Conservatives not satisfied with Bush's record

The Washington Times ^ | June 18, 2002 | Ralph Z. Hallow

[jimkress]

Conservative lawmakers and activists disappointed with President Bush's first 18 months in office are calling into question his tactics and strategy in advancing the conservative agenda.

"The president for the most part has been our guy," said House Majority Leader Dick Armey, Texas Republican and a prominent conservative on Capitol Hill. "A few times we disagree."

[Barnacle]

And when they fall on their swords for you...you don't turn out to vote.

No one has fallen on their sword for me. Nor would I want them to. I want candidates who will stand on principle and thrust their swords through the heart of liberalism.

Further, I have voted in every election since I was 18 - my tubby little cubby all stuffed with fluff.

Everything you've gotten--and you've gotten a LOT, whether or not you're willing to admit it--is a gift.

I don’t consider “good government” to be a gift or entitlement bestowed upon me. I consider it a right. I right that I fight hard for.

My experience with "the base" was that they didn't want to be bothered with actually doing any heavy lifting between elections…

I regret to say this was my experience in the recent Illinois primary. I did the work of ten because nine could not be bothered.

"Summer soldiers and sunshine patriots."

Approriate quote.

Either start showing up to vote, show up in between elections for the hard work, and generally act like adults--or get used to being ignored.

Agreed. We have some common ground after all - my furry little friend.

[Poohbah]

"Poohbah" is not a bear from Alabama.

He's a character from The Mikado.

[Red Jones]

thanks austin willard wright.

I'm agitating for the government to lift the terrible burdens on our economy that they've placed on it. It is these terrible burdens that have damaged the americans. The rich people are not harmed by these burdens, but they are the ones who have imposed them. I didn't start the class warfare, they did.

I'd prefer to go to the gold standard because I don't trust the fiat money. I'd prefer that american manufacturers who have such a long list of gripes about unreasonable regulations be heeded. I'd prefer that our trade policy be such that our congress passes laws and our president follows them. These laws should instruct that we have low or nonexistent tariffs with all nations who buy from us approximately the same quantity of goods and services every year as we buy from them. But nations that export twice or more to us as we export to them should have significant tariffs imposed and then lifted as soon as their exports to us are only 50% larger than our exports to them. We've lost 2 million jobs in the last 10 years in manufacturing, and at a time when the population is growing rapidly due to immigration that the people disapprove of, this is a very negative trend. Did you know that Boeing, our #1 exporter of product, is now going to produce its jets in China?

If we had the system of tariffs in place that I mentioned, then we would have happy mutually beneficial free trade with many nations around the world. Instead we have declining real wages for the masses of americans, we have a situation where our own experts are telling us we simply can't afford to meet our social security and medicaire obligations. The republicans say that this is good. They are my enemy as I love the americans.

The republicans are just as guilty as the dems at bringing us a bloated government that regulates and taxes us into the ground. That the interest group they serve is rich people and big corporations makes them very insensitive on these issues.

[Barnacle]

Please, say it ain't so.

[Palmetto]

Bioya!!!! (Getting close? warm?)

[Palmetto]

Camp Bioya?

[Austin Willard Wright]

Better a wacko righwinger than a big government, pro increase in farm subsides, pro expansion of Americorp, pro expansion of housing subsidies, pro-50 percent increase in foreign aid in three years, pro-prescription drug socialist, pro-mental health parity mandator, pro Department of Education expansionist. You are perfectly free to endorse this ambitious statist agenda but some of us beg to differ. I'm sorry that it is too extreme for your me too, moderate sensibilities.

[galt-jw]

these hypocrites lambasted klinton for doing similar liberal things...yet with bush, its ok.

[Barnacle]

That's because some people vote "people" instead of "issues".

[mconder]

All you people who thought voting for a third party candidate like Howard Philips was throwing a vote away, what do you think now? Either way we would have been stuck with a leftest pig, so why not try something different. The establishment has presented tweedle-dee and teedle-dumn choices for president for the past several decades. One of the biggest scams on "conservatives" was Reagan. Said he would get rid of the NEA and it's still here and Bush is growing it larger. Bush is a globalist cronie just like his father, don't expect redirection to Constitutional principles from him. He would just as soon have world government here NOW.

[Barnacle]

I will definitely consider backing and voting for Constitution Party candidates in future elections.

Check out what they're about here:

http://www.constitutionparty.com/

[_Jim]

I caught a segment of Michael Savage's show last night -

- he was trashing Bush royally, said he believed Bush would turn out to be "the worst president in histoiry."

