|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.
Skip to comments.Gap widening between Bush and conservatives
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.
And this is what it's boiling down to. If you don't agree with one of the two beltway parties, your a fruitcake.
Tell you the truth, this makes a damn good case for a third party. One that will put our people, and our country first, all the time, *everytime*.
When owning an assault weapon is more important than the issue of gun ownership I'd guess, from the looks of this thread. And then trying to say background checks shouldn't happen for gun owners. Lots of honor and decency that (sarc)....not to mention a criminals dream.
That's the job of whoever processes it after it's been shot.
Look at the record. The Soviets put up the Berlin wall under JFK. What did JFK do about it.... NOTHING!!!! JFK did nothing to prevent the advancement of the power of the Soviet Union. JFK folded our hand at every confrontation.
No nation in Western Europe would let us put Nukes on their soil. They were afraid of the Soviets. It will only make us a target, they said. And our missiles could not reach Russia from US soil. Ike got Turkey to let us put our nuclear missiles and the troops to control them on their soil. From Turkey we could blow every Soviet citizen to kingdom come. The Soviets had no bases from which they could not hit us. We were, under Ike, in the drivers seat.
The Russians tested JFK's testicles with the Berlin wall. Khrushchev wanted to go straight to Cuba. But other Soviet leaders demanded he test JFK with the Berlin wall first. When JFK only talked about the Berlin wall, and did nothing, it convinced the Soviets that JFK would back down and remove our missiles from Turkey. With the success of the Berlin wall under the Soviet belt, the Soviets started putting their missiles into Cuba! They were convinced that JFK would surrender our surperior position if they let him save face.
The Soviets made no attempt to hide that they were putting missiles in Cuba. Look at the pictures. ... They wanted us to find them.
What did JFK do to get rid of the Missiles in Cuba? Exactly what the Russians demanded. JFK took our missiles out of Turkey... that's what. That was exactly what the Russians wanted. The Russians did not want Castro to have his hands on their NUKES. They wanted OUR Nukes out of Turkey. That is what they got in the Cuban Missile Crisis.
The difference between JFK and McGovern is McGovern was honest about surrendering to the Soviets. JFK surrendered as long as the Sovites let him claim it to be a victory.
JFK took the whip hand Ike left him and let Nikita Khrushchev beat the crap out of the USA.
Some people like to forget that John, Robert and Teddy Kennedy are blood brothers that share their Daddies views on both woman and politics.
The last real anti-communist Democrat was LBJ. VietNam was his attempt to make the Russians fear us... It did not work. He was just trying to send the Soviets a message. It was a failure. Nixon tried to take us to a military superiority with technology that could destroy them. JFK wanted a public relations victory by going to the moon. Nixon did two things. He built us a missile system that could destroy all of the soviet union, and he created a split between the Soviet Union and China. Those were good moves indeed.
Reagan saw a way to victory that escaped every Democrat plus Ike and Nixon as well. He got the Russians into a war using dollars and rubbles and the Soviets lost. Reagan knew that the weak point in a Socialist system is their economy not their missiles and guns. He used our great advantage to beat them. It was a technique that escaped of the brilliant men in all the great think tanks.
It was Harry Truman who decided that containment was the only game in town. We played containment or 'Can't we just all get along.' until Reagan came to office. It was he who went for the win with the best weapon we had... dollars against rubbles ... and the dollars won.
History clearly shows thjat JFK played poker with Khrushchev, Khrushchev won every hand.
Care to elaborate and define exactly who you believe those "right wing fruitcakes" who "are not a factor" are?
I think his stand on gay marriage has been known for some time.
CT can "speak" for himself as well as anyone here, but I'll define "fruitcake" as someone who would risk having John Kerry, Howard Dean, Wesley Clark or John Edwards ... and THEIR Attorney Generals, Secretaries of Defense, State, Commerce, Energy, Interior, HUD, DHS and their commissioners of the EPA, IRS and EEOC empowered to rule our lives ... AGAIN .... in some petty campaign to send some puerile "statement" to George W. Bush and the GOP.
You folk aren't redeemable.
"DU Trolls"?? Really??
You are clueless. Totally.
And if you are so "bored," then why do you troll "these kind of threads"?
Do yourself a favor -- stay put at the FR Nuremburg Rally threads. There you can swing your pom-poms without the distraction of debating any issue whatsoever.
Spoken like a weasel who can't come up with the Bush quote he promised.
FYI - George W. Bush is not Ari Fleischer, and Ari Fleischer is not George W. Bush.
I was frankly astounded when I realized the same thing. I have spent the last 1/2 an hour researching both sides of the issue and there is a grandfather clause for weapons purchased prior to 1994. I cannot believe that they demand the right to own assault weapons as part of the 2nd amendment and then I find out that gun manufacturers have been making guns to get around the ban.
Thanks to the people on this thread, I stand firmly with President Bush, President Reagan, President Bush 41 and their distaste for semi-automatic assault weapons. I have gotten a real education here this afternoon because I thought we were talking fully automatic as assault weapons. Thanks to Mr. Mojo I found out that was not the case. We are talking about semi-automatic weapons with more than a 10 clip capability are banned. Who needs more than 10 bullets to go off one after the other?
