Skip to comments.Conservatives, Cut Bush Slack
Posted on 06/22/2002 9:46:05 AM PDT by quidnunc
This summer will mark the 47th year since I took my first Republican job: as public relations director for the party in Minnesota. Since then I have rarely strayed from politics, or my party. I served as a staffer to two GOP congressmen, to a GOP governor, as a federal appointee to Richard Nixon and as a corporate executive who supported in Washington and Springfield much, if not all, of the Republican agenda.
You can describe me as a conservative. Thus I am qualified to say that although I dearly love conservatives, they tend to be querulous, disagreeable and threaten revolt when Republican office-holders don't please them. So it is now with George W. Bush. Here is a president who has surprised us all with the firmness and resolve he showed after 9/11. I must tell you I voted for him with less enthusiasm than I had for many of his predecessors. But his administration has pleased me often most notably on two issues: defense of America and social policy.
Yet, Bush has to get re-elected in a country that is evenly divided on philosophy. Thus he must occasionally on matters that sometimes offend conservatives dip into the other side's ideology for support. He has done so on three notable occasions: on the issue of steel protectionism, where he departed his free-market proclamations; on the signing of a campaign finance bill tailored by his enemies, and allowing his attorney general (in the words of Libertarian Nat Hentoff in the Washington Times) "to send disguised agents into religious institutions, libraries and meetings of citizens critical of government policy without a previous complaint, or reason to believe that a crime has been committed."
In a perfect political world, where conservatives are in the majority, these things would be sufficient to encourage a boycott of the polls. Either that or a protest vote for the Democratic opposition. But we are not in a perfect world. We conservatives have a president who didn't receive a majority of the votes, and has one house of Congress against him. He must make compromises to get re-elected. Conservatives who do not understand the nature of politics ought to stay in their air-conditioned ivory towers and refrain from political activity altogether. If they cannot adjudge the stakes in this election and the difference between Bush and an Al Gore or a John Kerry (D-Mass.) or a Dick Gephardt (D-Mo.), they are foolish indeed.
To read the remainder of this op/ed open the article via the link provided in the thread's header.
"Politics is a slow process and the only way to turn things around, is to elect more and more conservative candidates to public office. That means employing a strategy of practical policy based on political incrementalism, negotiation and compromise."
>>>Correct me if I am mistaken, but it appears that the Republicans have been trying this strategy since the thirties. After seventy years of apparent stagnant or failing results, I would ask, "Has it worked yet?" Or perhaps, "When are we going to be there?"
You're making my points. Look, any serious or even casual observer of American politics in the 20th century, knows all to well, that America was governed by the forces of creeping liberalism and softcore socialism for the better part of the last 70 years. It's very true that Republicans offered little if no opposition to the Democratic Party agenda. Old guard Democrats and liberals from the days of FDR's New Deal through LBJ`s Great Society policies, controlled the federal government with few breaks or exceptions. But things have taken a different course in the last 20 years. Politics in America has taken a more conservative path and if you can't see that, you're blind. This has lead to more political confrontation and gridlock.
Like I said, politics is a slow process.
America began taking on a different set of priorities and new a mindset, after the election of Ronald Reagan as President in 1980. Excessive taxation was reversed, as Reagan took the top tax rates from 70% down to 28%. He lifted regulations that were harming and impeding private business efforts. Reagan also boosted spending on national defense considerably and led us into the next phase of high technology weaponry. The last of these accomplishments won America and western civilization, The Cold War.
However, this was only a small beginning. The incremental changes made by the Reagan Revolution were enhanced and built upon by the next phase of conservative change, Newt Gingriches, Contract with America. 65% of the Contract with America was eventually signed into law by the southern liberal, turned opportunist and moderate, Bill Clinton. Gingrich had some success during his four years as Speaker.
>>>... after the Republican leadership fiasco in the House where a moral Republican leader could not be found to lead the fight to impeach an immoral President, the Republicans that were left completely abandoned their conservative agenda in an effort to keep a low profile with all those axes flying around. Since the Republicans abandoned the conservative agenda, they have progressively lost seats in every subsequent election.
