| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 01/24/2004 6:45:19 AM PST by Lead Moderator, reason:
This thread has degenerated into a flamewar. No more replies. Sheesh. |
Posted on 01/23/2004 5:23:57 AM PST by Apple Pan Dowdy
I thought President Bush's State of the Union address was fine. It wasn't outrageously long. He drew a bright line between himself and his critics on the war in Iraq, the Patriot Act, Social Security Reform, etc. He delivered it well, and the nudity was tasteful and integral to the plot.
As luck - or bad timing - would have it, I was invited to Manhattan to address the New York State Conservative Party right before the president addressed the nation. It seemed only fitting since the subject of my speech was the conflict between Bush's "compassionate conservatism" and traditional conservatism. You see, conservatives in New York City have suffered more and for longer than conservatives in the rest of America. Trust me, I grew up on New York City's Upper West Side. We felt like Christians in Ancient Rome.
Well, after three years with George W. Bush at the helm, many conservatives are starting to feel like we've been sent to the catacombs. Don't get me wrong. Out in real America where most Americans - liberal and conservative - don't focus on politics every day, Bush is still doing very well. And, even among conservatives, Bush has considerable political support. But among ideological and intellectual conservatives, emotional support for Bush is starting to ebb.
I can't point to anything scientific. But if you pay attention to what conservatives are saying at meetings and in magazines, on the Web and at the think tanks, as well as what readers, friends, colleagues and sources say, there's a definite undercurrent of discontent with the president.
For some it started with his plan to offer amnesty-lite to illegal immigrants. For others, it's his fence-sitting on gay marriage. For others, like me, it was his signing of the campaign finance reform bill even though he thought it was unconstitutional. Or maybe it was his support for steel tariffs. Or the farm bill. I forget.
Anyway that doesn't matter. What unites pretty much all of these grumblers is a deep sense of, well, disgust with how much this administration is spending.
When it comes to taxpayer dollars, this is the second most "generous" administration in American history, second only to that of another Texan, Lyndon Johnson. There may be good aspects to George Bush's "compassionate conservatism," though on the whole I never liked it, but it's clear that compassion doesn't come cheap at the Bush White House, on whose watch overall spending from 2001 to 2003 grew at 16 percent and discretionary spending went up 27 percent. That's double Bill Clinton's rate.
Bush's defenders are eager to point to the war on terrorism as an excuse for increased spending. Fine. But that's only a small part of the story.
Under Bush, spending on education has gone up 60.8 percent, on labor 56 percent and on the Department of the Interior by 23.4 percent . The price tag for the president's Medicare plan alone starts, but won't end, at $400 billion. The farm bill was a pork horror show, pure and simple. More people work for the federal government now than at any time since the end of the Cold War.
Brian Riedl of the Heritage Foundation sums it up this way: "Overall for 2003, the federal government spent $20,300 per household, taxed $16,780 per household, and ran a budget deficit of $3,520 per household."
The reason most Americans haven't heard a lot about all this is twofold. Conservatives have stayed relatively quiet and liberals have controlled the anti-Bush microphone.
Democratic presidential candidates and interest groups have been screeching that the president is gutting education and abandoning the elderly. Obviously this is nonsense on tall stilts, since Bush is spending a lot more on both than Bill Clinton ever did.
In fact, on Medicare and education, for example, the Dems think Bush is being stingy. And a study by the National Taxpayers Union found that each and every one of the Democrats running for president have plans that would raise the deficit even more, from $169.6 billion under Joe Lieberman to - get this - $1.33 trillion under Al Sharpton.
Conservative opposition to such overspending is more complex than the media and the left think. Some just don't like red ink. Others think big government erodes freedom and traditional arrangements. Others believe it slowly inoculates the citizenry to greater levels of social engineering.
Whatever the reasons, conservatives - as opposed to partisan Republicans - have sincere misgivings about the kind of presidency Bush is conducting. A lot of compassionate conservatism is smart politics for the Republican Party, and some of it is even good policy. And, yes, conservatives understand that the GOP is practically the only place they have a real impact in electoral politics.
But I'm not sure George Bush understands how much he is asking from those who brought him to the dance.
So requiring licensing (having to prove you are innocent as well as competent despite any previous experience you may have), bans (in this case on assualt weapons as no one really needs one in her opinion), and waiting periods (which have done nothing to curb criminals from getting firearms) do not in any way assume the general populace is "evil, stupid, or both"?
See the Brady Campaigns numerous websites for even more of the same reasoning. It all boils down the same. While you are at it, you may want to look up the study mentioned in my Ari Fleischer qoute somewhere above. The study has shown that the Brady Bill did nothing but make it more difficult for your average Joe Citizen to own firearms and no effect on crime.
This is not a difficult reasoning to follow. Are you SURE you don't have a dog in this hunt?
