Everytime the Republicans have the slightest bit of success...
To what success are you referring? The reduction in federal spending? If the GOP had even the slightest success in reducing the size of government, you might have a point.
Posted on 09/11/2003 9:39:47 AM PDT by sheltonmac
What is the difference between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party? One is the party of big spending, more government control and a burgeoning federal bureaucracy; the other has a jackass for a mascot.
For years I bought the Republican line that the only way to cut taxes and shrink government is to vote in other Republicans, regardless of their positions on any particular issue. It wasn't long before I began to suspect that reducing the size and scope of government is not part of the GOP game plan.
My suspicions were most recently confirmed by none other than Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie. An Aug. 31 editorial in the Manchester Union Leader—a conservative publication—stated that Gillespie admits the "days of Reaganesque Republican railings against the expansion of federal government are over."
Naturally, Gillespie denied this. In a letter to the editor, he wrote, "I joined the Republican Party because of Ronald Reagan. I believe that conservatives and millions of other Americans are Republicans because they support our positive agenda and share our beliefs, not because they have nowhere else to go."
Gillespie appeared on Meet the Press this past Sunday and again confirmed the fact that the GOP has all but abandoned its goal of shrinking government. As soon as he defined "fiscal restraint" as simply reducing the rate of increase in government spending, his secret was out.
In showing the compassionate side of his brand of conservatism, he pointed out that the Bush tax cut plan is similar in principle to that of the Democrats: "The fact is, the tax burden under President Bush has shifted to the wealthy. If you look at those who make $30,000 to $40,000 a year, since President Bush took office, their share of the income tax burden has gone down from 2.1 percent to 1.9 percent, while those who make over $200,000 a year saw their share of the income tax burden go up from 44.8 percent to 45.4 percent."
On the issue of education, Gillespie remarked, "I charged that Hill harder than anybody, with Newt Gingrich and Dick Armey. We lost. We have to keep moving forward and apply conservative principles to a federal role in education." With that defeatist attitude among its leadership, is it any wonder why the GOP removed as part of its platform the elimination of the Dept. of Education?
As if the hole Gillespie had dug for himself wasn't deep enough, he was interviewed on the Rush Limbaugh Show on Tuesday. (This was an apparent attempt to further clarify his support for big government.) To explain his position on the federal government's current level of social spending, Gillespie offered, "The size of the populace grows every year, and demographics and things affect some of these mandatory spending programs." Of Bush's offer of prescription drug coverage to Medicare recipients, he said, "The Republicans in the Senate campaigned on a prescription drug benefit, and the president campaigned on one. We have to be as a party good to our word to the voters."
When Limbaugh confronted him about the federal government's role in education, Gillespie said that he didn't believe the Republicans "can constantly go back and re-fight old battles." I wonder what this country might have been like had George Washington adopted a similar strategy in his fight against the British.
If shrinking the size and scope of government is no longer the goal of the "conservative" party, then the best we can hope for is a small decrease in the rate of growth. I have spoken to many Republicans who believe that is precisely the attitude realistic voters should have. It's as if we are fraternity pledges who are expected to drop our pants and take our share of whacks from the paddle without complaint. Cries of "Give me liberty, or give me death!" have been replaced with groans of "Thank you, sir! May I have another?" This bend-over-and-grab-your-ankles approach to politics may appeal to some, but I find it abhorrent.
The difference between Democrats and Republicans grows smaller with each passing day. Both parties have obviously resigned themselves to the fact that government is going to grow; the only quarrel is over how fast it should grow and which party should be in charge of that growth.
Quote of the day.
Oh well I hope people are happy with President Dean, they'll deserve it.
Everytime the Republicans have the slightest bit of success...
To what success are you referring? The reduction in federal spending? If the GOP had even the slightest success in reducing the size of government, you might have a point.
_____________
Don't criticize Bush from the Left, but from the Right. Don't swear, just bitch about Bush signing the medicare bill, banning assault weapons and the like. Any neanderthal thing that the president rejects, you bash him for selling out the base. Occasionally, do fake praise of him, then continue. Pretend to be a Tom McClintock supporter, outraged that a liberal like Arnold can be getting the support of the white house.
I don't go there much anymore because it got boring. But I have an active account I haven't used for about 3 months, and that is how I keep it active. The fun part of the excercise is that you create divisiveness there. Even though you might think it is a good thing that President Bush will sign the weapons bill, fake outrage, threaten to never vote for him again, etc.
Oh, and never start your own threads there until you have been "vetted" for a few months. They are ultraparanoid there, and will ban anybody critical who starts a thread shortly after joining. Just get involved in a discussion, throw occasional bones to the Prez for doing some loony right wing thing like getting rid of environmental laws, and then go attack him from the right wing.