Very true, but no one has ever said this would be an easy process. At times, Republicans have taken two steps forward and three steps back. But let's not forget, the majorities that Gingrich and Dole had, were small in comparison to what Democrats had in the 1930`s and the 1960`s, the hayday's of liberalism and social engineering policy.
>>>Bush lost the popular vote by a wide margin.
WRONG! The latest figures I have show the following:
Bush 50,459,624, or 48.38%
Gore 51,003,238, or 47.87%
That looks mighty close to me. Bush didn't win on any technicality, he won with Constituional law on his side. And it's my opinion, the last minute flurry of charges by the libdems, that Bush had a DUI/DWAI 25-30 earlier, took what most polling experts saw as a 1%-2% Bush victory in the popular and changed that into a slight popular vote margin by Algore.
>>>Perhaps, the single most important reason for his loss was his abandonment of his "read my lips" position.
That's nonsense. I don't know why you're even mentioning Bush41. These two men are father and son, they aren't Siamese twins! The main reason Bush41 lost to Bill Clinton, was due to the crazed candidacy of one Ross "The Little General" Perot. Have you forgotten so quick? Bush41 didn't lose because of his "read my lips" pledge. If anything, that was a small factor in the big picture of the 1992 campaign. The truth is Bush41 was a bad candidate, who didn't have the fire in the belly needed to fight the good political fight against the liar and phony, Bill Clinton. Some have said, Bush41 was also a sick man at the time, with physical aliments that slowed down his overall campaign efforts.
>>>Bush Jr. genuinely believes government is a part of the solution to many of our problems.
In many cases, it is and Ronald Reagan thought so too.
It is not my intention to do away with government. It is rather to make it work -- work with us, not over us; stand by our side, not ride on our back. Government can and must provide opportunity, not smother it; foster productivity, not stifle it.
First Inaugural Address, January 20, 1981
>>>I will repeat it for the memory impaired. When Republicans run on a left-leaning, moderate or even modest conservative agenda, they lose elections. They lose these elections because they have not given conservatives a reason to vote for them.
With the demise of the Gingrich mini-Revolution, on many occasions, Republicans have slipped into a go-along to get-along strategy with liberal Democrats. Personally, I do not support this type of strategy in most cases and believe it is harmful to the conservative agenda, which is still at the heart of the Republican platform. This is why, you will find me preaching, time and time again, day in and day out, here on FreeRepublic, the need to elect more conservative minded individuals to the Congress. The political means of getting more conservatives elected to office, is through the political party process. In this case, that is through the Republican Party.
>>>Indeed, if we are not going to quickly restore living under the Constitution, then the sooner that some state secedes then the sooner we will have a choice between socialism or a Constitutional Republic that restores individual freedom and property rights.
In case you don't know it, Jim Robinson doesn't want talk of secession on FreeRepublic. I've told you about this extremist nonsense before, but its apparent you don't respect JimRob's posting guidelines and directives. Other then that, I have no comment about this ridiculous rhetoric.
>>>ReaganMan would have you believe that I am a pessimist.
You are a pessimist, not to mention a fringe extremist and reactionary absolutist.
>>>My greatest fear is that Freepers and Republicans will adopt the same strategy recommended by ReaganMan. That is the same formula for failure that Republicans keep adopting in losing election after losing election.
Oh really now. LMBO. You are something else. This is a bold face lie! Republicans have been winning every election for Congress since 1994 and a Republican controls the Presidency too. The reason Republicans don't control the Senate is bcause of Jim Jeffords switching parties. STOP the lies and distortions already.
>>>... let the weak kneed and spineless Republicans lose. But if I am right, it will not be a bad thing at all for the Democrats to take control of both houses of Congress this fall.
This is a moronic strategy that is supported by you and the other politcal malcontents that dwell here on FreeRepublic. You can stuff that crappola. Ain't gonna happen. The people who support this extremist agenda, are the same people who voted for Buchanan, Browne, Hagelin and Philips in the last presidential election and recieved a grand total of 1% of all votes. That was 1,066,482 votes for the fringe candidates, out of some 105,412,329 total votes cast for president. Get real.
>>"Punish" is the not the correct thought. Conservatives need to hold Republicans accountable for abandoning their conservative philosophy.
