Posted on 07/20/2003 5:29:31 AM PDT by RJCogburn
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:10:31 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
AT THEIR national convention three years ago, Republicans pointed with pride to the GOP's record of fiscal rectitude.
''In the four decades from 1954 to 1994,'' the Republican platform declared, ''government spending increased at an average annual rate of 7.9 percent, and the public's debt increased from $224 billion to $3.4 trillion.'' Those were the profligate years, when Democrats usually controlled both houses of Congress.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
Bush has been good on foreign policy, but, with regards to his domestic policy, he needs to take into account that conservatives outnumber moderates in the party. He will not be re-elected if conservatives sit on their hands, which is a good possibility right now. Conservatives won't get their way on everything, of course, but Bush and the Republicans aren't even making a token effort right now to keep conservatives happy.
What I would really like to see happen is for Bush to dispense of his use of the term "compassionate conservative". It is insulting to conservatives because it implies that conservatives lack compassion (which is definitely not true), while the use of the term is nothing more than a cover to spend taxpayer dollars irresponsibly. Bush is clearly not a conservative, so he shouldn't be using the term to describe himself.
Hopefully there will be no more Bush family members running on the GOP presidential ticket- two is enough.
Oh I see, You want to bitch and moan about Bush not slashing and burning everything in sight yet you offer no different canidate who:
1:Will run.
2:Is electable.
3:Burn the house down!
I guess it's all about lodging complaints....Third door down on the right, don't go in the other door, that's ABUSE!!
Uh, my implication of 'randomness' just meant that I picked high scoring folks at random (from no particular state or district)
With 'conservatives' like some of the folks on this thread I believe the war is already lost. You've made some great points (just as I did the first hundred or so times I made them until I gave up), but you're going to have to realize that our side no longer values logic, again as is evidenced by this post.
Take a look around you, my friend. Our party doesn't want us around anymore.
There is nothing inherently contradictory about the concepts of "compassionate" and "conservative."
If a person is both sincerely compassionate and sincerely conservative, though, the issue is what that person does about it. Here is where the mental challenge starts—especially if that person is a candidate for president of the United States. The contradiction Bush faces in running as a "compassionate conservative" is between the idea that the leader of the national government can solve all sorts of social problems and the idea that the national government is a dangerous institution that can invariably do more harm than good, especially in areas of "social welfare"..
This is not a problem for traditional, "non-compassionate" conservatives. They don't like the governments intrusion into unconstitutional areas, and therefore they don't want it to take on any ambitious social projects. Traditional conservatives believe that present social pathologies are caused by pro-active social policies enacted by the national government in the past. There is much evidence to support this view. "Limited" decribes the scope of government power to the traditional conservative.
Bush is not a dim bulb.
It's not that he is incapable of thinking through the apparent contradictions in his own alleged core philosophy. He just seems to be able to hold two opposing ideas in his mind at the same time.
How he does that I don't know.
If socialists are our only option in national elections, as is obvious, and socialism is to be our form of government then democrats are better qualified to head our government because they offer a clear picture of their vision...and they took the lead in this direction beginning with FDR. But Bush is fast making his mark on history.
I don't like socialists or socialism. But I can't deny that I live under a form of socialist democracy.
Can anyone?
LOL. Now you've re-arranged the "Would you rather have (insert RAT politician's name here)" in a semantic way. Well at least it's a start, kind of like tapping the needle on a broken record.
If you're asking for my solution, throw Lyndon B. Bush out in the primaries and into the ash heap of damaging liberal politicians.
The only GOP pols that could possibly be worse would be some of the Northeastern types who are nearly full-blown leftists and can even out-liberal a Bush, if that's possible.
Well, at least you're getting closer, but you're still not answering the question. C'mon Mr."I'm into communications to a degree"!
WHO?
The cost is 34 cents - send a letter.
It will make a difference. A small difference individually, but that is true of votes as well. It WILL make a difference if you let Congress know they are spending too much, wasting your money, failing to do their job in cutting unecessary programs and pork, etc.
Really not so, since one can be a 'catalyst' as you say, by not voting, if that is indeed what I choose to do, should no candidate give me a good reason to vote for them. We know, for example, that Rove/Bush recognize the need to get a better turnout by the group they define as "Christian Conservatives". So, by fewer voting last time around, they actually were a potential 'catalyst.