Looks like a whole lotta slammin' of Bush goin' on out there ...

[quidnunc]

_Jim wrote: - he was trashing Bush royally, said he believed Bush would turn out to be "the worst president in histoiry."

Boob bait for the Bubbas.

I've listened to Savage a few times and he's an idiot.

That's why he's the wingnuts' radio host of choice.

[Reagan Man]

>>>Your explanation about why you don't find the patriot act troubling explains a lot to me about your satisfaction with things.

Look, I'm a law and order conservative, but I'm also a realist. This idea that we're just suppose to sit back and allow terrorists free access to circumvent our nations laws and ultimately kill more Americans is a crazy policy. After all, we were attacked once by cowardly bastards and we are now engaged in a war against international terrorism, both at home and abroad. Being inconvenienced, bothered or annoyed by extenuating circumstances, are small sacrifices that most Americans have no problem with. All the freedoms and liberties we had before 9-11, we still have today. I know of no one, who has lost any freedoms and liberties. Except for may be a few terrorists and criminals.

>>>Are you not a civil libertarian?

Like most Americans, I support civil liberties guaranteed by the Bill of Rights and in that regard, I guess I could be considered a civil libertarian. However, I'm not a fringe extremist, reactionary, absolutist, anarchist or libertarian. I don't believe that holding terrorist scumbags like Jose Padilla, against his will and without due process, will turn America into a totalitarian state.

>>>Same with the social spending...

You have your facts wrong. Bush has proposed two budgets so far. From 2002 ($2.052 billion) to 2003 ($2.128billion), spending increases have totaled $76 billion or 3.57%. The DoD and Homeland Security have received the largest increases under Bushes first two budgets. Add to that, emergency spending for 9-11 and its obvious where the funds have been allocated. This funding is discretionary spending and is different then mandatory spending under existing law, for items like Social Security, medicare, medicad, income security and interest on the national debt. One more time. If homeland security and 9-11 emergency spending is excluded, nondefense spending rose by 3.3 percent in 2002 and is slated to decline by 0.4 percent in 2003. Those are the facts from OMB.

[doryfunk]

Ahh, personal insults as a defense. It seems to be all to common on this forum.

At any rate, you never countered the fact that Bush made nonsensical, conradictory statements to get votes from a confused and ignorant populace. Supporting strict construction of the constitution is a winner with the conservative voter. Unfortunately, so is supporting government(even federal government education). However, many people, including apparently the current President, fail to see the contradiction of these too positions.

[Mudboy Slim]

"Bush has proposed two budgets so far. From 2002 ($2.052 billion) to 2003 ($2.128billion), spending increases have totaled $76 billion or 3.57%. The DoD and Homeland Security have received the largest increases under Bushes first two budgets. Add to that, emergency spending for 9-11 and its obvious where the funds have been allocated. This funding is discretionary spending and is different then mandatory spending under existing law, for items like Social Security, medicare, medicad, income security and interest on the national debt. One more time. If homeland security and 9-11 emergency spending is excluded, nondefense spending rose by 3.3 percent in 2002 and is slated to decline by 0.4 percent in 2003. Those are the facts from OMB."

Very interesting debate tactic, my FRiend, introducing the facts into the discussion...LOL!! Can you direct me to where you acquired your figures? Does this include Social Security spending? Are the spending increase percentages adjusted for inflation? And if you know anywhere these Federal Spending figures are analyzed vis a vis Gross Domestic Product, I'd be especially obliged.

FReegards...MUD

[Reagan Man]

>>>Can you direct me to where you acquired your figures? Does this include Social Security spending? Are the spending increase percentages adjusted for inflation? And if you know anywhere these Federal Spending figures are analyzed vis a vis Gross Domestic Product, I'd be especially obliged.

Hey, anything for you Mud.

You will need Acrobat Reader for viewing some of these files.

First, here's the link to a summary file of the 2003 Bush Budget released this past Febuary.4,2002. And here's a link to the entire detailed breakdown.

In addition, here's a link to Historical Tables from 1940-2002. Lotsa good stuff maynard, opps sorry, I mean Mud. You'll find statistical breakdowns for some outlays, as a percent of total budget and percentages related to GDP.

Here's two more links. First to the FedStats website, which is filled with data, including info from many recent annual "Statistical Abstract" references..... and a second link to the Office of Management & Budget (OMB). And finally, here's a link to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Hope you find this extensive data helpful.

[Uncle Bill]

Bttt