Thanks to Freepers who told me about the 1934 ban on fully automatic weapons as well and pointed out where I was wrong which caused me to do the research.
That said, I now support President Bush and the members of Congress in renewing the Assault Weapons Ban after what I have seen posted on this thread. Before this thread I thought it should expire in September -- no longer. When Freepers object to a criminal background check for weapons and the right to buy whatever kind of weapon they want, they lost me completely. I do support the 2nd amendment for rifles, shotguns, and handguns -- there is absolutely zero need for any other weapons in the hands of civilians and I don't care if someone is an expert marksman in the military. We do not live in a dictatorship no matter how much you all whine your rights have been taken away -- they haven't.
This is not 1776 and we are not fighting the British -- times were a lot different back then and if someone wants to take the Constitution literally then they shouldn't have any guns but the type of guns that were around when the Bill of Rights were written. Doesn't that sound ludicrous? Well no background checks and allowing criminals to go in a purchase any gun they want is just as ludicrous IMHO.
This is my last statement on this thread.
Arab terrorists? Urban gang members?
So in short, expect the rest of us to support your "bend over and shut up" position because...because...Why's that again??
Sorry -- some of us aren't quite so easily led to the lap-dance party.
The Reagan mystique is as much a testament to our own life wonderment and expectations as people - 20 years younger than now - as it is accurate historical context. He's the last Republican many of our "True Conservatives" ever voted for. And the GOP abandoned ... them???
Reagan beat the Russkies. He caved to O'Neal and the Dems to do it. We didn't have cable TV and the internet back then, or FR would be a "House Afire" of Conservative anti-Ronnie angst in 1984 as it is at times a home of anti-Bush angst in 2004. It's called governing in a 50-50 Republic, where the true believers, left and right, will never get their way in one fell swoop.
God bless those dandy elitist wigged lawyers who hated each other, and could care less about the peon citizenry, in 1787. Our pendulum NEVER swings too far left, or right. Bush is swinging right wit' a purpose. He's not particularly loved by the lefties, I have observed. If the righties hate him too, well, they can go to the crying room with the skinny socialists.
D@mn right -- Especially when it comes to Abortion, Guns, and American Sovereignty. In this case #3 is being seriously trifled with.
Now go back to performing your Administration lap-dog duties. FETCH!
Then vote against Bush, and shut the hell up.
Your disparaging remarks are getting old.
You couldn't get a lap dance if you paid for it.
But, anyone who looks at a Bush/GOP vs. Kerry/DEM choice and chooses neither has rendered themselves irrelevant in the political process. Why would Bush, or the GOP, care one way or another which way you'd vote when you cannot make the most elemental of ideological discernment between John Kerry (Howard Dean, Wes Clark) and President Bush.
Y'all become invisible to the real deal politicos who make policy and impact our lives ... good or bad.
Threatening to withdraw your support from a team (i.e. Party) in a gambit to injure the team is far less effective than offering to contribute your support, with an alternative approach, to that same team in the effort to better ensure their success.
The former gets you kicked to the curb. The latter makes you a player.
Yep. The mentality of "fall in line or else you too are the enemy," is the modus operandi of hard-core Democrats, and now the hard-core GOP. Any valid dissent is met with the same attitude as the Jews received at the Nuremberg Rally.
" Tell you the truth, this makes a damn good case for a third party. One that will put our people, and our country first, all the time, *everytime*."
Hear ya, bro.
I do support the 2nd amendment for rifles, shotguns, and handguns -- there is absolutely zero need for any other weapons in the hands of civilians and I don't care if someone is an expert marksman in the military. We do not live in a dictatorship no matter how much you all whine your rights have been taken away -- they haven't.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Excellent analysis. You've just about convinced me. Heretofore, I have been totally against background checks because I believe the 2nd Ammendment affords us the right to keep and bear arms anonymously --- without the government knowing who bears 'em and who does not. Am I wrong?
I remember saying, about this time in 2000, that the most important issue facing the nation was the election of a President who had moral and ethical values, regardless of his ideological bent. Hard-nosed conservatism can come later, but for the time, we need a man like Bush and ought to be grateful that we've got him.
Since when has a President's enforcing or rather UN-enforcing American sovereignty a "real deal"??
You may actually delude yourself for the moment that the number of conservatives affected by this ONE ISSUE is more or less "invisible," but I assure you the administration doesn't. There will be a thousand polls out in the coming months directing the President on just which direction is "prudent." Shame he can't just do the right thing.
"Threatening to withdraw your support from a team (i.e. Party) in a gambit to injure the team is far less effective than offering to contribute your support, with an alternative approach, to that same team in the effort to better ensure their success."
Just play offense AND play defense 100%, and the "team" ought to win. In this case, our "defense" is allowing too much yardage. In fact our "team" is playing a prevent "D" when we ought to be blitzing...
The ONLY thing one can measure, and judge, is that individual's honesty, competency and judgement in building a supporting team of professionals. Bushbots NEVER believed he was Hammurabi or Alexander the Great ... with all encompassing power. Bushbots gave this President our "proxy" ... he has our trust to manage our vital civic affairs on our behalf. With the best wisdom, intuity and consul possible.
