Posted on 03/19/2006 9:21:33 AM PST by Cannoneer No. 4
I'd like to see someone (probably wouldn't be a politician) run ads opposing the tax cuts because they will increase revenue. If has absolutely no financial control and spends all the money he can get his hands on, getting a raise will not improve his situation, but just let him go into debt faster.
I wonder how the Democrats could respond to such an ad?
Is the ship being abandoned by Republicans or formerly-disguised 'Rats?
While I know you were being sarcastic, unfortunately, this seems to be the spin. Absolutely, the war is important. Winning it is important. But if we discard the fundamental principles of our Constitutional Republic in doing so, we only exchange the cloak of secular totalitarianism for the chador of Sharia.
Either way, we lose the war.
Ultimately, it is not just the fate of countries half way around the globe, but the preservation of the American way of life which is at stake.
We have already sacrificed essential liberties on the altar of security, and the trend is not abating, but intensifying.
That intensity, though, is somehow not directed at those who cross our borders unhindered by so much as a decent fence, but those of us who are citizens of this country, who have its interests at heart because all we have is here.
Posturing politicians of every stripe have made a great show of being 'strong on security' by insulting our trade partners in the global forum, but will not speak up about the daily influx of thousands across a border that it is their sworn duty to defend.
No candidate worth electing will allow our borders to remain so permeable. Any candidate worth electing will prosecute the war to its successful conclusion. They will do so without shredding the Bill of Rights.
Underneath it all, the Democratic MSM is chortling with glee as Republicans "are split". Why are Republicans split? Because they have been following the Democrats' lead for so long, they automatically knee-jerked on the DPW/P&O deal.
Stop the music. Clear the dance floor. Time to think this out.
First, we do not need the MSM to tell us who best embodies the principles that Conservatives hold dear. We do not need the (Democrat) MSM to tell us who is a "Conservative", a group they have broken into 'neo-', 'paleo'- and other subunits for the purpose of promoting divisiveness. Remember the adage "Divide and Conquer?" Well, they are doing their damndest.
For those city folk who think their Mayor might make the coolest POTUS, sit down and stfu. Sorry to be so blunt, but this ain't a pep rally. If the mayor of a big city was going to sell in flyover red America, we'd all be there, living in that city with you.
If you can't understand what this flap is about NAIS (see links along the posts), why this is a really bad idea, then you may be from a big city.
This could make people feel more secure, but all it will do is make life hell for any small producer of slaughter animals, as far as food goes. But wait, there is more! It also tracks dogs! It gives you 24 hours to report the movement of your animals, complete with location codes and the numbers of other animals your animal came into contact with, by phone or internet. Sound Nifty? You have never been in a three day blizzard, then. I won't even go into grazing catle on open range, just imagine your dog dashing through neighbor's yards after slipping her chain, and the paperwork you would have to do just to get all the location codes and numbers for the neighbor's pets yours had contact with.
That could go on, but you get the point.
We need someone who will get back to the fundamentals of:
a right to life
a right to keep and bear arms
secure the border, not lock down those of us who are citizens
not desecrate the sacrament of marriage with something which that same Almighty God considers an abombination (color that any way you want, that is the basic issue)
a smaller, Constitutionally mandated Government, obtained by the dissolution of Departments which have no place in the Federal Government under the Constitution.
A fiscally responsible government.
Lower taxes as a result.
A strong military used to defend our nation, which is not incompatible with lower taxes if the FedGov gets out of the areas it has no business in.
Energy self-reliance (not independance, necessarily, but steps in that direction including producing and refining of a greater amount of our own petroleum, nuclear, and other energy resource development.)
This is just a warmup, but you see where I am heading. Let's make a list before we go shopping for the candidate.
Thanks for letting me rant..
Ah.......But they most often complain that they are the "true conservatives" (note to raybbr)
Frankly, I think I know where that came from so I will try to explain how I saw it develop.
