane]

Bet YOU didn't get invited to the big fundraiser in New York though (yeah, now I'm just busting chops because it's fun):

I don't live in the New York area, so no I did not.

But what the hey if it makes you feel so important, so be it, that's your right.

I wouldn't want to follow your course of insecurity though.

I already know that Bush is 100 times better than any demo.

[dfrussell]

So, we have to conclude what is really missing is: PRESIDENTIAL LEADERSHIP TO CUT SPENDING AND KEEP CAPS ON SPENDING LOWER.

Precisely... which is why I've refused to donate a dime to the RNC etc. and clearly explained my disgust with them and my reps... not that Edwards cares or Dole listens :)

On a happy note, John Edwards' probably running for president because he stands sooooo little chance of being sent back to the Senate in NC :)

[Dane]

Like I stated to MDC earlier on this thread, you shouldn't show your vanity with posting a picture of yourself as you did AAA with your reply #205.

Oh yeah, I know you don't have the courage to address me directly.

But what the hey, you seem to want to follow the demo yellow brick road.

[WOSG]

Stenholm?!?!? A snake Liberal Dmeocrat who votes his constituency to hide his real goals. He support the Democrat majority when and where it counts, like on close voets. look it up.

Ralph Hall is a DINO - in both senses of the words. he's the last of the old Southern conservative Democrats, fast on way to total extinction. The Republicans tried to get him to switch - he votes with the Republicans on mostly everything - but he's too old to change his party.
When he goes the Democrat party will have totally gone to the 'other side' - a socialist/leftist-inspired party.

your selections were not 'random' they are the exceptions that prove the rule. the party of waxman, boxer and jesse jackson and hillary is a party of destruction for American civilization as we know it.

So let's focus on making the GOP a *better* party for conservatives. The Dems are a hopeless and lost cause and deserve 40 years out of power.

[sirchtruth]

Fine if you antispendthrifts don't like it I'm sorry, it's the way it is, I don't like it either, but I have more trust in Bush than I do in any of the dems. You are going to win the argument of Bush spending too much, but you will lose an election to something that is much, much worse and everyone of you know it!

If it upsets you guys that much go elect Hillary and then let's see how you will like that because that's what you'll get if you let your extreme fiduciary views keep you from voting, or voting Indep., Libert.

I guess you guys didn't learn the lessons of the past about sitting out the vote and you'll let your spazdispersal rail elect someone who would be ten times worse.

Thanks for the complaint, NEXT!

[dfrussell]

LOL...

I believe you're wasting your time trying to get something rational from Dane.

Give him the benefit of the doubt and say he means well and, to borrow a phrase, move on :)

[WOSG]

Question: Are you going to do anything NOW to express a desire for smaller Government, lower spending, less welfare-state mentality, less programs, less taxes, and less regulation?

If yes - great.

If not - why not.

Why wait until nov 2004 to make your views known?

[AAABEST]

"Like I stated to MDC earlier on this thread, you shouldn't show your vanity with posting a picture of yourself as you did AAA with your reply #205. Oh yeah, I know you don't have the courage to address me directly. But what the hey, you seem to want to follow the demo yellow brick road."

[Gore_ War_ Vet]

I imagine you steadfast fiscal priggles, whose agenda is purely fiscal in nature, want to see one of the current crop of Dem contenders be elected as this country's next President. Along with a liberal/socialist congress whose agenda would be to increase YOUR taxes for the monstosity of Universal Healthcare.

By all means blast Bush for his economic meandering, then maybe he'll change his course toward your liking and you'll get the fiscal perfection you so desire, along with the biggest, most expensive Gov't program in history because you blokes are to nearsighted!

I'm not such an ideolog that I wouldn't settle for incrementalism. (IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION)

But you can't call this big spending, big govt., socialist, NWO agenda bush is speeding through CONSERVATIVE.

I asked you to:

Please name a (1) spending bill Bush has vetoed?

[Gore_ War_ Vet]

Sorry MDC, I will not go "up" to your level.

I've got a side bet for you. I'll lay you 2 to 1 before this thread is over Dane comes back with "I know you are, but what am I". Wanna bet?

[sirchtruth]

Please name a (1) spending bill Bush has vetoed?

Where have you been, Sherlock? You won the argument, go vote for Sharpton!! I can't wait to see him veto all those spending bills Bush didn't!

I'm sorry, would you prefer Dean instead?

[AAABEST]

I'm into communications to a degree, let me offer some advice: "Would you rather have (insert RAT politician's name here)" isn't working anymore. It's been used too many gazillion times, find something else.

Maybe go back to "but he got us out of Kyoto" for a while.

[RnMomof7]

Why wait until nov 2004 to make your views known?

I do not have the money to buy our representatives

[Gore_ War_ Vet]

You won the argument, go vote for Sharpton!! I can't wait to see him veto all those spending bills Bush didn't!

I'm sad to say that the point is with a Dem in the WH all of the sudden the repukes we've got in there now will get real conservative, you can bet you ass on that.

Opportunities missed are opportunities lost.

[sirchtruth]

I'm into communications to a degree, let me offer some advice:

Thanks! So, who is it YOU will be voting for to replace Bush?