It's actually the Bush detractors around here that are "Bushbots" ... they think he's some kind of all powerful despot. Bush supporters have a far more realistic, nuanced understanding of this man's personal and institutional strengths and weaknesses than any of his 24/7 critics understand. We trust the man, his good faith commitment to America, and we trust the super pros he's surrounded himself with. Period.
I'm not going to nitpick every single Chess move by Kasparov. I don't know what the next six moves hence he's mulling in his mind. I know the outcome he's pursuing ... victory. I trust his "take."
I trust George W. Bush's "take" as well. As a conservative and an American whose country is at War.
IMO, the right to bear arms (including AW) is necessary -- albeit with some kind of background check.
As to the question of whether AW are "necessary," -- they are still merely one more means of personal protection -- Janet Reno-type AGs notwithstanding ;-)
When a man like General Wesley Clark is considered a serious candidate for president we are in trouble. Don't you understand that Clark if elected could put people just like him in charge of our military? You think that that sort of leader should have control of all weapons that could win a civil war. You are saying that you trust men like Wesley Clark, Kerry and Dean and not ordinary citizens to protect your freedom. That is very scary.
Are you really so sure of your safety... do you have no fear of men like Dean and Clark ever taking control of the this nation?
No founder of this nation was afraid of the British. The british were not the reason for the 2nd amendment. The founding fathers won the revolutionary war a decade before the 2nd amendment was written. They were not afraid of the power of the King of England. They were afraid of unstable men being elected and subjugating the people of this nation. They feared those ambitious men would use the military to take control of this nation and subjugate our citizens. I still am.
Germany in the 1920's had a full democracy. But when Hitler made a deal with the military in 1933, freedom was gone in weeks. Germany was by far the best educated nation in the world. All it took was ONE Hitler, an armed military, and a disarmed citizenry to take all their freedom away. It cost 50 million lives to undo that mistake.
You are afraid that bad men or women will get control of some assault weapons and kill some innocent people.
You are not afraid a Hitler type leader can assume control of this nation once we are a severely under armed and vulnerable population.
You surely must understand that at least half the men who run for president would do anything to exchange the title of President for Supreme Dictator. Write down the names of the 9 candidates and then mark the names of all who would refuse to be a Supreme Dictator if the opportunity arose. Do it. And see how safe you feel. Sooner or later, perhaps in the not too distant future, such a person will get elected. You are betting they won't pull an Adolf Hitler... but history says one of them will. Our only protection is an armed citizenry that the Government can't control.
Do you think the courts can protect you? No less than Thomas Jefferson refused to obey the supreme court. He said, "Justice Marshall has made his decision.. Now lets see him enforce it." If Jefferson could get away with not obeying the court, a lesser president can as well.
If a Bill Clinton can make Wesley Clark a 4 star general how many 4 star Generals could a future President appoint that would be loyal to him and not anyone else.... how many colonels, majors and captains. would it take? How many privates would they have to execute before the privates shot whomever the Generals said to shoot. Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin both knew the answer to that question. I hope you never get to learn it.
You, believing you have complete freedom, will speak against such men. I hope that if it happens you will be bright enough not to do so. I hope you will spout the Dictator's party line. If you don't you will quickly learn the reason our founding fathers wanted the civilian population to be armed well enough to take on our own military and win.
The protection of the 2nd amendment was not to defend us from external threats... It was to protect us from internal threats from a government in the hands of evil people.
Nope -- not before I antagonize the hell outta YOU...
"You couldn't get a lap dance if you paid for it."
Marginalized, then emasculated?? OUCH!
How old are you by the way (just curious)?
How old are you?
How elitist of you.
Well anyway it seems that you and Larry Klayman, Paul Weyrich, etc. etc. have something in common, a Napolean syndrome.
You all crown yourselves Emperors of conservatism. And it pisses you off when the little peons contradict you.
A "professional" conservative? How's bidness? LOL
Thanks for bringing to the forefront the reality behind all the book writers, pundits and other whores of "the right" who are furtively trying to stake anti-Bush postitions right now. There's no money in supporting President Bush right now.
They've got an angry fringe on the right, and a far larger angry leftwing dynasty who will pay them money to trash talk the President and the GOP right now.
Big deal. Jonah Goldberg, Michelle Malkin, Michael Savage, Laura Ingraham and the rest of the "B" team talent ... their cynical marketing campaigns are fully expected. The "Think Tanks" like Cato, Heritage and Landmark ... they're hustling for money like all the other D.C. clowns are. Satisfied Bushbots ain't filling their coffers, they need to rustle up some animus from Fringies and left wing Agent Provacoteurs.
Bush is a political juggernaut. He's unbeatable in November, and he's going to bring 3-4 GOP Senators and 15-20 House GOP candidates with him. Gargle your bile.
Are you...shrooming again, W? Take some niacin and get a good night sleep.
Ahhhh, the DC beltway "professional conservative" can't take the heat.
Go have a drink with your demos buddies in Georgetown and you all can talk about how superior you are to the people out in flyover country.