Division on the Right. Ambivalence about Bush's Medicare bill.

"Are you on your elected Republicans throat for dividing, and abandoning conservatives; or is this "productive passion for correcting the errors of division" something just discovered today?"

I've been trying to make the Republicans more Conservative for years.

You can check my FR posts and my 20 years of activism: I have consistently opposed Republicans who do non-conservative things. Example - Bush 41 was totally wrong to agree to the Democrat proposals to raise taxes. Bad policy bad politics. Newt G. was right to oppose him on that ... this of course led to the second error, disaffection that leads to Liberal victory - in that case Clinton winning in 1992.

I am a member of the 'Republican Assembly' that calls themselve the 'republican wing of the republican party' to help move Reagan Conservatives forward and make sure we weed out the weak moderate/liberal RINOs.

I have concerns with the big-spending and other habits of the Republicans in Washington. In comparison, the Texas Republican majority in Austin, TX, has been quite consistently conservative and done a pretty good job.

The "there's no difference between Ds and Rs" cynicism is imho a trap; it's pure intellectual laziness.
If you cant tell the difference from a pro-abortion-on-demand Ann Richards and a Rick Perry who passed 3 pro-life notification and waiting period bills; if you cant tell the difference between a Republican state house in Texas that covered an $18 billion shortfall without raising taxes, and the leftist loonies in California who taxed and spent themselves into a near-junk-bond rating --- you need better glasses.

I am a Conservative before I am a Republican. But I am a Republican because if the Republican party falters, the competitive political balance will shift to a Democrat party that is well and truly steeped in Leftist and Socialist ideology. The Democrats are today a dangerous political force.

Jim Robinson had an eloquent writeup on why he is a Republican and why the Republican Party is the best - indeed the *only* - current practical vehicle for conservatives to advance our agenda.

Now does that mean there arent liberals in GOP ranks? Sure there are. Does that mean Republicans are above dissent or criticism? Nope, every day republicans are criticized on this forum. My earlier plea was to keep things rational, and not fall for the defeatist trap of "that's it, I'm outta here!"

Note also this: I am not in favor of this medicare bill.

But dont for a second imagine this bill, which is too conservative for Pelosi, Kennedy, and all the liberal Democrats, is as bad as what they would propose. If the Democrats were in charge, they'd be asking for twice the Socialism and none of the Conservative reform that is in this bill. The Dem Prez candidates are openly calling for Socialized medicine - single payer, cover all kids with Govt funded programs, etc.

"Why are abandoned voters held more to blame than those who abandoned them? It's almost as if it were a herd, isn't it?"

It's not a matter of "blame" (where did I do that?) its a matter of logical consequences of behavior. He who gets the most votes wins. If you dont vote, you dont influence who the winner is. Period. It is irrational to say you care about such issues then not do something about it.

JMHO.

Well said.

"I am more and more overtaxed each year."

So am I. But then my local government is run by Democrats
(Travis county). at the Federal level, thanks to Bush's tax cuts my taxes are much less now than a few years ago. thanks to Republicans in the majority in Texas, we took the 'lower spending' approach instead of higher taxes approach the Democrats are proposing (including a state income tax, blech!)

Had Gore taken over, we'd be faced with a depression and higher taxes IMHO.

" My elected public servants lie to, and about me, more each year."

So you were more lied to this year than in 1998? hmmmm.

"Strategy is a game, conservatism is a principle. "

NO, strategy is not a 'game', it's serious business. Serious enough to be a term used in war, business, and all areas of accomplishment. "Strategy" is a term used to refer to the practice and process of ACHEIVING YOUR AIM.

A strategic Conservative is someone who has learned the art of politial warfare and who uses that to win victories for Conservatism.

You know, battles are rarely won by the side that has the best idealism or most bravery; it's won by the side with the best weapons, strategy and intelligence. If we want to win conservative battles, we need the same.

It's not enough to hold on to Conservative principles. If we hold on to Conservative principles, yet Liberals win power and get to make all the decisions - then we've still lost.
* If we say we are Conservative, yet we let Liberals get elected, how Conservative are we really?
* If we say we are Conservative, but let Liberal ideas become more popular without responding, are we really?