You have no desire to hold Republicans accountable. You want liberals to win elected office. Why? You have some wild idea, that in doing this, your fringe extremist candidates will have a better chance of getting elected, at some future date. This is pure rubbish and absolute hogwash!
Listen up folks. Before we can return America to more of the Constitutional intentions of the Founding Fathers, we first have to deconstruct the deeply imbedded liberal-social policies and programs that have given us an enourmous federal government, with far too much power and far too much influence into the lives of the American people.
In addition, before we can return America to more constituional governance, of a smaller and less intrusive federal government, we must first have real tax reform. The excessive taxation that feeds the bloated federal bureaucracy, must be reduced and better yet reformed. We must radically change the way the federal government is funded. We have to return more of the taxpayers money, back to the hard working American's who pay those taxes.
Since the earliest beginnings of this nation, we have always had an ever expanding federal goverment. Every Congress and every president has added to the size and scope of the federal government. I believe President Reagan tried to make some incremental change and had some limited success. I believe President Bush is attempting to do the same thing. I don't know how successful Bush will be in the end, but so far he is on the right track and has had some limited accomplishments. Some of the things the Bush administration has accomplished, have pleased conservatives like myslef. Others have not. All in all, I would say, so far, so good. But retaking the Senate and increasing Republican majorities in the House this fall, should be a priority for all rank and file Republicans, all conservative Republicans and all conservative minded individuals everywhere.
>>>The defense of liberty is not extremeism. And if only 1% of the people share my beliefs, then we are the one per cent to whom the other 99% should be listening.
You're blowing a lot of hot air and nothing more. You're fringe, extremist political agenda offers nothing to conservatives. The failures of third party candidates is part of the historical record in American politics. You want a revolution in America. PERIOD! You want states to secede from the union. What you want is chaos and anarchy in America. You want to destroy America, then rebuild her into your ideal image of a fringe extremist, utopian society. I won't let that happen. I will fight you and your ilk at every turn and if that means getting bloody about it, so be it! But you will not succeed. I guarantee you that.
Bush 50,459,624, or
Gore 51,003,238, or
Sorry, I missed that.
I don't consider incremental conservative policy as tinkering. But I do consider, calling for states to secede from the union and/or talk of a second American revolution, to be "fringe wacko" rhetoric. You got that part right.
"The paradox with me is how any friend to the union of our country can, in conscience, contribute a cent to the maintenance of anyone who perverts the sanctity of his desk to the open inculcation of rebellion, civil war, dissolution of government, and the miseries of anarchy."
Thomas Jefferson to William Plumer, 1815.
IMHO, as long as you're concentrating on the symptoms and ignoring the cause, you're just tinkering, because anything you do is easily undone or circumvented. No lasting change results from it. The secessionists and revolutionaries are a tiny albeit vocal minority. Others, like the Constitution Party are less extreme, and closer to traditional conservativism. To me the disconnect in your philosophy is the "negotiate, compromise, and live to fight another day" tactics with regard to the liberals, and the "my way or the highway" stance toward those within the ranks of conservatives.
This was the exact intention of the Founding Fathers. The political will of the American people, as expressed, through their elected representatives, shall rule the direction that this nation takes. It has always been this way and it always remain so. Total lasting change is a fallacy. Mankind doesn't do well when he sits still. We are forever moving in some direction.
You will make no progress towards real change by saying the cause of our problems today, is a result of the constitutional ignorance of the American people. You have to appeal to folks at a different level of consciousness, or awareness. You have to appeal to their economic conditions, in otherwords to their pocketbook. You have to portray government as an entity that promotes waste, fraud and abuse of the taxpayers money. You have to educate people to see things through a conservative viewpoint, before you can teach them about Constitutional priorities and principles.
>>>To me the disconnect in your philosophy is the "negotiate, compromise, and live to fight another day" tactics with regard to the liberals, and the "my way or the highway" stance toward those within the ranks of conservatives.</i.
I don't have a "my way or the highway" stance, as you say. But my political philosophy, for all intents and purposes, is the Reagan political philosophy, of mainstream conservatism and GOP republicanism.