As an aside, I sense a tad of hysteria (well, that's too strong a word, but you get my drift) in the more recent threads on this subject by the 'Bush, no matter what' people. Perhaps they are just beginning to have a sense of uneasiness with the propects in 04. I do note that there seem to be a few more 'not gonnas' on the more recent threads, suggesting, in an obviously anecdotal fashion, that more difficult electoral times may be coming.
I honestly do hope, FWIW, that Bush makes it possible for me to vote for him again. We shall see.
I was admittedly shaky on Bush until the debates. There were several things he said that made me a supporter, and got me to open my checkbook. He said that the reason he was running for President is that he didn't like 'the direction the country was headed [in] and wanted to do something about it.' I believed him. Maybe it was my fault to assume that he meant that he believed in the CONSERVATIVE ideals of lower taxes and less government.
I remember when the lady from the audience asked him what W planned to do for 'people like her.' He basically said that he would make sure she had more money in her pocket, and he would make sure the government left her alone so that she could be the best she could be. That is the essence of Conservatism as far as I'm concerned.
You guys can't have it both ways -- if Conservatism is defined like it is on bushcountry.org...We usually define a conservative as someone who believes in limited government, whether it be regarding intrusion into citizens’ lives or practicing fiscal responsibility. A social conservative is one who upholds traditional Judeo-Christian moral values...
then W is no conservative. Period. Rearrange the deck chairs all you want, but you're still on the Titanic.
What it boils down to is that I'm ANGRY at George W. Bush for lying to me. He told me he was like me, and he is not. And I am angry and disappointed with my fellow party members and fellow FReepers, because you give him a 'pass' just like our party did with Clinton last time around.
Folks, we've lost the culture war. We've lost the educational system and the court system. Our collective memory on liberty and the founding of this country is slowly being obliterated.
Our republican form of government is broken as well, with legislators valuing political expedience over right and wrong.
Unfortunately the man I voted for because he was 'tired of the way things were done in Washington' has done nothing to stem that tide, let alone turn it.
To vote for someone who has basically betrayed me, my cause and my side of this battle because someone worse might get elected is ridiculous. I want to vote for someone who will at least slow down the decline, and I don't want to hear how much worse Hillary would be, because Bill WASN'T WORSE THAN W DOMESTICALLY.
And yes, I think W has more morals in his pinky than Hillary or Bill.
Anyone at all who would commit to reversing or at least getting a handle on government largesse. Your question is depressing me actually because I'm having trouble thinking of anyone, which is scary.
Start here though. if you're asking a serious question and want a serious answer.
Also there's 74 in congress who voted to get us out of the UN. Pombo comes to mind. As does Tancredo, Diaz-Balart, Paul, Delay.
See what I'm saying?
Sheesh what Barbara Sreisand, literally.
Excuse me, sorry about the missing "t".
Sheesh what Barbara Streisand, literally.
Yes, you're saying we're fuxed.
I'm starting to wonder if something drastic happening (punishing wars, economic blight) might not have a cleansing effect on our spoiled, devolved society. Such might knock free drugs off people's list of priorities.
In leiu or as a result of that, maybe someone of strength and benevolence who rises up through the mud somehow, a leader and teacher who can't be corrupted. Someone who's not afraid to show us what a free and moral society based on law (not people) works.
Actually, he sat out 14 elections (out of 16 possible) when he was registered to vote in Texas.
I used to begrudge folks for not voting, but I've changed my mind.
The chances of one vote making the difference in an election are smaller than the chances of getting struck by lighting. A single vote is statistically inconsequential. And this is even before you consider that many people vote illegally, cancelling out your vote.
So if folks have something better to do on election day, I don't blame them for not voting.
Also, there is a large number of people who don't vote because they believe that by voting they endorse a corrupt and fraudulent process. I don't blame them either. I might even wind up doing the same thing.
But you're correct about "apathy [being].... dangerous.... to freedom". I just don't necessarily equate apathy to not voting, as many people who don't vote are not apathetic and many who do vote are very apathetic.
riposte - a quick thrust given after parrying an opponent's lunge in fencing.
Oh, wait a minute....
parry - To deflect or ward off (a fencing thrust, for example)
The spending thing is outragerous, however I am not giving up hope yet. I think he has a plan, it will not be extremely conservative, but I don't think it's give away the farm either.
From Bush's MO things seems to play out til the last possible moment...I don't know if I'm right, but I am going to give him the benefit of doubt.
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.