Are you interested in having Conservative Ideals and Principles Triumph and defeat Liberalism?

Thanks!

I cannot support any elected official is is in favor of this.

A strategic Conservative is someone who has learned the art of politial warfare and who uses that to win victories for Conservatism.

A $400 billion drug benefit is NOT a victory for Conservatism. Steel tariffs are NOT a victory for Conservatism. Exploding non-terrorist government spending is NOT a victory for Conservatism. Lumber tariffs are NOT a victory for Conservatism.

Again: a $400 billion drug bill that will stifle development of new drugs is NOT a Conservative victory. And if you think that $400 billion is a good estimate, check again: Medicare is EIGHT TIMES more costly than imagined when it was created. That $400 billion WILL become a $1 TRILLION bill within 5 to 10 years.

You seem to want to pat Republicans on the back while they cut off your fingers and toes, arguing that Democrats would have cut off the whole hand and foot. Great. Work that out over 20 years, and your hands and feet will be gone, regardless of who you vote for.

A strategic Conservative is someone who has learned the art of politial warfare and who uses that to win victories for Conservatism. A $400 billion drug benefit is NOT a victory for Conservatism. Steel tariffs are NOT a victory for Conservatism. Exploding non-terrorist government spending is NOT a victory for Conservatism. Lumber tariffs are NOT a victory for Conservatism.

I oppose all of the above. Please dont argue against strawmen.

Consider: Medicare is an entitlement - and it is not going away. Drugs lower overall medical care costs significantly when taken as perscribed. Seniors may often skip Rx's because of personal Rx costs - leading to higher medicare costs. It makes sense to have a comprehensive medical plan, rather than a piecemeal plan that curiously leaves out the most efficient spending and invites people to save their money while costing the taxpayer hugely. Private insurers are on to this, and generally provide Rx reimbursement - it makes good sense.

Here comes the partial birth abortion ban again. And how long did it take Bush to sign it? 3 years? No, that's not going to work anymore.

Yes, the first session where it wasnt either vetoed or blocked by the Senate (owned by the Democrats in 2001-2002 if you recall), the Republicans passed it. But what do you care, you apparently dont care anyway! It really is sad you think the PBA ban is 'meaningless' - I exprect it will start saving lives once the liberal activist Judges are overturned in their attempts to stop it.

Clinton's welfare reform was a bigger bone to us conservatives than that abortion non-ban and I don't see you going off defending him. What a simplistic point of view! The welfare reform bill was a REPUBLICAN BILL that was passed through the leadership of Newt Gingrich, which Clinton twice *vetoed* and which passed the third time only because Clinton was under political pressure in 1996. Republicans put Clinton in a box.

Me: "I oppose all of the above. Please dont argue against strawmen."

You: "Then why are you arguing with everyone here then? Just randomly trolling?"

I am arguing against flawed logic, defeatism, oversimplification. and a failure to distinguish between the better and the worse.

Consider: Medicare is an entitlement - and it is not going away. Drugs lower overall medical care costs significantly when taken as perscribed. Seniors may often skip Rx's because of personal Rx costs - leading to higher medicare costs. It makes sense to have a comprehensive medical plan, rather than a piecemeal plan that curiously leaves out the most efficient spending and invites people to save their money while costing the taxpayer hugely. Private insurers are on to this, and generally provide Rx reimbursement - it makes good sense.

Let us add the conservative elements in this bill that so horrify the Liberal Democrats that railed against the bill in the House yesterday. First, for the first time, Medicare premiums would be adjusted based on income ($80,000) and up; medicare needs to be means-tested in some way and isnt. This is a good start. Second, health care accounts would be available to all taxpayers. Third, the drug benefits package was written in a way where you could pay an extre premium to get the drug benefit or you could sign up for a private plan. last, there was an experimental provision for fullblown competition between medicare and private plans.

With these provisions, no wonder the Democrats were screaming foul; its and end-run around the Liberal Welfare state.

It should also be noted that in the previous Congresses (106th and 107th), a drug benefit bill that was more Liberal, big-spending and without the Medicare 'reform' elements was passed. With alot of Democrat votes. This time the Democrat party was almost wholly against the bill.