As Reagan said:
"When I began entering into the give and take of legislative bargaining in Sacramento, a lot of the most radical conservatives who had supported me during the election didn't like it. "Compromise" was a dirty word to them and they wouldn't face the fact that we couldn't get all of what we wanted today. They wanted all or nothing and they wanted it all at once. If you don't get it all, some said, don't take anything.
"I'd learned while negotiating union contracts that you seldom got everything you asked for. And I agreed with FDR, who said in 1933: 'I have no expectations of making a hit every time I come to bat. What I seek is the highest possible batting average.'
"If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, and that's what I told these radical conservatives who never got used to it."
Ronald Reagan, from his autobiography, An American Life
I repeat again, politics is a slow process.
I understand what you're saying about the constitutional ignorance of the American people. I accept that. I don't accept that those we choose to represent us should be equally ignorant, and do not believe that they are, and am somewhat dismayed that we allow them to pretend to be.
In absolute terms, you are correct. Within the context of American history, the legacy of Wilson and FDR have produced significant change that has lasted for seven decades or more, and unless it is reversed will endure to the end of the Republic, and will have contributed greatly to it's demise.
Well my friend, that's why we have to elect more and more conservative minded people to the Congress. The people who have the best understanding of the Constitution, are conservatives. But as I keep saying, there just aren't enough conservatives to go around and make a difference. We've got to pull in those rank and file Republicans and independents who realize what the Constitution is all about, in order to build a governing coalition that will a chance to advance, the GOP platform and push the conservative agenda.
American politics is very complicated and the overall process is very slow. The one percent crowd will never have their way and simply can't effect the other 99-percent of us, without compromising their own agenda. They don't want to do that and therefore, they will remain in political limbo, forever! As I like to say, people can discuss all the philosophy and ideology they want, but without an accepted and successful political party, to represent your platform and agenda, you will never be able to assure yourself of political victory on election day. NEVER!
No doubt about it. Too much of the New Deal is still around today. Phasing out Social Security and allowing people to be financially responsible for their own retirement is good social policy. As for the demise of the Republic, I disagree with you. I don't see it in the cards. There is no reason why the USA can't be here 100-200-500 or even 1000 years from now.
This sounds reasonable to me. What percent of our "conservative" agenda would you estimate we are getting from the current administration?
Could you cite a few specifics that give your estimate credence? There can't be any of it on the spending side. Virtually all of Clinton's EO's are still in force. Partial birth abortion is still legal. We have a "Ted Kennedy" approved education plan. We have more federal employees, another federal agency up our behinds, this time with flashlights and ever-increasing federal handouts almost across the board. You say that we've offset all of this with something. What?
Man oh man, you guys are so predictable. I was going to include a short list of items, but then I figured, why. You're bound to ask me the standard question and so you have.
I'll think about it and see what I have in my document archive of past responses. Right now I'm busy.
evidently, the "big" 'man doesn't have a life. he probably keeps a parrot just to argue with.
It IS a fair question, is it not? BTW, I'm not one of "you guys". I'm just plain old mild-mannered Uncle Sham, one of your fellow freepers searching for answers. I won't bite, that's a promise. :-)
It took you only thirteen minutes to come up with your "fifty-percent return" estimate. It shouldn't take that long to cite just what prompted such an number. Perhaps such a listing would be enough to bring "us guys" around to your way of thinking.
Maybe. But even under conservative Republican leadership, the federal government continues to expand in scope and authority, taking more and more of the available resources for government at all levels, and excercising more and more control over the states and local governments. There might still be a USA 200 years from now, but if the trend from 1940 to the present continues, by then the "States" part of it will be little more than a postal designation.
You can't be taken seriously.
You keeping count of time? LOL I have a life outside of FreeRepublic and if I choose not to answer a certain question, in your time frame, or for that matter, if I choose not to answer your questions at all, thats my right. Having said that, I find myself agreeing with PresBush well over half of the time. The idea that there isn't much legislation becoming law, can be viewed in two ways. First, there are some 50 bills that have passed through the House and are being held up in the Senate by the obstructionist Tom Daschle. OTOH, the fact that little legislation has been signed into law by PresBush, could be viewed as a positive accomplishment by Bush&CO. As a conservative, the fewer legislative actions there are in Congress, the better I like it. We shall see what things look like at the end of his Presidency to make a final decision.
