<p>Uclari, all the arguments by staunch Bush supporters are designed to cloud the issue, draw attention from the actual facts and place blame on liberals, hence changing the subject to Bill Clinton. It’s a pretty dysfunctional way of trying to take control but unfortunately it works. </p>
<p>I don’t quite understand the outrage about Bush’s spending - he was already overspending and blowing up the deficit at the time of the election last year. The only difference now is that it’s gotten worse and conservatives are beginning to express concern because they are worried about midterm elections. There is a core of true conservatives out there but they sold out in order to win the election. It seems power is more important than ideals. </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.startribune.com/stories/562/5631996.html[/url]”>http://www.startribune.com/stories/562/5631996.html</a>
An excerpt:
Liberals, it seems, are deranged morons, cunning and powerful misanthropes to be patronized at worst, institutionalized or outfitted in orange jumpsuits at best. On good days, you wonder how this outrage industry, as it has been called, can possibly turn up the heat any higher. Should we prepare for a book titled “Impale Them All. Now”? On bad days, you order your latte and wonder if this is how they started in on the Tutsis.
The left is not above demonizing the other side, but we don’t do it nearly as well. Perhaps we don’t have the stomach for it. The left has never managed to demonize the word “conservative,” for instance, while the word “liberal” now rolls off tongues in quarters across the land as a nasty pejorative. Liberal books tend to target Bush, not Everyone Not Like Me. At the most, one can find an occasional title like “Why the Right is Wrong for America.”
“Wrong.” How quaint. I get sent e-mails that make Photoshop fun of the president, but reading them feels like chuckling at the teacher from the back of the classroom – while the other side is busy erecting billboards clamoring for your public defenestration.
Then there is the issue of access: You need to go to the back of the Nation to order a roll of George W. Bush toilet paper. But you need only look up from your treadmill to hear Bill O’Reilly. Forget Bin Laden; to American conservatives, it’s liberals who have become the Other."</p>
<p>There’s a huge difference between waiting for full details and being “willing to ignore things…in order to promote party unity.” Recall that it was a contingent of Republican leaders who went to the White House in 1974 and demanded Nixon’s resignation. I think the OP also puts the lie to the notion of Republicans being willing to ignore things.</p>
<p>As to the other question, loyal opposition is one thing. Disagreement is fine. Constantly calling the president a liar on the basis of nothing, or calling him a modern-day Bull Connor, as Rep. Rangel just did, are another thing entirely.</p>
<p>Driver said,
“Most of us here end up dealing with the moonbat issues that you guys post; there was nothing in the OP that should have surprised any of you, if you actually had a real-world sense of your political opposition.”</p>
<p>Case in point. When you can’t argue your case, ridicule the opposition.</p>
<p>Perhaps. I just find Americans’ love of “gentlemanly” politics a rather funny thing, considering what passes as standard fare in other democracies.</p>
<p>Driver- the Republican party of Nixon and the Republican party of today are worlds apart. To use examples from the 1970s to explain the NeoCons is like saying the Dixiecrats represent modern Democrats, or that the current Republican party is the “Party of Lincoln.”</p>
<p>The Republican party was divided in the 70s, and learned from their “mistakes.” They dusted themselves off and congregated around principles of power & Christian morality over all other topics, and became a strong fighting force (whether their tactics are moral depends on who they are, I think the grassroots campaigns are fascinating, but if Karl Rove were in the commercial advertising business he’d be in trouble.)</p>
<p>But that doesn’t mean Bush is following the Conservative platform economically, or to the tune of the ballyhooed phrase “small government.” Voters today are either uneducated and don’t understand that creating more Gov’t offices is the OPPOSITE of “small government”, or they’re ignoring the deficit, increased governmental spending, and the expansion of federal powers. Now, although I know the first part is probably more likely (let’s face it, your avg. voter, liberal or conservative, doesn’t understand politics), I find it telling that more educated conservative groups don’t speak up, and/or aren’t being given attention. To quote from my marching band days: Dressing the line is important, because if we’re wrong, we’re all wrong together, and no one can tell.</p>
