Skip to comments.Was Clinton More Conservative Than Bush?
Posted on 07/26/2002 1:55:24 PM PDT by WeirdadEdited on 04/22/2004 12:34:15 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
President Bush may be repeating the sins of his father. Although elected on a Reaganesque, tax-cutting platform, the White House has veered to the left.
President Bush has signed a bill to regulate political speech, issued protectionist taxes on imported steel and lumber, backed big-spending education and farm bills, and endorsed massive new entitlements for mental health care and prescription drugs. When the numbers are added up, in fact, it looks like President Bush is less conservative than President Clinton.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Spending/GDP and revenues/GDP are obviously skewed by fast growing or slowing GDP.
Question 1: Is Bill Clinton still a worthless piece of human debris?
Answer 1: Yes
Question 2: Is Dubya an opportunistic errand-boy for the Eastern establishment?
Answer 2: Yes.
That was and is the Only issue with this President, and it is why we must win the Senate back in the fall.
Look at the way the demonrats are blocking the Judicial nominees. That is the real issue, because they institute their immoral social policy through the court system.
Frankly this President is not as conservative as I would like, but he was light years ahead of Clintoon and Gore.
I would much rather have someone like Alan Keyes, Howard Phillips or Pat Buchanan as President, but Bush is better than any democrat.
Did everyone already forget that Bush Reinstated the Mexico City Policy that Clintoon took away?
Did everyone forget all the Conservative Judicial Nominations that Bush has made?
I could care less about any politicians economic policy if they are not Pro-Life, Pro-Gun, Anti-Homosexual, Pro-Family Value.
I would vote for a Candidate in a second if he were Anti-Sodomite, Pro-Life, Pro-Gun, Anti-Blasphemy, Anti-Porn, Anti-Fornication, Anti-Drug, Anti-Adultery ect... and wanted to raise taxes to 90% levels.
Social policy is far more important to me, and on that Bush is lightyears ahead of clintoon.
Where we lucked out was when Reagan destroyed the Evil Empire. Willie no longer had masters and didn't have to follow orders.
He was such a corrupt and corruptable person who surrounded himself with those similarly inclined, that, instead of following up on his indoctrination, he was governed by his corrupt character.
Thus, we shall always be grateful for Reagan's destruction of the Evil Empire and the fact that filthy and corrupt Willie was true to his basic character and never was motivated by principle of any stripe.
According to some people, yes it does. Dick Morris had a piece posted yesterday about the need for the GOP to run Powell for Prez in 2004 and ignore all his leftie values if we want to "win"
They claim that Conservative values won't sell and for the survival of the Republican party this shift to center is necessary.
What they don't mention however is why in the world Conservatives would care what happened to the R's if their policies differ only marginally from the rats..
Big push on from the Ford wingers to just chuck everything Conservative and become a sick parody of algor and the party of corruption.
It was those freemasons again, wasn't it?
What is Hong Kong's government...is it like ours?
"Rewards are necessary in order to make the soldiers see the advantage of beating the enemy; thus, when you capture spoils from the enemy, they must be used as rewards, so that all your men may have a keen desire to fight, each on his own account."
Sun Tzu "The Art of War"
The United states is full of people who get it backwards. They think that if they elect the right people the job is done. That is not even close to how the system works.
Dubya, like all successful politicians, does just that. It is the Goldwater, Mondales, and Dukakises of the world who think they can lead the people where the politicians want to go.
Bush Sr. didn't think the economy needed leader ship in 1992. It didn't. But the public thought it did. They elected Bill Clinton on the "its the economy stupid!" platform.
Dubya will do what the public wants. That will not please you. So you hope you can Dubya can be convinced to do what you want. That won't work on any successful politician. When you have convinced the public to your point of view, the job is done. The government will do exactly what you want. If the pubic is never convinced, then what you want to have happen will never happen.
It is officially run by mainland China now, but they have been somewhat hands off fortunately.