A few observations on your remarks. A significant number of Clinton's last minute EO`s never made it through the official process. Many were never listed in the Federal Registar and others were immediately pulled when Bush&Co took power. I believe the Education dept should be abolished, so I'm somewhat ambivilant to the entire subject and didn't support the bill that was signed by Bush. But the truth is, he campaigned on education being his #1 priority. So why are you so surprised he signed it? He didn't get vouchers, but he did get his twin cornerstones of accountability and responsibility. Making airport security personnel, federal employees was a bi-partisan decision that most Americans agreed with.
If you have anymore areas of contention, involving some Bush policy or decision and you'd like me to address that specifically, fire away.
Moving right along.
Even though President Bushes tax cut plan was, too small for my tastes and the effect dates too far in the out years, it nonetheless was a tremendous accomplishment. The President's 14.5% increase in military spending for 2003 is the largest increases since Reagan. Bush signed two military two pay raises and increased medical/housing benefits for our men and women in uniform. His AG/SG directive that the RKBA is an individual right and not a collective right, was a significant victory for 2nd amendment supporters, like me. Bushes throwing out the Kyoto protocol and disposing of the ABM Treaty were two victories for conservatives. Another conservative victory, was Bush securing funding for a NMDS (SDI). Bushes decision that the US won't have anything to do with the International Criminal Court was another victory for conservatives. Bushes opposition to lifting the embargo on Castro's Cuba, was a victory for Florida conservatives of Cuban heritage. Bush recinded stricter standards for arsenic and CO2. Bush signed a repeal of ergonomics rules that would have hurt small home businesses. Bushes energy policy was pro-nuclear power, pro exploration/drilling and supported reducing oil imports.
Abortion is a passionate issue for me. The fact that nothing has been done on PBA`s, has bothered me, but its still early. However, being a pro-life advocate, I can tell you, if you don't believe Bush is a pro-lifer, then you don't know what your talking about. Bushes halting of government funding, for further destruction of human embryo's, shows his respect for human life and his continued opposition to abortion. Bushes signature that eliminated taxpayer funding of overseas abortions, shows Bushes further support for the right to life of the unborn. Bushes budget proposals for 2002 and 2003 eliminate funds for the UNFPA, the United Nations Population Fund, despite the fact that Congress appropriated $34 million for the program in December. The administration also plans to cut the USAID portion of the international family planning budget by $21.5 million in 2003.
I'll defend the President's conservative record where I can. It hasn't been a perfect record, but its been far better then the President's detractors here on FR, have made it out to be.
Not on your life.
Let me repeat. I given up on you.
You have listed many of the reasons why the Republican Party is not getting the job done and needs a wake call that can not be spun. Look at the record of the Senate under Trent Lott. And by way of beginning, let me shed some light on election statistics for you. With working support from some Democrats, the Congress elected in 1994 was very close to veto proof and filibuster proof. The Republican Senate prior to the 2000 election was a five seat margin. Jeffords "so-called defection" which was only the next step for a RINO, turned over the Senate only because Republicans lost a net five seats in the 2000 election. Your characterization of "Republicans have been winning every election for Congress since 1994" is either spin or thinking befitting Peter or Alice. Republicans have had a net loss of seats in both the House and the Senate in every election since 1994. The Republican leadership and the existing Republican Party failed in building strength. And they failed because as you so aptly pointed out, "Republicans have slipped into a go-along to get-along strategy with liberal Democrats."
>>>... let the weak kneed and spineless Republicans lose. But if I am right, it will not be a bad thing at all for the Democrats to take control of both houses of Congress this fall.<<<<
The people who support this extremist agenda, are the same people who voted for Buchanan, Browne, Hagelin and Philips in the last presidential election...