But here’s where I disagree, MC. If there’s one issue Bush has been hammered for consistently by the Republican public intellectuals, it’s his failure to cut spending. Weekly Standard, National Review, Washington Times; Blogs such as Instapundit and Powerline; think tanks like Heritage, Hoover, Manhattan Institute, Cato Institute. Columnist after columnist. You name it. They cream him on this issue, and have been doing so for years. The fact that the article linked in the OP calls attention to this as if it’s some kind of new revelation speaks loudly to the degree to which modern Dems/liberals/progressives have no clue as to what makes their opponents tick.</p>
<p>driver- have there been any prominent Republican political figures (not that the media don’t count, but I’d just get into a big rant about the cowing of the mainstream media & karl rove’s PR management…) speaking out?</p>
<p>Driver,
I wouldn’t call it “hammering”. It’s more like a parent quietly telling another parent how disappointed that Johnny is spending all his allowance and then dropping everything to drive him to the mall. Conservatives have the power to do something about Bush’s spending but like I said, they are only using it now to distance themselves from Bush just in time for next year’s election. I have a clue of how they tick. They’re fine to spend gobs of money on a foolish war of ideology but when it comes to people who are truly in need ( the victims of Katrina) they want to cut wages while simultaneously opening the doors for business to loot the federal government. </p>
<p>"As fiscal hawks surrendered, would-be government contractors were meeting in the Hart Senate Office Building to figure out how to get a share of the money. A “Katrina Reconstruction Summit,” hosted by Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.) and sponsored by Halliburton, among others, brought some 200 lobbyists, corporate representatives and government staffers to a room overlooking the Capitol for a five-hour conference that included time for a “networking break” and advice on “opportunities for private sector involvement.”</p>
<p>Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) sent his budget director, Bill Hoagland, who cautioned that federal Katrina spending might not exceed $100 billion. But John Clerici, from a law firm that helped sponsor the event, told the group that spending would “probably be larger” than $200 billion. “It’s going to be spent in a fast and furious way,” Clerici said."</p>
<p>MC:
The problem with prominent Republican political figures speaking out is that they’re all in Congress, and they’d be speaking out against themselves. This is something the president has to deal with. Again, going back to the Peggy Noonan’s comment in the OP:
<p>I have it exactly right and I won’t hold my breath waiting for Bush to rein in spending unless it’s on entitlements.</p>
<p>This is a crock:
"That the Democrats would get us there faster should be of little consolation to anyone. "</p>
<p>As I recall Bill Clinton balanced the budget and ended up with a surplus. Two of the biggest problems with Bush’s spending are tax cuts for the wealthy elite and the freakin war. I’m not holding my breath waiting for those tax cuts to create jobs. I don’t see many corporations adding benefits or jobs- quite the contrary. </p>
<p>And by the way, did you know poverty has increased during Bush’s reign?</p>
<p>Hehe, too funny. Congressman Flake and his challenge to the Republican Congressional leadership to cut spending are the topic on Rush Limbaugh right now. Yep, no sign of lock-step with the leadership on this one. Oh, there’s a guest host today…those of you who fear the mighty Rush could listen in without having your virgin ears offended.</p>
This is a statistical aberation caused by the incredibly abnormal bubble in the economy of the last two years of the last century - the same bubble that allowed the budget to be balanced. If you look at the typical poverty rate during the Clinton administration, you will see that it was higher then than it is now by at least a point.</p>
<p>A statistical abberation - now there’s an argument! Show me the numbers FF and not from some Heritage Foundation publication please.</p>
<p>I believe even Clinton has credited the bubble in the economy as a factor that HELPED him balance the budget - it’s not the sole reason though. And what did Bush do with it? - squandered it. What effect did the tax cuts and the war have on this deficit? - so far I haven’t seen any Bush supporters or true conservatives address these issues.</p>
<p>The so-called opposition within the GOP towards Bush’s spending is a joke. We mustn’t forget that the House and Senate still call the shots on 99% of legislation, and they’re the ones letting this BS through.</p>
<p>The Democrats, despite all the talked about kicking and screaming, are letting bill after bill go right on through. They’re hardly vocal in the way they really ought to be.</p>
<p>On a side note, one of my previous bosses in Washington was a cousin of Flake’s. Although I disagree with his ideological stances, Rep. Flake is an upstanding guy.</p>