Article

2005-10-05 Home Front: Politix

Yet Another WaPo OpEd Hit Piece: Cynical Conservatism

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by .com 2005-10-05 03:41|| || Front Page|| [1 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Bush and republicans are in a difficult spot. They are in danger of suffering politically for failing to deal with the conservative part of compassionate conservatism. The thinking is now Bush's base may well stay home in 2006 to teach republicans a lesson about departing from conservatism.

Posted by badanov 2005-10-05 07:16|| http://www.freefirezone.org]">[http://www.freefirezone.org] 2005-10-05 07:16|| Front Page Top

#2 Yielding Prez Billary. A very singular pivot point in American History, I (safely, lol) predict.

Posted by .com 2005-10-05 07:18|| 2005-10-05 07:18|| Front Page Top

#3 Pres Billary is the 2008 election. That's why dumb conservatives may sit out 2006 to teach Bush, soon to fade into history and irrelevance, a lesson for the last two years of his administration.

Posted by Elmerong Omalet8099 2005-10-05 07:43|| 2005-10-05 07:43|| Front Page Top

#4 Ah, true OE - I misspoke. Of course, losing the margins in the House and Senate will be disastrous, as well, but we don't want to spoil a good old-fashioned three yr old tantrum with reality.

Posted by .com 2005-10-05 07:50|| 2005-10-05 07:50|| Front Page Top

#5 As a conservative who is sometimes cynical (as opposed the the article's cynical conservatism), I am convinced that the Democrats are blackmailing Bush into this spending. They won't support the WoT unless he funds their pet programs. I don't think that any of the shrill anti-war talk has anything to do with principled opposition to the war. Every time Bush and the Republicans try to make a stand on a budget issue, the anti-war rhetoric rises to a higher level and they back down. I pity Bush. He's fighting a war for civilization and he can't publicly identify the enemy lest the opposition accuse him of racism. He can't get the funding he needs for it without getting blackmailed by the same opposition. My worry: One day, the same electorate that allowed all of this to pass -- ignoring all of the stupidity and corruption while contemplating the latest pop tart's navel -- will wake up when things really get bad and cry out for a strongman to save us all. Caesar is always an invited guest.

Posted by 11A5S 2005-10-05 09:09|| 2005-10-05 09:09|| Front Page Top

#6 Caesar is always an invited guest.

Like FDR?

Posted by Hupulet Shains3088 2005-10-05 09:14|| 2005-10-05 09:14|| Front Page Top

#7 11A5S - This and this eventually lead to this or this.

Posted by .com 2005-10-05 09:31|| 2005-10-05 09:31|| Front Page Top

#8 I am convinced that the Democrats are blackmailing Bush into this spending. They won't support the WoT unless he funds their pet programs.

The problem with this theory -- and believe me, I'd like to think it's true -- is that we're getting the spending but NOT getting the support for the WoT.

Posted by Robert Crawford">Robert Crawford 2005-10-05 09:38|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/] 2005-10-05 09:38|| Front Page Top

#9 Whine, whine, whine. Even if it is a good thing Bush has done, why, it's still going to be difficult and only time will tell.

And the Dems have never bought votes? Well, not the dead ones, of course.

That is what democracy is about, after all. Bush bought my vote by leading the war on terror (and other things). Dems buy votes by taking poor folks to the polls. Even outstanding representation of voter groups is a way of "buying" votes.

Posted by Bobby 2005-10-05 09:43|| 2005-10-05 09:43|| Front Page Top

#10 C'mon folks. Spending today by the Feds is at about 19.6% of GDP. Under Reagan it was 21%. Bush would have to push the budget up by a couple hundred billion dollars to get close to Ronnie.

Not that the MSM or the Dems will ever tell you this.

The conservatives who are kvetching right now need a) a chill pill and b) a vigorous facial slap ("thanks, I needed that!"). Spending is NOT out of control, Miers is NOT a weak USSC nominee, the WoT is NOT grinding to an ignominous halt, and cats and dogs are NOT living in sin.

Criminy folks, conservatives are supposed to be good at thinking long-term. Let's start acting like it.

Posted by Steve White">Steve White 2005-10-05 10:48|| 2005-10-05 10:48|| Front Page Top

#11 Aw Steve, why d'ya have to go and throw cold water on a perfectly good pity party?

Posted by Seafarious">Seafarious 2005-10-05 12:00|| 2005-10-05 12:00|| Front Page Top

#12 All agreed, Steve. Big picture (% of GDP) we're not in the mess we were after the hangover of the 60's/70's. That being said, as a conservative who is cynical ("Trust, but verify"), I'd argue that doesn't excuse the ENORMOUS increases in spending we've seen from Dubya. Increased spending (outside of spending on the WoT) and the border issue are the 2 things that Dubya better begin paying attention to before his true conservative base does desert him. I could totally see the true Republicans on the Judicial committee voting against Ms. Miers (heck, personally, I do trust Bush to get the job done on the judges), exactly because she doesn't have a track record. I can think of many more qualified people to become judges whose names have already been thrown around. And, too many of these secretive judges have been nominated before by Repubs to become complete disappointments to conservatives after taking the Prez's word to "trust me on this one." Me? I would've elevated Scalia or Thomas to Chief Justice and nominated Priscilla Owens or Janice Rogers Brown to fill O'Conner's spot (if you really needed a woman). Heck, I might've just nominated Ann Coulter just to watch Teddy Kennedy's big head explode!

Posted by BA 2005-10-05 12:20|| 2005-10-05 12:20|| Front Page Top

#13 Reagan was spending to build a military shattered by Johnson, Nixon and Carter to defeat the Soviet Union. Bush is trying to defeat the terrorists with Clinton's military and Intelligence services. If the spending was for that, no problem. But he's wasting the money. And the bill for elderdrugs hasn't arrived yet. But the tax cuts get automatically repealed, so I guess that will take care of everything.

Bush spends like a drunken sailor and thinks veto is a four letter word. Well, I guess it is. but he still needs to stop spending my money like I have a lot more.

Posted by Snereger Creper8887 2005-10-05 12:52|| 2005-10-05 12:52|| Front Page Top

#14 But he's wasting the money.

No. Your Republican Senators and Representatives are wasting money. How many have quickly come forward with their own Porkbusters list of home town spending that can be deferred? Tap, tap, tap. The meter is not broke.

Posted by Javirt Thrusing6823 2005-10-05 13:00|| 2005-10-05 13:00|| Front Page Top

#15 Steve, the 1.4% GDP difference (and more) is accounted by the difference in military spending. During the Reagan years, military spending averaged 6% of GDP, today with a war on, it is 4.0% and in 2000 it was 3.0% of GDP. Tack in differences in intelligence and DOE spending and gap widens even more.

Posted by ed 2005-10-05 13:04|| 2005-10-05 13:04|| Front Page Top

#16 Goddamnit, he's spending too much!

Wha? Oh...

Goddamnit, he's not spending enough!

Posted by .com 2005-10-05 18:19|| 2005-10-05 18:19|| Front Page Top

23:46 .com
23:34 CrazyFool
23:21 Classical_Liberal
23:17 Zenster
23:12 Zenster
23:01 Ruy Diaz
22:54 Zenster
22:42 Desert Blondie
22:33 John in Tokyo
22:21 .com
22:20 .com
22:05 Redneck Jim
22:01 .com
21:59 .com
21:56 3dc
21:50 3dc
21:41 Frank G
21:38 Mrs. Davis
21:35 Frank G
21:31 Robert Crawford
21:28 trailing wife
21:27 RWV
21:24 Bright Pebbles
21:22 Bright Pebbles