I have voted the straight Republican ticket in every election since 1972. During the 1998 and 2000 elections, there were a number of Freepers advocating third parties candidates. The 1998 Congressional losses were acknowledged to be a result of a conscious decision of the religious right to sit out the election. Bush is in office because they did not sit out the 2000 election. Contrast either of Reagan's elections with Bush II's. What do you think accounts for the stark difference in results? Was Reagan more charming or was he more conservative? I will proffer that the difference is not in the electorate, but in the contrasts between the agendas of the candidates. Reagan unabashedly told the electorate he intended to cut the federal government down to size. And he was going to start by cutting off its tenacles on the money tree. Look at Bush's tax cut proposal. It is classic Washington legalese, <<Saying I am a Republican and I am a conservative is not making a difference. Taxes have increased at least three time since Reagan took office. Reagan, himself caved on capital gains. Bush I capitulated in 1990. And Clinton enacted a record tax increase in 1993 taking the government's cut of GDP and personal income to record amounts. The Republican Party is not getting the job done. At best, Republicans have managed a decrease in the rate of the increase in the growth of govenment and socialism. WonderMan's Republican cheerleading is analogous to Peter's decision not to grow up Alice's wishful thinking that things are not really as they seem, just because federal expenditures have been outrageously high since 1913 and have grown every year as a percentage of GDP doesn't mean we are falling into socialism. Of Course not.
"we first have to deconstruct the deeply imbedded liberal-social policies and programs that have given us an enourmous federal government, with far too much power and far too much influence into the lives of the American people. In addition, before we can return America to more constituional governance, of a smaller and less intrusive federal government, we must first have real tax reform...We must radically change the way the federal government is funded...Every Congress and every president has added to the size and scope of the federal government. I believe President Reagan tried to make some incremental change and had some limited success. I believe President Bush is attempting to do the same thing...Bush...has had some limited accomplishments.
Limited is the only operative word that applies to Bush. Education spending-trashed another 20 billion of your tax dollars by throwing more good money after hundreds of billions of proven waste before. A tax cut that is miniscule in amount, has no simplification and in fact increases complexity of the tax code, is mostly deferred ten years into the future, is Congressionally optional in the future, and expands government spending is all smoke. By WonderMan's own admission or thinking, it has become virtually impossible to reverse the growth of government. I don't know about the rest of you, but I am not going to allow government to keep growing and I intend to cut it down to its real Constitutional limits. Modern America now has a bigger tax burden than serfs during the Dark Ages. Both spouses or parents are forced to turn their children over to government sanctioned (regulated) child care or government operated schools, because government takes all of the wages of one to pay the taxes imposed on the earnings of the first. The second earner is not working for the family, but for the state. And the problem gets worse every single year. Only Reagan, and for a very brief interval the 1994 Congress made a difference. The difference they made has been obliterated and the relentless growth of government has returned. And there are few voices in the Republican Party saying, "No more growth in government." Even Newt's approach was tempered. His plan was to halt the growth, and over time our population and economy would grow large enough that the relative effect of government would be less. Newt wasn't really pushing for a reduction. I don't want to have to call Washington every time I need to flush a toilet. I don't need anyone in government to tell me how large my house should be, how it should be wired, plumbed, heated or air conditioned. And the very last thing I want is my water rationed, my gas restricted, or for government to be responsible for the air I breathe. And the idea that our government might turn control of my climate over to anybody is outrageously insane. Why? Government can't run a train, the post office or keep from burning down Yellowstone Park, let alone run the earth's climate. The UN exists only as a conduit for the US to give money to foreigners, because most Americans would revolt if our government gave money directly to most of the causes funded through the UN. Compared to the rest of the world (UN), the United States is still the example and the model that they all aspire to. Too bad, we keep tearing down what we used to have.
What you want is chaos and anarchy in America. "In case you don't know it, Jim Robinson doesn't want talk of secession on FreeRepublic."
Jim Rob is quite capable of speaking for himself. It would be too ironic for words if FreeRepublic wanted to restrict free speech. WonderMan has trouble seeing the forest because of the trees. Revolution and secession are not even remotely related. Revolutions are how dictators take over countries. It is also how tyrannical governments put down peaceful secessions. The Declaration of Independence has never been formerly codified in US law. Lawyers from the left would argue it is of historical interest, but has no place in how modern America is governed.