It's fun, and it really depresses the hard core right wingers there who believe that Atilla the Hun was a moderate.
Success as defined by winning elections. Spending cuts have yet to happen but we've gotten tax cuts, this will necessitate spending cuts in the future.
Yikes!!
Did it ever occur to you that a republican governing like a democrat is no different than actually have a democrat in office? Unless of course you make a living off of partisan patronage contracts handed out by the GOP.
Success as defined by winning elections.
But what good is winning if nothing is ever done, or if the "conservatives" in office don't even appear to be doing anything? Spending cuts have yet to happen but we've gotten tax cuts, this will necessitate spending cuts in the future.
No one was holding a gun the the president's head when he signed an increase in education spending and farm subsidies. Why not just freeze spending? Even that would be a step in the right direction.
Tax cuts and the successes in the War on Terror would happen with a Democrat?
Unless of course you make a living off of partisan patronage contracts handed out by the GOP.
I wish, but sadly I'm just a poor slob out in the private sector. No contacts.
Given the persistent nature of your posts, I suspect you have your DU memo.
Well, I happen to be persisten because I believe VERY STRONGLY in limited government, and I have not seen any indication from the GOP that they share that same belief.
1000% correct. Keep the replies coming.
Well then present a plan for getting it done.
Mine is
step 1. elect more Republicans
Step 2. Vote out RINOs in primaries
Step 3. Repeat as often as necessary.
Given the slim margins, right now we are in step 1
How are you not a rabid DUer?
God- I do get tired of Liberal-tarians blasting the Republicans on this point. The real problem is the not in my city/state mentality that pervades the country! Everyone is FOR "shrinking government," until it comes down to cutting out their pet program. Then the tune changes to "hands off whatever!"
I glad that I'm not in government trying to represent the split-personality constituency that makes up America! Face it. We have the government that we ALL deserve! If you really want to change things, then start with the man/woman in the mirror!!
Only permanent tax cuts necessitate spending cuts. Temporary tax cuts simply result in slightly larger deficits for a period of time, and then give Democrats something to bash Republicans for. Ultimately it discredits tax cuts in the eyes of the public.
Having said that- it is disturbing at the extreme to see basic conservative positions simply abandoned by the GOP and the ground ceded to the Democrats. Instead of arguing that the Dept. of Education be destroyed- we argue policies diferences and money amounts about how much Federal money should be spent and how much federal control there should be. From that position we will always lose.
The Supreme Court argument is getting tired as well since the GOP fumbled the Estrada nomination. Serious conservatives have some decisions to make.
LMAO,,good one.
By that standard, we've been in step one for going on 15 years. And all it breeds is more big government, wasteful spending, power hungry CINOs. You get one good politician for every 20 Republicans who get elected. Nope, been there, tried that. It's time to try something else.
I always ask for alternatives. I rarely get answers. What else should we try?
Democrats will let folks rob gas stations, convenience stores, and others, but won't let them fix their own toilets. Repulicans will let folks fix their own toilets, but won't let folks rob others.
In part because "my way or the highway" fools make sure that Democrats are able to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat on a regular basis, and keep us from being able to move into phase 2.
Contrary to what some folks believe, you're not going to turn the American political scene on a dime.
You get one good politician for every 20 Republicans who get elected.
Which is considerably better than what you get with Democrats.
It's time to try something else.
Like what?
That's probably the essence of the case. We need freedom to be true humans. The first freedom is to elect freedom. If the modern Left seems to be moving to curtail freedom, naturally we don't want them in power. If the modern Right is doing the same, we don't want them either. So we get to choose which will allow the maximum freedom. Under Green or Libertarian we may find we have even less freedom. Pick your poison.
Here it is:
The party of George W. Bush is very much the party of Ronald Reagan--the party of lower taxes, less regulation, strong national security and, yes, fiscal responsibility.
You're all talk, Ed. Prove it. We don't have lower taxes, we just received a "rebate" of some of our money. The tax rate is still where it was before. As for less regulation, I challenge you to show me just what regulations have been removed under this administration and the Republican majority in Congress. Strong national security? I live in Cochise County, Arizona and I can assure you that our border is wide open to any terrorist who wishes to cross. The situation has grown worse down here under this administration, not better. Heck, our so-called Republican Congressman was instrumental in dismantling all of the Border Patrol highway checkpoints on the highways going north from the border. As for fiscal responsibility, the evidence demonstrates that there is little of that either.Since President Bush came into office Republicans have rejected $1.9 trillion in additional budget spending proposed by Democrats while passing $350 billion in tax relief just this year. That's just a fact, as I noted in our discussion.
