Is President Bush A Conservative--Sullivan's Question

Andrewsullivan.com ^ | July 21, 2003 | Andrew Sullivan

[Jhoffa_]

We made sure she had everything she needed-not just her medicines.

I am glad you could provide for her. Being old and alone and sick, without help, is just about one of the most grim pictures I can imagine.

But, I would much prefer some kind of alternative to this subsidy. "Privatized" or what have you.

[Porterville]

It's all about strategery!!!!

[nyconse]

I am not trying to fight with you-merely to discuss an issue I consider important. We may have disagreements, but we are on the same side. Sorry if I gave the impression of attacking you. It was not my intention. I am an ex-Dem- you know sort of like a reformed smoker. I am passionately against electing democrats. LOL

[nyconse]

I agree with you. Spending is going to have to be dealt with. I am truly hoping for privatization to ease some costs associated with medicare and social security. Maybe we should sop giving aid to foregin countries that stab us in the back too.

[Jhoffa_]

Well thanks, I am sorry if I was nasty with you also..

I really get upset abou tthese things because, you know how inept our fed can be and anytime I hear about something liek this subsidy I:

A) Am positive it's going to cost three times the estimate and will be horribly mis-managed.. I mean to the point of absolute absurdity. A complete mess.

B) Am sure it's going to last forever. Like laws, they pass them quickly, but repealing them is like pulling teeth. You know how this kind of thing goes. If it's showing today, then you can bet the expanded sequal is just over the horizon.

I need to go to bed, I will leave you with the last word.

[nyconse]

This may surprise you, but I wish there was an alternative also. I just don't see one right now-given the political situation.

[Dan Walsh]

Bush Should of limited the prescription drug program to the poor or those with extremely high bills.

[Gracey]

I'll count you as helping the Demoncrats get elected so we can have a WEAK foreign policy.

The main reason I vote for president has to do with the federal governments main responsibility, and that is keeping this nation SECURE from foreign intrusion. On that, the Democrats get a zero and the Republicans get at least a 75%. The rest aint worth talking about in this day and age. Maybe it will be worth discussion, AFTER we kill and maim all the Islamofacists in the world and the North Korean, Iranian empires.

The rest is inconsequential if we don't have a SECURE nation. Actually, IMO, the Libertarians and Demoncrats and Socialists do NOTHING to protect this country from foreign Intrusion. They are WITH the enemy.... yes, I said the Libertarians, the Anti WAR Libertarians who parade with the Commie/socialists.

BTW, I'm a Republican/Liberarian RLC member.

[AntiGuv]

It's true that I have a fairly pessimistic outlook - though I wouldn't go so far as doom'n'gloom. I don't see meaningful evidence of robust economic growth on the horizon (keep in mind 1999 was 'only' 3.6%), and I think Kim Jong Il is hellbent on a showdown (time is on his side), and I think this new Medicare benefit will be at least twice as expensive as projected (when those seniors figure out just how many more prescriptions they can then afford). However, I'll compromise and say 21% from now on, since I've been called on the 22-23% estimate in three different threads now. I think it'll prove accurate, but I'm all for compromise! ;^)

[Al Simmons]

President GW Bush is a God-fearing man who is leading where the Lord is taking him (and us). I pray that God continue to bless him and protect him, for all our sakes.

I have NEVER seen a Republican who is able to tie the Dems into knots - everything they try blows up in their faces, everything he touches eventually turns out right.

So - my advice to y'all: HAVE PATIENCE. This President is guided by a Higher Power. It will all become clear in the end.

Semper Fi.

[Gracey]

Post 7.... YOu're right ON lady. Well stated. The name of the game is COMPROMISE.. when you head a country with diverse views. He's not just my president, he's there to protect all the Demoncrat/Hitlary asses as well as mine against foreign intruders who wish to do us in.

[Reagan Man]

Expenditures by the federal government that involve entitlements, should be means tested. A similiar set of standards should be applied to foreign aid too. After 40 years of LBJ`s Great Society programs, the American people have become accustomed to entitlements from federal tax revenue. It's called wealth transfers. It will take some time to wean American's off these expensive and abusive liberal welfare programs.

[nyconse]

Sleep well-great discussion. I enjoyed it. I don't like big government either. However, I am afraid if a Dem gets elected that he/she will abandon the war on terror and we'll all get nuked. Therefore, I am willing to give Bush the benefit of the doubt.

[nyconse]

I agree, but how are we to wean people off these programs?

[Reagan Man]

>>>It's true that I have a fairly pessimistic outlook ...

And it's true, I have a fairly optimistic outlook.

>>> ... I'm all for compromise! ;^)

Fair enough.

I think we agree, the federal government taxes too much and spends too much. And something must be done to slow down the advance of the federal bureaucracy.

[Gracey]

So what is nyconse???? never heard of it. Does it put you to sleep?

[x]

Bush is more in the Eisenhower-Nixon-Bush I line than in the Goldwater-Reagan tradition. There have been some interesting arguments against this thesis, but the fact that the question keeps coming up suggests that it has some validity. To be sure, Bush has social conservative leanings closer to Reagan than to Nixon, but on the question of the role of government he's much more in Nixon's camp.

Is this a bad thing? I can't say for sure, though it's clear others have much stronger views one way or the other. Practical politics have to with what you can do realistically, with what people want, and with what the opposition is doing. The country was deadlocked 50-50 at the last election, and neither the Reagan nor the Gingrich "Revolutions" was able to rollback the size of government. And it was inevitable that post-Cold War politics would be less ideological than what came before, try as activists might to keep the strong feelings of past decades alive. So there is no opening for major change today. American conservatives could live with Bush I, with Nixon and more or less with Eisenhower, and they will put up with Bush II.

But what's disturbing is that President Bush doesn't seem to feel the need or desire to come up with some major conservative budget cutting initiative, or to oppose some major liberal spending program, or to rally the conservative support. That the President doesn't deliver major reductions is a given; that he doesn't try or at least raise the topic is less understandable or excusable. The fact that it doesn't look like he's willing to go any distance to win over conservative support may well hurt him later on. It's not that President Bush can't or won't deliver real change now, it's that he doesn't point any particular direction for the future. The dangers of centrism are bureaucracy and corporatism, timidity and conformity, and Bush doesn't provide real alternatives to the dead hand of the establishment.

[nyconse]

I agree. We need to be patient. LOL

[nyconse]

great post-lol

[Gracey]

I can't contribute anything to this thread. You've said it all for me... almost exactly as I would say it. LOL