Nov 16 2006
Bush Did Not Make Big Government
As I find comfort distancing myself more and more from the Reps (and so do many of my readers) I have to stop letting the Reps get a ‘bye’ when they make things up. RCP is still my favorite place to get news (Drudge is just above The Enquirer at times), but I must take issue with some of their points. First is Ryan Sager claiming Bush lost the election (when actually he helped stem a real blood letting):
They need to cleanse themselves of the sulfuric stench of the DeLay years, the K Street lobbying culture and the failure of President Bush’s big-government conservatism.
Mr. Sager should know better, but Congress passes the laws – and they are the ones who earmark the pork. Bush has held non-war spending way down. And we had to fund the war – we are not democrats, yet. So for the benefit of Mr. Sager and the rest of the Bush bashers (who are not Reagan Republicans since they forget the 11th commandment) let me remind folks why Congress has power – they own the purse. If Bush wants something, he has to go to Congress and they in turn provide Bush their conditions – or price – for supporting Bush’s priorities. Want to know why there was never a veto? Because Bush worked it all out behind the scenes. Bush doesn’t believe in opening up the sausage factory that is government to the press. So let’s get off the Bush big government smears – OK? Bush put in place prescription drug benefits because it would save money! He put in the education legislation to hold schools accountable for the money they burn up wasting our kids formative years. These were not big government proposals, they were make government work better proposals. Anyone who claims Bush was the one behind big government needs to go back to High School civics class.
Second is the denial I see at RCP about how the Democrats took the house with conservative candidates, specifically this post by John Mcintyre. Their logic goes like this: there were other issues affecting decisions. Well, yeah – but Kucinich would never have won any of those contested senate seats or most of the house seats lost. Senator Lamont is still only a bad dream. Moderates hung on in CT and OH and NM house races. Snowe and other moderate senators where never even tested. The real test is whether a liberal Democrat would have won these lost seats. Answer: No. Are there exceptions? Yep. But the trend is clear. Conservatism won on multiple ballot issues. Hard right conservatism failed in SD on the abortion issue. Liberalism failed in numerous ballot issues. This ain’t rocket science. Conservatism is alive and well and now creeping into the new blood of the Democrat party. Yes, the liberal bastion remains in the Dem leadership positions. But they could very well self destruct and save the Democrat party. Especially if the Reps self destruct.
I posed the question to a call screener about 3 years ago, back before the 2004 elections about whether the seething branch of the Democratic party would pull them down. I could see that back then as I see it now. I never thought that the republicans would be the first to split. I know through the course of history these splits have come I just saw then Dems going first. The future is going to be alot of fun! I’m not talking year either. The next few weeks are really going to be interesting.
I agree with the Bush comment. GWB’s masterfull use of the bully pulpit in the waning weeks of election did stem a real blood letting. The Foley Scandal should have resulted in a huge swing of votes. Bush and Rove where turning the tide with aggressive speechs and forced the early release of Foley’s perversions. To those of you who decry Bush for not defending himself and his adminstration must go back and look at those speechs. Remember, the media is our creation and cannot be counted on to continually cover endless rebutles as most people are going to change the channel when rebutles start to sound like excuses.
The main reason the republicans lost congress was that they were so ineffective when they held power. They backed down to the dems and there are too many convoluted by laws of procedure in both these houses. And the pork. It went over the top. The republicans were elected in 1994 mainly because of dems’ pork spending and the republicans do the same thing when in power even more. The dems are in power now and will go full speed ahead and run roughshod over the republicans again. I have no idea how the 2008 elections will go since most people vote for incumbants. Maybe the dems will shoot themselves in the foot but what’s the use if the republicans won’t stand up to them. It would be same-o-same-o if the republicans get back into power. Whining about how the nasty democrats won’t let them do what has to be done.
Yeah yeah yeah, Strata.
Everyone knows Bush’s administration rises and falls on the failed war built on lies. Meaning in context the money spent on it is money wasted in garguantuan and blood-laden amounts.
Bush’s sellout on immigration seals the deal. He is anathema to
America First conservative nationalists. The other grossly
alotted expenditures on his watch need not even be dissected
here.
I think that conservatives sometimes forget that not everyone sees government as a bad thing. Most people don’t want small government, they want effective government. So the question is not between a drug prescription plan and nothing, it is between a drug plan and nationalized health care. I know older people who were spending half their income on meds, which meant there were times when they did not buy them. If they got sick, medicare had to pay.
Now Walmart has offered some 300 generic drugs for $4. I doubt if that would have happened if not for this program.
And most people do not consider education wasteful spending either.
Ken:
Tell me did you always like Saddam or is your love for the Butcher of Baghdad a recent phenomenon?
Barbara, good comments.
You said;
“The main reason the republicans lost congress was that they were so ineffective when they held power. They backed down to the dems and there are too many convoluted by laws of procedure in both these houses. And the pork.”
It probably should have said, One of the main reasons.
The pork didn’t have much to do with it, both sides were equally guilty on that.
I thing the real main reason was that the formerly MSM was underestimated and the general populations extreme gullibility.
Everything the Formerly MSM threw out was extremely biased against conservatives and the gullible public didn’t know any better.
TERRYE . Asinine question, Terrye. ….Rumsfeld , though , helped give Hussein anthrax and other germ warfare agents when he warred with Iran.
Guess YOU liked him then. Guess you like Uzbekistan’s butcher,
Karimov now,too, whom Cheney the liar called a “democrat,” because he is running interference for US oil interests.
I read the prescription drug plan wrong, but would have still joined in on it. I thought that when I reached the $2250.00 of what I paid benefits would stop until I reach $3600.00 and then prescriptions would be at a cost of 5%. Wrong. The $2250.00 is what I pay and also what the insurance company paid combined. That way I reached the limit very fast and am now paying full price for the drugs and have been for the last three months as well as premiums for the insurance. I saved enough for it to be worthwhile. so I am not really complaining.
For Enforcement
The dems were just as guilty of pork spending but the press only reported the republican spending so the public was not so much aware of both. The public has forgotten about the dem pork spending when they were in power before 1994. After all, this was 12 years ago and a whole lot longer than the attention span of the public of 2 weeks. That said, the republicans went wild with spending.
Here is the one problem that I have with this “why the republicans lost the election” or the “what the people think about ….” A lot of people say that the people only see what the media wants them to see. Yeah, the ignorant people. A majority of this country actually realizes that the media is a profit driven private organization who only wants to have stories with entertainment value. To get the real information you just have to look around. Watch more than one news channel, read more than one newspaper, look around on the internet. The voters in this country are a lot more educated than people give them credit for. Believe me, I would know. I am very involved with campaigns. Each party passes out information that makes them look good, or info that has their points of view. But a smart voter looks at both parties information that they have to give. So let’s stop assuming that just because the only pork that the media talks about is the republicans, the people actually believe that the dems don’t ask for pork either.
Crzy4politks Yea, if you’re writing on this blog, you are probably informed. but when you ask ten people on the street about Nancy Pelosi and not a single one of them have any idea who she is. they are not informed and if they read the local paper, they still are not informed. Unfortunately MOST of the people fit in the wrong category.