You keep insisting that she did... she did not.
You can spin the requiring of license to mean anything you want it to mean, but that does change the fact that PhiKapMom did not call you stupid, evil, or both.
Now, hopefully, you know the difference between a lie... She called me stupid, evil, or both and spin, which is the first paragraph you wrote in your post.
Bringing in the Brady Campaigns numerous websites does not change the fact that PhiKapMom did not call you stupid, evil, or both.
This is not a difficult reasoning to follow. Are you SURE you don't have a dog in this hunt?
No... no dog in the hunt.. but you are clearly in the wrong and instead of just admitting that PhiKapMom did not call you stupid, evil, or both you continue to insist that she did.
Well, there is not much I can do about your lack of reading comprehension... but I will continue to defend PhiKapMom's reputation against your defamation.
Yes, she did. By asserting that classes, licensing, waiting periods, and bans on guns she thinks are somehow more dangerous are necessary despite all evidence to the contrary.
You will also note that I did not assume she was saying these things about me personally, but in a general sense of "anyone trying to acquire a firearm of this type, or those who would want one". I belong to that group she disparaged.
Get over it.
If he curbs spending a bit, gives up on the AWB, and does something effective about our porous borders.... I'll vote for him. Even though I don't agree with some things he has already done.
Notice I ain't holdin' my breath....
Speaking of "name-calling," it was you who called Jonah Goldberg a "mole," "snobbish," and implied he was in fact an operative of the DNC -- wasn't it?
"His article went straight down the tubes in credibility with his qualification of being an 'intellectual' conservative. That's my point. I won't be fooled by a thinly veiled hit piece disguised as 'conservative concern'."
Is it simply that any opinions or viewpoints which criticize Dubya Bush's centrist policies are deemed mutinous, OR is it your contention Goldberg is a liar?
Show me where HE said that.
HIM.
Bush.
Not somebody else ostensibly speaking for him.
I defy you.
You made the contention.
You prove it or shut up.
And I qoute:
Q Ari, a new subject. The House Republicans have apparently broken with the President over the issue of the assault weapons ban. Is reauthorizing assault weapons ban a priority enough for the President to do some of his own arm-twisting to try and get the House to allow a vote?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think the President's position is clear and the President supports the reauthorization of the current assault weapons ban. We are working right now with the Congress on the issues that are on their plate, that they're focusing on right now, and then Congress, of course, is going to leave for the Memorial Day recess. I mentioned the AIDS initiative and the tax cut, the growth initiative that are pending on the floor this week. The President doesn't set the congressional calendar or schedule. We'll continue to work with the Congress, and they know the President's position.
Need another? OK:
Q Let me ask you something about the assault weapons ban. I realize the President was for the reauthorization back in 2000. Why does he support that?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President thought, and said so at the time in 2000, that the assault weapon ban was a reasonable step. The assault weapon ban was crafted with the thought that it would deter crime. There are still studies underway of its crime deterring abilities, but the President thought that was reasonable, and that's why he supported it. And that's why he supports the reauthorization of the current ban.
And again? OK:
Q Another thing, on another subject. The NRA, Charleton Heston has left. Many are wondering about a statement that was said that the assault weapons ban will not continue once it expires. The administration has said something different. How is this meshing with a group that is friend to the Bush administration?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think the administration is already on record about the assault weapon ban. The President has said that he supports the current assault weapons ban, and he would support the reauthorization of the current assault weapons ban.
Will you be the one shutting up now? Or is Ari now a liar as well?
You are in real danger of falling down an idiot hole.
You do understand the difference between what she actually said and what you believe she said because your bias/prejuidice against licenses, 24 hour wait period, etc.
Evil, stupid, or both came from you because you intepret the 24 hour waiting period to mean that. All PhiKapMom did was support the 24 hour ban, which, you took to mean that you (I understand the you was rhetorical) were evil, stupid or both. So, evil, stupid, or both came from you... from you... not from her.
Get over it.
In other words, please let this rest because I'm not man/woman enough to admit when I'm wrong.
Apparently not too much danger. Looks like you are there to catch me.
Reread all of her posts. It isn't just a 24 hour ban (where ever the hell you got that from), but out right prohibition of ownership for all "assault weapons"... whatever arbitrary characteristics you wish to assign to THAT definition.
Also, you ARE aware we have this little thing called a "Constitution"? Wherein it not only says that it is the "Supreme Law of the Land", but that firearms ownership is an Individual Right? From whence comes this ephemeral power top strip us of our Rights?
There is zero evidence to back up that your statement.