The Ideals expressed in the Declaration are fundamental to the foundation of freedom and to the ideals of the United States. Either government derives its power from the consent of the governed or it has become a tyrannt. The possessor of citizenship and property in the United States has something of considerable value and carries some responsibilities. Under the ideals expressed in the Declaration, each citizen has the right to carefully consider the benefits bestowed by his citizenship on his way of life and the benefits that accrue to his property within US jurisdictions. For the sake of argument, suppose B. A. Conservative decided to take his property and secede from the United States. The United States would be within its rights to keep me from entering the US and could prohibit my exporting anything from my country. Now if my country, and it need be nothing larger than the house where I live, was not located on an international border or water way, I would have a real problem of earning a living. And if I did not have adequate land and water to provide the basic necessities of life, and the US barred exports to my country, I would have an even bigger problem. How do you think the local city/county, state and US governments would respond to my secession? My guess is that as soon as my taxes were overdue, they would use force to confiscate my property and give it to someone else in exchange for the money due in taxes. Now if the US did this to Canada or Mexico, it would be considered an act of War. If I responded as Canada or Mexico might by using armed force to prevent the invasion of my country, that is with armed resistance when someone else came to occupy my property, I would be labeled a criminal or a revolutionary. While the discussion is limited to only one person and one parcel the discussion seems moot. But what if Delaware or New Hampshire seceded. There is very little federally owned property in either state, and treaties could easily deal with the issue of federally owned property or a fair structured financial purchase could be worked out. Both of these states do have either international borders or frontage on an international body of water or both. I don't think the Declaration of Independence is dead. And if it is dead in the thinking of Americans, then I definitely don't want to be a part of the United States. Where the ideals expressed in the Declaration no longer apply, it is not the Declaration that is dead; it is freedom itself. The right of secession is all that stands between you and me and tyranny.
As for chaos and anarchy, no that is not what I seek. But if the US continues on its present path, the value of our money is going to go to zero. The obligations that the federal government has agreed to accept can not be borne through taxation. The empty promises of the Democrats and Republicans alike have created unfunded liabilities that are not possible to fund as promised. Two groups of Americans are going to be pitched in political battle against one another. The young will not be able to shoulder the burdens imposed by the elderly and the elderly can not wage pitched battles against the young. Politicians will not be able to stand the political heat that results and they will turn to the universal tool of all governments throughout history. They will simply print more money. History says that when the Weimar Republic, the French Republic, the Roman empire and any other empire drive the value of money to zero, that chaos and anarchy are the inevitable result.
ReaganMan can understand this; WonderMan may not. Actions have consequences. And no matter how long people think they can live in Wonderland and soar with Peter, sooner or later gravity takes over and reality sets in. Reality is coming. The United States will get its first dose in 2008, when Medicare goes irreversibly into red ink. The problems are going to magnified in spades in 2012, when Social Security enter red ink. There are no assets in the so-called SS trust fund. All that is there are political promises of the politicians from the past who collected the money and spent it. All they left behind is a promissory note that they will raise taxes when the "so-called bonds" need to be cashed. A lot of young Americans are writing off social security as a part of their retirement planning. They know they are going to have to fund their own retirements, hence the huge growth of IRA's and 401's. When Democrats can't fund SS and Medicare for their beneficiaries through payroll taxes and/or income taxes, which pot of money will they come for next? WonderMan thinks I am a pessimist. Maybe pessimists are just looking farther down the road. Or maybe they outgrew Alice and Peter. Or maybe they recognize the mad-hatters in Washington for waht they really are.
This is the time and the discussion that FreeRepublic needs to have. Freepers need to give some serious thought to these issues. We do not have many elections left before the chaos is imposed on us and it becomes too late to change the course of history. FreeRepublic has an important voice. It is a voice that will be heard in the Halls of Congress. AND if it is a unified voice, it will be loud enough to eventually be echoed by the Republicans in Congress and in turn be heard as the voice of reason by most of the American people. I am an optimist. I think FreeRepublic can make a difference. I am an optimist. I don't think it is too late to make a difference. I am a realist. I know that our country is on a down-hill path into socialism and bottomless financial abyss. I am a realist. I know that time is running out and that if we don't make a difference, that the time will come when it will no longer matter. Chaos and anarchy are the inevitable result of the destruction of money.
