| 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.
Don't know. I was just tired of Dane using Reagan to troll on a 2nd Amendment argument.
Huh? Stupid bit of writing by Jonah, in my opinion.
I said in my previous post that I wanted a quote from George W. Bush, himself, not someone ostensibly speaking for him.
Put up or shut up.
Yay! Because I wasn't actually going to. In fact, you actually thanked me at one point for giving my opinion on your initial comment. Posts 166 and 170 respectively.
Also, please pay attention to post 255.Advocating bans and licensing is the same as saying, "You are either too criminally evil or too stupid to own a firearm of this type."
I own firearms of a type she does not approve of and thinks that the government should ban because "nobody needs one." Ergo, she either thinks I'm too stupid to operate one safely. Too inexperienced. Or just plain criminal. Which it is she has yet to come back and explain.
Being called "sad and pathetic" by the likes of you is really no insult. Once you've grown up a bit, why don't you come back and visit us some more.
Oops, nearly forgot this part of your post. I support the President. While there are a couple of areas that I don't see eye to eye on with him at this point my support continues to outweigh my disagreements.
Most of these sort of threads have become just more fodder for the chronic arm-chair-critic complainers and DU trolls who wander the halls of FR. They post the same old trash, over and over, with no new ideas, nothing positive just CARP, CARP, CARP. It's boring. And suspect IMO especially with a line such as I originally objected to from Goldberg.
Prairie
I understand why you believe that. I understand that this is your position.
What my objection has been is that you said that PhiKapMom called you (collective you) evil, stupid, or both.
She did not. You took your predisposition about the bans and licensing and projected it onto PhiKapMom's post to you and declared that PhiKapMom said something she did not say.. hence your use of the word "ergo." Instead of admitting your mistake, you have reposted the same mistake post after post in hopes that sooner or later it will magically become true. You are persistent... I will say that.
As for the rest of your rant about me growing up... well, it is the immature who can't or won't admit they are wrong...so maybe we will just have to grow up together.
In 1992 the total vote in the Presidential race was 105 million. Over 18 million of them were for Ross Perot.
In 1996 only 95 million voted in the Presidential race. Eight million voted for Ross Perot. Perot got 10 million fewer votes in 1996 than in 1992 and 10 million fewer people voted.
In 2000 the vote in the Presidential race was 105 million again. With the same turn out as in 1992 the election in 2000 was a virtual tie. If Perot took votes from the Republican right in 1992 and 1996, why didn't Bush win big in 2000? They sure as heck did not vote for Buchanan.... did they?
The truth is exactly like the exit polls in 1992 and 1996 revealed. Perot drew from both the Bush and Clinton in equal amounts. The exit polls in 92 and 96 showed that had Perot not run, Clinton would still have won the presidency both times.
The right wing fruitcakes like to think they are important... but they are not. They scream at the top of their lungs that there was no difference between Democrats and Republicans... and that is how they always behave. They voted for Perot in 1992. Ten million of them did not vote at all in 1996 and they split right down the middle in 2000. The are never a factor. They don't elect anyone ..They don't defeat anyone. They are not a factor. That is why Karl Rove does not give a hoot what they do. They are not important.
There is no mistake being made. Accept the one I am making trying to reason with you.
It isn't brain surgery. It's just realizing that your projected your feelings about banning and made that PhiKapMom's response. Your projected feelings (valid or not) have nothing to do with her actual words.
Can't come up with a Bush quote so start telling lies about me.
How intellectually bankrupt.
Yes. Actually it does. Very much so. How else do you get a law passed? You drum up support. With guns, it is normally FEAR you try to use as a lever on the public. "Guns cause crime." "Guns are evil." "Guns are only for killing people." "Assault Weapons have no other purpose than to kill lots of people." "We need to ban Assault Weapons because they are too dangerous and civilians have no need of them."
Every sinlge mantra predicated on the assumption that anyone wanting to own one is either a criminal, is dangerous, or is too stupid to do so safely.
Her "actual words" have nothing in common with the REALITY of gun ownership and so-called "assault weapons". Or are you just too stupid to see it? I've tried moderating my language up till now, but this is getting ridiculous.
So the Presidents SPOKESMEN, on multiple occassions, and on the White Houses website, is lying about the Presidents stance on the subject?
Give it a rest moron.
I asked for a quote from Bush and you give me a quote from Ari Fleischer.
And you call me a moron?
Yes, I'm too stupid to realize that I should have just acquiesced to your superior knowledge on what people really mean when their words do not say what you have accused them of saying.
Yes, I'm too stupid to realize that your view on guns is the right, true, and correct one. Anyone who tries to express another opinion is not as patriotic, conservative, or as smart as you.
I can live with your opinion of what makes one stupid.
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.