Posted on 09/09/2003 11:43:41 AM PDT by jbstrick
When you tell them its the states business not the federal governments business, they go crazy.
Tell them the job of the federali's is to deliver mail, protect the country and the federal court system, and all else is incidental they go crazy.
Me thinks they figure like the liberals and progressives, the constitution says what I want it to, not what it says.
As to whether the GOP is in trouble, I believe that is a veru complex calculs, involving matters of national defense, as well as performance on domestic matters (size of government, etc.) and sticking to principle (e.g., judicial nominations).
Reagan also raised the payroll tax. And though Reagan talked about cutting programs, I'd like to see which ones were cut. I suppose the response will be that he had to deal with a Democrat Congress, blah, blah, blah. The fact is that a one seat majority in the Senate does not a Republican Senate make. There are two many RINOs so the margin is very, very precarious.
Sure, I'd love to see the Dept of Education go away but you're never gonna win an election running on that. Rush likes to say how Reagan ran on eliminating the dept of education. Perhaps he said it but I really, really doubt it was a driving force behind any of votes that went for him. Reagan was great but I get sick of the worship 24/7.
It was the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT that enforce Roe v. Wade on the states.
There is no conflict between the protection of life and the scaling back of the federal government to Constitutional levels.
But "we're all Keynesians now."
Or, most of us appear to be. At least the ones running the show.
Yours is an outrageous comment.
You've just described Tom McClintock to a "T" and look at the pounding he's taking just here on FR by supposedly his own people.
The republicans even went out and got Arnold to run against him after the recall was successful.
Hb
The GOP at present does not even stand for dismantling the Dept. of Education. Gillespie attributed this to the issue being "old." Pretty lame reason, if you ask me. Abortion is an old issue too.
He might as well vote for Dean (sure, let's start this argument early)
Can't disagree with that. I would rather try and do that with Republicans running the country, even if they were elected by demonstrated appeal to more than just the 20 percent of hard conservatives. Remember, many such folks voted for Perot in '92, and gave us Clinton. On the other end of the scale, many of the hard core liberals voted Nader in 2000 and allowed GWB to be elected.
When they say the constitution is a living document they are wrong, like the Epsissies saying the bible is a living document.
But then again I pay my protection money to be left alone, just as you do.
Yeah, you are probably right. But perhaps Gillepsie is just spouting Reagan's old line, "the closest thing to eternal life on earth is a federal program." It's a shame but it's reality.
You mean "there are too few conservatives" (THEN why not say that or 'code' it as "TFC") ... seems to me that's an electorate problem (literally: the people, those who elect).
A decided lack of education/FAILURE to get 'our message' out; something Reagan was good at (there I 'go again', citing Reagan for something) ...
I don't wish to change the subject, but, I've yet to see/hear a sound bite from the man (not in CA - that's part of it) so I don't know what his message is/sounds like ...
... all from the bits and pieces 'fed' to us by the press (and SPUN the WAY they want it) in sound bites and top-of-the-hour 'updates'?
Have you read the *actual* proposal?
Link:On Spending, Bush Is No Reagan
From the article:
"Let's look at the facts. Compared to the same point in Reagan's first term, not only is Bush a bigger spender than Reagan, he's a big spender in his own right. Adjusted for inflation, total spending under Bush's watch will have increased by 14 percent as opposed to 7 percent under Reagan. But more indicative of Bush's spending problem is the run-up in discretionary spending under his watch. Discretionary spending represents funds for programs that Congress has to allocate for on an annual basis and it is the type of spending that the president has the most influence over.
Now, it is true that a sizable portion of this discretionary spending goes toward national defense. Bush will have overseen a 21 percent increase for national defense -- pretty much equal to Reagan. However, the major difference between the two men is discretionary spending not related to national defense. Whereas Reagan was able to reduce non-defense discretionary outlays by 14 percent, Bush will have overseen a rise of 18 percent -- a whopping 32 percent difference between the two men."
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.