ReaganMan has his heart in the right place. And he has the right hero. I hope that the Alice and Peter that are clouding his judgment can think through the mirror and see far enough into reality to see what is coming. Amtrak is derailed again; and Republicans make the wrong choices every time. Unions in heavy industry were going underwater. Bush throws the unions a life boat and torpedos free trade. I could go on and on till it just gets sickening. Have I made my point?
You are one of the biggest whiners and complainers on FreeRepublic. You try and hide your hatred for President Bush and the American people behind a facade of convoluted and blusterous rhetoric. You've been attempting for some time now, to pull me into one of your endless tit-for-tat exchanges, so you can go off on some ridiculous tangent about how the sky is falling and the United States of America is about to end. Nothing could be further from the truth, chicken little.
In case you don't know it, Jim Robinson doesn't want talk of secession on FreeRepublic."
>>>Jim Rob is quite capable of speaking for himself.
JimRob has spoken on this subject of secession and over throwing the government on numerous occasions, yet you still refuse to respect his words.
>>>I am an optimist. --- I am a realist.
You are neither an optimist or a realist and your own words exhibit that fact. The only FReepers that agree with you, are the other members of that now famous FR club of social misfits, political malcontents and wild eyed militants, or as they are better known in political circles, the rightwing fringe extremists and reactionary absolutists. You all deserve each other.
No prob. Your publik skool ejication is showing. Besides you are about the best spokesman for authoritarinaism we could ask for. Your kneejerk statism is just as funny (and tragic) as kneejerk liberalism. Except that you are not as charming or quaint as Teddy No-Pants.
I printed it out. You have got the right perspective. The Peter Pans and Alices on FR and in this need to wake up.
Indeed, each of the last 5 major non-court-mandated policy shifts have come through swift, early and decisive leadership. It took FDR a mere 2 years to give us Social Security, Johnson 2 years to give us the "Great Society", Reagan a year to give us tax relief, Clinton a year to effectively erase the last traces of that relief and the Gingrich Congress 2 years to deliver on the harder portions of the Contract with America.
Even if compromise were working for us conservatives, time is rapidly running out. The Social Security time bomb will start to explode in roughly 2016 as its expenses grow beyond its revenue and those IOUs from Uncle Sam's right pocket in the "Trust Fund" start coming due to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars a year, with a complete collapse about 25 years after that. If nothing changes, more than 50 cents on every dollar earned will have to go back to the federal government just to keep the welfare state at its current levels, with taxes continuing to increase every year. Somehow, I don't see a large part of the taxpaying part of the public bending over and grabbing their ankles (does the Boston Tea Party ring a bell?) or the tax-consuming part of the public willingly give up their largesse (the flip side of the Tea Party).
The current state of political compromise is also unteniable, as it chokes off the future for illusionary short-term gains. Even if we were to offer nearly-full implementation of Hillarycare in exchange for making the limited Bush tax cuts permanent (and I doubt the RATs would jump at even that, prefering to wait until their next successful candidate to try again), the net result would be even higher taxes than doing nothing to support Hillarycare.
That brings me to what can be done. Really, there are two choices; a conservative takeover of the Republican Party and secession. I'll take the latter first. I fully-believe that the federal government will react as forcefully as it did when the South seceeded in 1861. Unfortunately, the Second Civil War will have the same result as the first, it won't take 4 years, and the Constitution will no longer have George Washington's signature on it.
That leaves a full conservative takeover of the Republican Party. Do note that I did not say supplant the Republican Party with a third party because that would give the Democrats complete power for at least 4 years. If the Democratic Party were to seize power anytime between now and the explosion of Social Security, there would be too much to try to fix. Even if Bush were to hang on until 2008, unless he suddenly grows a backbone, there may well not be enough time to fix things.
I said it all, "Pure unadulterated horsecrap!"
The only thing your buddy B.A. nailed was a bad case of anti-American defeatism and your support for his rhetoric shows you're as demented as he is. You fringe extremists live on the outer limits of the twilight zone. You can cry wolf all you want, people aren't listening. Your philosophy and politics remain an utter failure and your desire for an America in chaos will never be realized.
When you pull your head out of your butt and want to engage in civil discourse, let me know. Till such time, you'll remain a misfit and a loser. A real nobody! And I will treat you accordingly. Now crawl back under your rock and rejoin all your slimy friends.