Economically, Hong Kong is like us, but even more so.
Clinton also mocked George Washington's Farewell Address, with one of his own, which paraphrased Washington in Clinton's denial of Washingtonian values. His War on Serbia was a major step towards establishing the Fabian Socialist dream of an Atlantic Union, which was no accident. His use of the American Military to impose a Marxist regime in Haiti, and to promote an asexual value system, was Leftwing beyond anything comparable in American History.
Bush has supported a lot of stupid "Liberal" programs, but I think that at heart he has the Conservative instincts that Clinton's whole life is a denial of. Bush's problem is that he is getting some very, very poor advice.
Our answer is, of course, to rally Conservatives to speak out on matters of principle with a firm assurance; to let those on both sides of the aisle in Washington know that we are awake, and looking for opportunities; that we will rally around any stand for real principle; but we will never blindly endorse what we know to be fundamentally wrong, however much we may like the mistaken ones who propose it.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
This requires specific actions on the part of conservatives that want to make sure their views are heard. One recommendation is to support these folks. They are well-organized and are making a difference. Plus, you gotta love the anti-Daschle attack ad they ran in South Dakota.
We have been played by BOTH partys or should I say The Duopoly for decades and they have both taken the Nation(F*** a Homeland) to the present state where Every Solution given by the Duopoly is socialist and the American people say OK........I say BS.
The Founding Fathers and every generation until the Baby Boomer Generation would have revolted by now. To the Ramparts Men!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh well give the people, the Goy, the peasents some Reality TV mixed with Ultimate Fighting Contests(Circuses), plenty of booze(Wine) and Prozac and they will except anything. Just make sure those chains are comfortable if you please.
We seem to have excepted a never ending war that by the Bush administration own admission will last for generations?????? Nothing wrong with that picture Ha,ha,ha,ha!
Declaration of War?? "Ve don't need no stinking declaration of war to make war."
Wear your chains proudly and learn to Love The Millenium War. All courtesy of the Duopoly, presently under administration by the REPO faction.
But don't you worry now, the DEMO faction will run the game the next election cycle(One term for the Bushman) and we can blame it on them.
Regards from Hardyville,
Their philosphophy is jump in and get it over with, the RepublicRATS will dip in a toe, and then a foot, and then get into up to the knees, and then wade in up to the pecunies - aka cajones (oh, wait they have none of those, o.k. the frijoles) - and then so on.
THE END RESULT is that both the 'shirts' and the 'skins' will eventually be submerged and baptised in the name of the Beast known as the U.N. Zbigniew Brzenski said as much back in 1972. He was national security advisor to the Big Cahohna Crook himself.
The author being a Cato institute member and quoted by Fox news would lead many to accept what is said as having some measure of credibility (as opposed to Elton John being quoted on CNN about issues pertaining to this Republic). The issue of contention that most Bush lovers here would protest about, is the subtle liberal spin made with regards to Clinton. This article amounts to nothing more than Bush bashing most would claim.
Well, I couldn't vote for Bush because of his insider credentials (his Dad being the biggest), and I couldn't vote for Cheney on account of Constitutional grounds pertaining to residency. Oh, hogwash about that. BOTH men were residents of the same state. Moreover, Cheney is even a bigger insider than Bush and there's more'n enough whispers floating around about his connections, than to amount to mere innuendo.
You know, its pretty lame when the biggest crook president (and insider hack - one who would've ammounted to diddle-squat if but for his Rockefeller connections and even nominating one as vice president when his own resigned in disgrace), who resigned himself in disgrace said that "Bush is a lightweight, there's nothing there. He's the sort of person one appoints to things."
The Cato institute is a non-partisan public policy research foundation. It is named after Cato's Letters, the libertarian pamphlets that helped lay the philosophical foundation for the American Revolution, and takes its inspiration from the struggle of America's founding generation to secure liberty through limited government and rule of law.
