Conservatives, Cut Bush Slack

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.

>>>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.

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.

Your name should actually be "WonderMan". Like many Republicans and conservatives, you let your desires over ride your thinking and fall into the Peter Pan/Alice in Wonderland trap of wishful thinking. Things could be different, if, and that is a huge IF, things were just working out a little different. Repeating the same mistakes, repeating the same misguided efforts, and electing the same people who have failed before is not going to make the difference you want in the future. Nominating Bob Dole says mountains about the Republican Party. "The truth is Bush41 was a bad candidate, who didn't have the fire in the belly needed to fight the good political fight..."
"Republicans have slipped into a go-along to get-along strategy with liberal Democrats. Personally, I do not support this type of strategy.."
"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.'

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?

First things first, incrementalism only works in one direction. Unfortunately for us, that is the liberal direction. Note the first two steps in dismantling the 1981 Reagan tax cuts (the 1986 tax compromise and Bush41's cave) and the encroachment of Hillarycare after the rare failure to implement it en-masse. Also note the complete failure to hack away at the tenents of the welfare state outside of swift, early and decisive conservative leadership.

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.

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.