After Clinton's first election, we all know that the vote was split by the Texas nutcase and he brought into his fold the Libertarians.
Libertarians think they are indeed the true conservatives, but their party and leadership pretty much sucked, as it does today. The election did one thing however. It gave them the knowledge that they can affect elections with a variety of simple issues, most of them have a Constitutional root.
In recent years, knowing that their party was on the mat, many of them split off and became Republicans by voice, but most still remain independents. They not only say they are the true Conservative, but also now claim they are the base.
Many of the old timers around this particular forum will see some truth in what I say, because they lived through the upheaval on this board and in the party. The party problems seem to begin with them. They merged in a sort of union with the Religious right during Schiavo and that is what I see today. They comprise about a third of this board and dominate much of the debate because they are long time activists in their various fields of complaint, be it borders, globalism, SCOTUS and now religion. The remainder of their original party stayed with the Libertarian fold because of the drug issue, or they have ceased their pro-legalization tirades to hide their true politics.
But they are not any more a true conservative than I or anyone else. We all have conservative beliefs or we would not be here! Some, like myself and Bush are realists and understand that government will grow in a direct relationship to the economy and that tax cuts are probably one of the few ways to control the growth from any excesses beyond pure economic growth. The Demorats, as we know, think otherwise.
As I see it, Bush is just as much a conservative as Reagan was, and in some ways, more so. Both he and Reagan were attacked by most of the same people in conservative circles for the same reasons, so lets get that straight!
As far as who to blame for some excessive spending in recent years, don't look to Bush.
It was the same Congress who just killed the proposed spending cuts who prior to this had Bush over a barrel with much of what he wanted to do. Like Reagan, Bush had to be content to get 70% of what he wanted in exchange for not using his veto pen which would not have done any good anyway.
To be as frank as I can be, this Congress has totally failed! It has enacted choice parts of the Bush agenda in exchange for a mountain of spending projects designed to get themselves re-elected and we let them do it while we blamed Bush.
That is exactly what they intended to happen. Now they have lame ducked him very early in his second term and are dumping all the smell on him while they run for re-election.
Take a look at some of the recent votes and commentary and you will see who they are. Don't ever expect these same congressmen and senators to sign into law any sort of spending controls or anything that takes away their ability to manufacture PORK. And they are all Republicans that we elected and re-elected. You don't need to be concerned about the democrats, because we know what they do. But why is it that we don't seem to realize just who is ripping off the treasury!
This is why the general public will make some changes by 08, and when combined with the anti Iraq media blitzes that are coming back to back, and the putrid Indian gaming scandals that are just beginning to be tallied up, the chances of keeping any of our political gains are slim.
Then when you attack Bush, who is the fund-raiser in chief as well as head of the party, you damage the chances that we could even repair some of this by getting some good lawmakers elected in place of these idiots. You also damage his ability to project political power and have cut him off at the knees in time of war when you should have been looking at your congressman and backing him to the hilt.
Republicans attacking their president and party head was never fashionable or done to this degree without major cause. Where did this come from?
My guess is that it came from non-republicans and their sycophants. The guests have destroyed the mansion....Buchanon tried the same thing, and you see what it got us and him.
So keep on keepin on folks. You get some changes alright. Just not the ones you really wanted, and the gift to the Democrats will never be appreciated...They will use what you gave them and take the rest of it. That is a guarantee.
Got to get rid of all the moderate RINO's you say? That's like shooting off both feet. How about getting rid of the liar who says he's for fiscal responsibility and then votes against it. Rather than attack East Coast Republicans who's constituency would rather have a Democrat, attack those who are really hurting the party and the presidency, and by extension our future.
Take a good look at your congress critter and lay off Bush. I should never have to say this to Republicans, so I suspect there are not many here.
Nice try. I don't buy it. When has Bush ever used his position to decry those spending bills?
As the de-facto head of the Republican party Bush is supposed to represent conservatives. He doesn't. That is why there aren't many "republicans" here. There are too many conservatives. Declaring blind devotion to Bush doesn't impress me.