This dovetails with the John Birch Society (and its publication The New American that I have a subscription to), and the American Conservative Union (that I receive bulletins from concerning Ron Paul and many publications of the ACU detailing the henious activities Clinton and cronies at ali perpetrated on the American people quite a few of which compromised national security that charges of treason should be shouted loud and clear from coast to coast), and other organizations also.
I knew that Bush wasn't the President that this Republic needs. That's why I voted for Pat Buchannan; I had to vote my principles and above all my consience. I know that a great many of you Bush lovers will devote great effort to flame me, and to stoop to the same tactics taken by so many liberal - the ad hominem attack - because on a basic level I'm attacking your poster boy.
Flame what you will, but I've known Pat's platform for over a decade and agree with much of his principles and viewpoints; his character maligned by the liberal media notwithstanding. I knew that there was no chance that he could win the Presidency (just there was no real chance of another non-establishment conservative like him not having any credible chance of election to the presidency, even though he was probably the most intelligent of all the candidates. I refer to Dr. Alan Keyes. But he is, well, you know, well that would never do). I leave with this quote from that man, who if he was a candidate, I would've voted for without wasting a heartbeat worth of thought:
Bureauracies are inherently antidemocratic. Bureaucrats derive their power from their position in the structure, not from their relations with the people they are supposed to serve. The people are not masters of the bureaucracy, but its clients. They receive its services, but only insofar as they conform to its authority. The bureaucracy is like a computer; it responds only to those who address it in the proper form. In this sense, a bureaucratic government program has a double meaning: The program serves its clients, but it also programs them.
Thanks to this programming effect, bureaucratic government can become the enemy of self-discipline. A self-disciplined person acts in accordance with goals and priorities that reflect their own distinctive moral identity. The client of a bureaucracy has no distinctive identity. Each one is processed, and consequently takes on the characteristics demanded by the process. This has meaning beyond being assigned a number or the other superficial marks of clientage. The welfare bureaucracy, for instance, offers help to people with certain characteristics. Those who feel in need of this help will modify their behavior in order to take on the characteristics. If help goes most easily to unmarried women with one child or more, potential clients will modify their behavior accordingly, in order to become real in terms of the bureaucratic process. Where the perceived need is extensive enough, the bureauracy may reprogram whole communities and destroy their integrity. Like a computer virus, it turns previous patterns of action in new directions. Once behavior has been modified, the client depends upon the bureaucy for further instructions. By accepting its discipline, the client risks becomming psychologically dependent on the bureaucracy as the primary determinant of his or her goals and priorities. One starts by looking to the bureaucracy for help. One ends up unable to act without its approval.
What it comes down to, is you don't get the government you deserve, you get the government foisted on you based on the people you vote into government. And if the people are so myopic to not see what is in front of their face because thier nose is in the way and if the thing was thrust into their face such that they had no choice to see it they'd cut their nose off to spite themselves, the government they get is the government ulitimately the one they deserve.
Shhh... all part of his master plan... or something.
Don't believe that for a second. Read "At Any Cost: How Al Gore Tried to Steal the Election" by Bill Sammon, and try to keep your head from exploding. The media alone cost Bush a possible two million votes nationwide, and that's not even taking the massive fraud on the part of the Dims into consideration.
That said, I think Bush pulled a bait and switch on America, campaiging to the middle-right, then veering hard left after his inauguration. He was on probation with me after the China hostage taking incident last spring, and he lost my vote in 2004 after he signed that criminal CFR bill (the "Patriot" Act, 245i, Operation TIPs, etc., haven't helped him any, either). If all we have to choose from are liberals or full-blown Socialists, and both are determined to take our nation over the cliff, I'd rather get there quicker, so we can get about cleaning up the mess.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
Nobody will ever accuse you of being a libertarian. I'll vote for a candidate who will get government off of my back and out of my life. I don't want the government regulating the bedroom, regulating chemicals I ingest, curtailing my right to read whatever material I choose, or telling me which God I must not blaspheme. NEVER would I give up 90% of MY money for taxes.
