Posted on 08/05/2003 4:06:43 PM PDT by gcruse
The views certainly fit. :)
Well, I'm going to keep an eye out for him. He really organized this piece well. ;-)
Correct again. Someone else said it best, "pick your battles". I would much prefer him to forgo all these entitlements, and his signing of the Campaign Reform Bill was extrememly disappointing, but these are dangerous times. If he can pull off changing the face of the middle east, it will all be worth it. Much the same as the high deficits of the 80s were worth the downfall of the Soviet Union.
George W. Bush has made the work of those who believe in smaller government far more difficult.
Thanks for posting this, GCruse.
You're exactly right. Reagan didn't have near the foreign policy challenges Bush does; in fact, in the only major confrontation with terrorism, Reagan pulled out troops out of Lebananon after 240 Marines were killed.
Bush is a far superior tactical foreign policy president than Reagan was, as he has mobilized against an amorphous enemy in Afghanistan, and eliminated one of the most oppressive regimes on the face of the earth in Iraq.
On the domestic front, he's jammed through two tax cuts, and is attempting to put a conservative face on things like prescription coverage for seniors. He's done more in the pro-life area than Reagan did in eight years, and, while he's done virtually nothing on the immigration front, he has not granted an amnesty, as Reagan did.
Bush doesn't have the Hollywood personality that Reagan did, but he's an honest, hardworking, upbeat man who has the best of the country at heart.
He's every bit the president Reagan was, if not a better one. Give him a second term, and 60 GOP Senators, and he'll change the course of the country with his judicial picks. Reagan gave us Sandra Day O'Connor.
LOL. Well, I should have probably also acknowledged that I consider my post more speculation than opinion. Who can tell, really, what a President Reagan might do in our current environment? About all that I can say with much certainty is that he would respect and recognize the political realities that exist because no one gets elected by ignoring them. And I think that the continuing growth of our Federal government reflects political and economic forces that are neither new nor easy to alter.
The center of gravity of the political debate in this country is not the debate between conservatives and libertarians. It just seems that way sometimes here at FR. ;-)
You nailed it buddy! Too many so-called conservatives aren't taking the threat of terrorism by Islamic militants seriously. There will be another attack. It's just a matter of time.
Besides, in this day and age the President is merely a figurehead. The system of checks and balances is out of whack with too much power resting in the Legislative branch. Too many people expect the President to wave a magic wand, and make problems disappear overnight that were 60+ years in the making!
Reagan was a man of soaring rhetoric, and I mean that as a compliment.
Bush has had his memorable moments, speech-wise, but his actions have defined his presidency, so far. And he's done more, in three years, on the ground than Reagan or his father did, in twelve.
I don't think there's a person in this country who doesn't believe that Bush will defend America against terrorists, and will do whatever it takes.
This is a damned good question, so let me ask one in return. Looking at the following list:
Expanded federal role in education
Massive increase in farm subsidies
Campaign Finance Reform
$15 billion in AIDS relief for Africa
Extensions of Unemployment benefits Twice
Tarriffs on steel and agricultural products
Tax refunds to people who don't pay taxes
Prescription drug benefit for Medicare (pending)
Federal budgets that have far exceeded our economic growth rate every single year, even after accounting for defense
Given all that, here is the question. If either were President, would Hillary Clinton or Al Gore have succeeded in implementing an agenda this progressive? Not would they have proposed one, we all know they would have. But given a Republican congress, would they have succeeded? I don't think so. They'd have been stonewalled the same way Clinton was stonewalled (remember Clinton? His biggest domestic achievement was welfare reform).
So in that sense, yes Dubya is more dangerous since he seems to have the capability of walking the walk of big government as opposed to Hillary and Gore who could do no more than talk the talk.
The tax cuts are nice, but if government spending is not cut as well, we will all be paying far more than we saved in taxes as the economic effects of a deficit equal to 10 percent of the entire GDP and a debt the size of one year's GDP set in. The whole point of cutting taxes should be to force government to reign in spending.
Instead, it looks like Bush wants you all to pay for my retirement plantation villa overlooking the golf course in Myrtle Beach, along with all the Viagra I can swallow. Ah, but you'll have your religious right agenda to keep you warm at night.
Just what kinds of suckers are you?
Even scarier to me is the prospect of any one of these individuals being in charge of national security issues. This issue alone justifies Bush's re-election, warts and all.
You might think a little differently about national security when bread is $20 a loaf. I think Bush is doing a fine job with national security, but he needs to show the same courage and leadership on the domestic side. He's running scared, pandering for votes in the hope of a big victory in '04. After that, the economic downturn will come and the masses will be out with pitchforks in their hands, screaming for Hillary in '08.
The Prez is not going to do the right thing without some political presure from his base. Even Rush Limbaugh sees that. So we all need to take the blinders off and start holding him accouuntable.
Again, despite the problems, what's the realistic alternative to Bush, even on the domestic side? A better alternative simply doesn't exist. So what is the point of tearing Bush down? How will weakening him politically against the Democrats actually make us better off rather than worse off? Constructive criticism of his policies is fine, but withholding political support is another thing entirely when the alternative is the likes of Hillary Clinton or Howard Dean.
Moreover, as others on this thread have pointed out, the country is more liberal now than it was during Reagan's days. I haven't forgotten that Gore and Nader together won more than 50% of the vote in the last Presidential election. To be sure, I think 9/11 has moved the nation solidly back to the right of center on national security issues, but the same isn't true on domestic policy issues as far as I can tell. I would agree that Bush should be trying harder on the domestic front, but in any event there is only so much that he can do given the current political facts of life under which he must operate.
I don't usually decide whether or not to withhold support until just before the election. I like to keep myself flexible, evaluate the politics of the situation, and then vote accordingly. It seems to me to be rather foolish to blindly grovel for the leadership no matter what they do.
Party faithful who follow blindly are no more than "useful idiots" to the political elite. I know. I used to be a Democratic operative before I got religion. I have seen firsthand how power corrupts. The neocons can lead most Republicans down the road to socialism so long as it means victory. Long term, we will all pay heavily when we have sold out the concepts of personal responsibility and individual initiative in order to hold on to political power.
At least the Republicans stood for something when they were in the minority.
I think Bush is doing a fine job in foreign policy. He needs to show the same courage and leadership on the domestic front. In the long run, what good is being secure if we are a socialist, totalitarian state?
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.