That's not a cut in spending. That's rejecting additional spending that the Democrats wanted. How much additional spending did the allegedly "fiscal conservative" Republicans want and get? Hmmmm?Fiscal discipline requires leadership and this year President Bush proposed and the Republican leadership in Congress worked to pass a budget that limits spending growth to 4%, the same amount as family income. This accounts for important increases in spending required to continue our fight in the war on terrorism. In fact, non-defense discretionary spending only goes up 2%, a point I should have made but did not.
Discretionary spending "only goes up 2%"!? And you think that's laudable!? How about discretionary spending going....now think about it for a moment...DOWN!!? That would show actual "fiscal discipline" and would be more compatible with Republicanism. You see, the Republican Party has traditionally wanted smaller, more limited government. You're never going to achieve smaller, more limited government by actually growing it every year. The following chart demonstrates just how far off the Reagan path our Republican President and the Republican majority in Congress actually are:As I also pointed out, I worked with Newt Gingrich and Dick Armey in their effort to eliminate the federal Department of Education but these efforts were defeated. And so I noted that the issue is settled but I also noted that this administration has applied conservative principles to the now settled federal role in education, a point you neglected to mention.
There you go...the "now settled federal role in education." You act as if it is a done deal and that real Republicans should just give up. That goes with the "now settled federal role" in government-protected abortion on demand, the "now settled federal role" in the Social Security ponzi scheme, the "now settled federal role" in welfare state wealth redistribution schemes, the "now settled federal role" in government managed health care, the "now settled federal role" in after-school and midnight basketball programs, the "now settled federal role" in condom distribution programs, and the "now settled federal role" in whatever the public polls show is the "now settled federal role". The Union Leader editorial and Rush Limbaugh had you pegged, Ed.As I also pointed out regarding Medicare, our choices are to maintain a health program for seniors where government makes decisions and delivers the care or a market oriented approach where patients make choices and private providers deliver the care, and that we could pass our modernization program over the objections of Ted Kennedy if necessary.
I don't recall a big federal wealth redistribution scheme like Medicare being a proud Republican program. And here you are bragging about how the deck chairs are being rearranged on that failed "New Deal" socialist program. You are again showing that you just don't get it. Don't give me tax rebates where I get a pittance of my own hard-earned paycheck back. Get rid of all the confiscatory taxes that steal it in the first place.Not Reaganesque? I joined the Republican Party because of Ronald Reagan. I believe that conservatives and millions of other Americans are Republicans because they support our positive agenda and share our beliefs, not because they have nowhere else to go.
Wrong. We're stuck in a Republican Party run by Republican-In-Name-Only boobs like you because we've nowhere else to go. It's our party anyway, not yours. How about you neocons find somewhere else to go. As soon as the grassroots, rank and file members can throw you guys out of party leadership positions, the better. You've corrupted the Party and sold its soul for public opinion polls and the cheap, easy, low-hanging votes. Your anointed candidates have openly stated in the past that they are not bound by the Party platform and your recent statements prove that the RNC leadership isn't either.You can spin all you want, Ed, but the Union Leader editorials were dead on and you know it. The more rank and file members who figure out where you actually stand, the better chance we have of keeping the Republican Party Republican.
How are you not a rabid DUer?
Oh, please. I've been around FR for four years. You've been here since 2002. If you do your research, you'll probably be able to answer your own question. Sheesh! Always looking for the easy way out, aren't you? ;-)
Did you ever notice that no matter who is in charge in D.C. since FDR the country still moves in the same direction - leftward? Sure there is a difference between the parties, it comes down to this - would you rather be shot at dawn or tortured till you die next month? fast track to socialism or the slow, both equal death of the republic and liberty.
Since when do the most radicalized 10% of the party registrants get to define who a "real Republican" is, anyway? To y'all, the director of the RNC, most house members, all the senators, President Bush, his cabinet, and the vast majority of GOP voters are RINOs.
While you and the other worshippers of the state stare lovingly at your much read, much passed around copies of the collected works of Karl Marx and "Mein Kampf". So take you allusions that true conservatives desire race war and cram them.
And it is very sad that they are. At least they aren't quite as Republican as we would want them to be. But, maybe you have lower standards and are more tolerant of socialism than some of us are.
I love that.
How about this one?: Anyone who supports President Bush a majority of the time is a "Bushbot". So if I just happen to agree with him on most things he chooses to do as President, I am a Bushbot. Now, if you put me in his place and I chose to make nearly all the same decisions as he has made, am I still a Bushbot? Or am I just doing what I think is the best move? Is George W. Bush a Bushbot?
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.