By the same token important elements of the conservative agenda were enacted under or acquiesed to by Clinton, who is maybe the most conservative Democrat president in modern times, yet conservatives hate. And yes, I know why they hate him, and I hate him too, but I still think this is an interesting parallel.
The next question, then, is whether Bush will emulate Nixon in his own way (by governing well to the left of his own party).
Constitution Party 2004 (and we all know why)!
And thanks for your valued input on the Judicial Watch thread.
Some of my friends think I am paranoid, but I believe the truth of conspiracies (outright directed efforts to shape, manipulate, or control public opinion in a given slant) by the dnc, media, are far worse than I believe or suspect.
The libertarians at the Cato Institute are not conservatives.
People are so glad Bush isn't Clinton they haven't gotten it yet, and the ones that do are being quiet for fear of strengthening Gore/Hillary and the other criminals.
The War on Terrorism is very reminiscent of the Viet Nam War. We aren't in it to win--that is obvious. And it isn't stupidity. It's just another handy way to weaken the country and denigrate religion--ALL religion--esp. Christianity.
I realized with certainty that the fix was in when Ashcroft got behind executing McVeigh, The Man Who Knew Too Much.
As for Pat B., 9/11 showed clearly how right he was. But it seems no one can think without the Greek chorus press doing our thinking for us.
Most Freepers don't get it either!
I'm waiting for him to start.
Public wants armed pilots, Bush doesn't.
Public doesn't want open borders with Mexico. Apparently Bush does.
Public doesn't want Operation SPIT. Apparently Bush does.
You get the picture.
Economicly, I don't even consider them to be American.
Their policies are seditious and detrimental to our nation's long term well-being.
When tariffs are driving up the cost of steel and killing
jobs in related industries...
When freedom to support the candidate of your choice
is hurt to protect incumbents...
When there is so much surplus food it has to be thrown
away while the taxpayer pays for it...
When the federal government is running roughshod
over states' rights...
...all is not political smoke and mirrors. Damage
is done. Rights are trampled. Money is thrown
away. This isn't political jujitsu. This is real.
Bush's administration is turning into a bad parody of conservatism.
The policy of the Bush administration is that humans cause global warming. While Bush himself issued a weak disavowal of the EPA report for public consumption, the very next day he told reporters that he actually endorsed the report.
Bush gave $15 billion + of our money to the airlines.
Bush opposes the right of pilots to keep and bear arms.
Bush created a vast new Transportation Security department chuck full of thousands of new union "workers" who's mission is to frisk little old ladies at airports and confiscate their nail files and knitting needles.
Bush wants to federalize just about everything in sight, including the way businesses operate.
Bush wants Americans to spy and inform on their neighbors.
Bush has done absolutely nothing to enhance US energy independence.
Bush undermines Israel every chance he gets.
And the last thing I can think of off the top of my head, Bush did absolutely nothing to help the Klamath Basin farmers.
I'm sorry, but Bush sold us all out. Fool me once...
Nice theory, let's put it to the test by looking at just one small situation: Arming pilots.
The public, and the pilots overwhelmingly support arming pilots. If your theory is correct, then please explain why Bush opposes arming pilots.
However, I do expect my president to set a tone, so to speak, that the nation can rally behind. Reagan did this very well. Bush is not Reagan, but the tone I hear from Washington is hurting my ears.
It's hurting deeper than that. We all knew that a gore presidency would have expanded the government and curtailed freedom at every opportunity. We didn't want that, so we chose a so-called conservative who claimed to support limited government, lower taxes and more freedom.
Now that he has turned - the only appropriate word for Bushes mix of expanded government and central control of business is "fascist" - Bush has sold out the only remaining freedom-loving people in America - people like us.
What Bush has done reminds me of the battle in the movie Braveheart where the troops which were to attack the English flank just rode away and left the freedom fighters to die.