Strom Thruman tried to pull the Southern Conservative base from liberal Harry Truman in 1948. Dewey and the Media were certain that it would cost Truman the Presidency. The base was there for Truman. In case you didn't notice Truman's hard turn to the left on civil rights did not cost Harry the election. He held enough of the South to win the election. Dewey played to his base... by not going to the center at all, It cost Dewey the election in 1948. It took Richard Nixon nearly 20 years and a defeat by JFK to figure that out.
Everert Dirkson stood at the Republican convention podium in 1952 telling the delegates if they abandoned conservative Taft for the liberal Ike, the base would abandon the Republican party and stay at home. Everett as usual was full of CRAP. Centrist Ike easily beat a vert liberal Stevenson. Ike had the Republican base in both 52 and 57. It did not matter that Ike was a centrist what mattered was that Stevenson was a flaming liberal.
There was a lot of talk that the catholic JFK could not hold the protestent Southern Democratic base.. but if you look at 1960 Results JFK won... The small amount of lost base did not matter. JFK got more of the Democrat base than did the much more liberal Stevenson. Nixon got the base... Nixon lost too much of the CENTER. He vowed to go for the center if he ever got the nomination again.. He ran to the center in 68 and won.
If you look at 1964 you will find the Republican candidate that the Republican base loved. The base loving Goldwater did not do as well as the "baseless" Nixon did in 1960. To Goldwater the base was not worth a warm pitcher of spit although they tried their best to elect him. The center is the game. It always is the game. It always has been.
The Democrat base loved McGovern in 1972 ....That was disaster city when he ran against Richard Nixon. The center didn't go for McGovern and he lost. The republican base turned out for Nixon in both 68 and 72. The center did too.
Neither Jerry Ford or Carter appealed to their bases much but Carter won in 1976. There is no evidence that the base did not turn out for Jerry or Jimmy. It was the center that did not turn out for Jerry. They turned out for Carter instead.
Reagan spent the entire campaign of 1980 running away from the base and running to the center. The major themes of the Reagan campaign were right out of the Democrat play book. You can even make a good case that Reagan ran to the LEFT.
#1: Reagan constantly reminded voters he was a former UNION PRESIDENT. Imaging how much the Republican base loves Union Presidents.
#2: Reagan reminded voters he was a huge fan of FDR and a former Democrat. In the debate with Jimmy Carter he mentioned it. Reagan said he still held the same positions he did when he was a Democrat. His exact words were, "My Views have not changed!" Imagine how the base loved that.
#3: Reagan constantly reminded voters his economic plan was identical to the JFK plan of 1961. In case you haven't noticed, JFK was a Democrat. It may surprise you to note that JFK bore an amazing resembliance to Teddy Kennedy.. Some say they may have been brothers.
Bush Sr. Ran hard to the base...Remember... "READ MY LIPS.. NO NEW TAXES..." Dumb move. Dukakis was the quintessencial base man. He got fewer numbers of the center in 88 than Bush 41. But the center deserted Bush 41 in 1992 for some guy who called himself a NEW Democrat. It was Clinton who ran to the center in 92 as the centrist NEW DEMOCRAT.
Clinton never ran to the base. HE RAN AS A NEW CENTRIST DEMOCRAT.
Gore did not run to the center, Nader scared Gore into running to his base. It cost Gore the Presidency.
Bush has been running to the center since the day he got the nomination. Gore in trying to win the NADER votes ran to the base and got beat.
You post intuitive feelings that the base may not turn out unless they get what they want, but that is only a danger when the other parties candidate is on to your side of the center. As long as the Democrats run well to the left of center, there is zero danger in a Republican running to the center.
There are are no cases in modern history where pandering to the base does anything except insure defeat.
AS far as tracking the party data basses they just do not show what you pretend to say they show. The most important state for presidential elections is OHIO. No one wins the presidency with out winning OHIO.
The correlation you are trying to make is the exact opposite of the truth in OHIO. The more the Democrat candidate runs to the center, the smaller the Republican base turn out. A centrist Democrat does not scare the more leftist registered Republican (Clinton), as much as a left wing (Dukakis).
GET A CLUE! It is a non threatening DEMOCRAT candidate that reduces the Republican base turn out. The secret to getting the Republican base out is painting the Democrat candidate as a real liberal. If the Republican base is scared of the Democrat candidate they will come out to vote. If the Democrat is a NEW DEMOCRAT from the more conservative South, he does not scare some of the more left Republican base and they don't turn out.
Knowing the data is worthless, if you don't know how to analyse it .
Above analysis courtesy of Common Tator.
I have reread all her posts. Heck, I've even re-posted the one that got you all fired up in the first place.
The simple truth is that she did not call you "evil, stupid, or both."
You can try to change the debate. You can offer up red flags, strawmen, and circular arguments. You can insult me all you want.
But it proves to anyone reading this thread is that you are so stubborn that you can't even admit when you are wrong.
How sad and pathetic!
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.