Well said.
Please let us know when such a leader shows up. We could use one now.
No raybbr, he actually represents Republicans.
The party has a conservative wing and a hard right balcony, but in recent tears that group in the balcony has not played well with others in the political sandbox and become the bullies on the playground..
As a result, the coalition is broken and without the support of the conservative center right through the more liberal republicans, the conservatives balcony bunch may well find themselves isolated in the upcoming elections.
Based solely on your comments, that isolation is self imposed and probably deserved.
You cannot operate within a large party that way, and I'm afraid you will find none of the candidates to be even as conservative as Bush in 2008. What will emerge from that primary will be much more centrist. It will be the result of a failure by far right conservatives to accept the fact that not everyone thinks exactly as they do and all are necessary to win elections.
This is why the coalition is broken, and why I have tried to get a painful truth across to you and yours.
This toothpaste will be hard to get back into the tube, and hard will turn into impossible if things continue as they are. (which I suspect they will)
As I stated earlier, I have seen all this play out before, and either the people are new to the process, or they don't believe that they caused the last rift that occurred in the 80s. Carter ended up in office and Bush 1 only got one term.
A high price to pay for smugness and so called principle. But that is the way it is.
Had not 9/11, the New York rebuild, the Creation of Homeland Security, the numerous hurricanes in Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas not occurred, things would look much different. (not to mention a war)
We can't pay for all of that now so that debt will indeed be passed on down the road. But you cannot blame him for not damaging the delicate economy to pay current obligations and you can't blame him for congresses inability to control the expenditures it does have jurisdiction over.
Congress plussed up every Bush Budget since he has been offering them and they are not going to stop as long as you and others in the coalition blame Bush. We are not doing the things we could to at least appear frugal. They don't care because they can successfully blame the president for it and you let them.
That's the game here, and Congress is winning it to our detriment. They have been on a spree since 9/11 and there is no signs it will ever stop, now that the second term political capital is in the tank.
Farm Bill
Medicaid expansion
No Child left behind
Highway bill
Energy bill
These overbloated useless spending sprees had nothing to do with 9/11 or Katrina.
I don't get your point.
W with this ugly alliance of a Repub congress has theatened the foundations of our economy.
I love the guy but thems the facts.
I was angry that Bush did not veto energy until it was explained to me that Senate forces on the Republican side threatened to certainly override any veto. They threatened to block other issues and then subsequently ran interference anyway. They killed social security reform and did not lift a finger on some other issues to send Bush a message that he was not in control of the purse.
Bush has had a power struggle going on with these bozos since the mid part of the first term. They did the Tax cuts and then balked so that they could feather their nests with pork for their districts and broke every record doing it. All of them participated.
As a result, I think having all three branches did not work out as well as I thought it would. I am quite disappointed.
I tried to put myself in the presidents shoes, and I think he did not assert his power early on in favor of getting the tax cuts through and a few other things, but he discovered that promises made on negotiations were never kept, even by his own party. Then came 9/11 and the war, and they been controlling the purse and the budget ever since. They use the defense budget as a hostage.
I think he still refuses to act against Congress for fear of doing something that may harm the economy or the war effort. They have him over the proverbial barrel on that and it has been give and take from the start. Congress does not get criticized in exchange for easy passage of the defense bills.
I don't know if Bush has the ability now to take then on without major consequences, and perhaps, if I am correct, he never has.
I hope that helps your understanding of my take on this subject. I don't think he is ignoring the spending spree. I think he's been hogtied by Congress and can't be too vocal or act on his anger.
I think the social security reform fiasco is representative of my point. They left him hanging out to dry and are doing it again now, after he commented on the pork and asked for a line item veto.
The payback was obvious if you look.
Ah yes, the old party before principles argument. Or in other words, "I'll sell my principles for a vote".
No, it means that compromise is critical to the art of politics, and no success will be achieved without it.
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.