Rearden, here are the top 3 issues in the republican party right now. These are the three defining issues. Most, not all, but most true conservatives would die for each one of these issues. They are, and in no particular order 1) the fight against terrorism 2) lower taxes 3) pro life. Pure and simple. At the end of the day Bush strongly supports the rights of unborn children, is adamant in his war on terror and continues to fight for lower taxes to ease the financial burden on all americans. You can talk about big government, illegals, space program, education, and whether or not two gay guys can have sex in a shopping mall all you want, but at the end of the day, it's those three issues I mentioned that define conservatism today. And there is no other candidate walking this planet right now that will fight for those things harder then George W. Bush. No one on the left will fight for the rights of unborn children. No one on the left will protect this country against terrorism and no one on the left will fight to lower taxes even more. In fact all the guys on the left are fighting for the very exact opposite of this. And as for your libertarian candidate, Harry Browne or whoever it will be this year, he certainly will not fight for these things either nor will Nader for the green party. You know a lot of people on this board keep talking about conservative this and conservative that and how can we really support this administration if we are a true conservative but it's those three issues that have led Bush to shatter every fund raising record under the sun, its those three issues that are giving him a 20 pt lead over Dean right now, and it's those three issues that have Bush ahead in like 42 out of the 50 states at this time. I hope I have cleared things up for you Rearden.
On the pro-life issue I'm at the opposite end of anyone who thinks the government should be able to tell a woman what to do with her own body...and I'm sure any 'conservative' who suffers from a broken condom, and accidently knocks up some dumb annoying slut would instantly resort to the standard social conservative hypocrisy of Rush Limbaugh, Jimmy Swaggart , Bill Bennet, etc... However, I fully share their interest in lower taxes & combating terrorism. Here it's just a question of methods, rather than goals. The Bush administration thinks ballooning the national debt with extravagant spending, expanding Medicare, global altruism on a massive scale, locking up millions of innocent political prisoners for 'drug crimes', and hiring new federal agents to spy on all of us is a good way to lower taxes. I happen to disagree with this notion, and think the only way to truly lower taxes for the long term is to reduce the size of the Federal government, and not expand it. You believe in voodoo economics, and I prefer to be logical. I'll leave the terrorism issue alone for now, because I do see some logic behind Bush's efforts, despite the fact that the Iraqi occupation isn't going so hot at the moment.
Actually every time Gingrich does an interview on TV he looks and sounds more and more like a statesman. He is probably one of the smartest strategists and students of political history the Republicans have. The discrediting was political and not fatal IMO. Over time people forget and forgive so I wouldn't count him out, any more than I would count out the "discredited" Clintons who have made a dramatic comeback so far.
See this is where you and I disagree. Abortion is not about the government deciding what a woman can and can't do with her body. It's about accountability pure and simple. You either believe in holding people accountable for their actions or you don't. A woman has to be held accountable for all her actions just as men do. If I kill someone, I must be held accountable. If I rob a bank I must be held accountable. Women must be held accountable for their decisions. Just because their is an undesirable outcome, that does one not relieve one of their responsibility. Make sense? As for lower taxes, I will support any and all measures to lower taxes. I believe the income tax in this country to be illegal and unconstitutional and I will fight to end this political slavery that we have to endure the last 100 years because of it. If you take the money away from government, government can't spend, pure and simple. At least we agree on the fight against terror.
I tend to agree with Maverick although perhaps for slightly different reasons. While I think Bush has been a real disappointment for "movement" conservatives, that really should not have been a surprise. He never claimed to be one himself, and his record in Texas confirmed that. I think his prolife credentials are not that strong. He agreed to ban partial birth abortion and that's about it. Contrast that to Clinton, who not only vetoed partial birth, but deployed the full power of the federal government against the pro-life movement. As for taxes, Bush has done ok, but he has undermined it with his refusal to exercise any spending discipline. His poor choice of his first Treasury Secretary , now coming back to haunt him, blunted what should have been an aggressive commitment to overturn the enormous Clinton tax increases. I give him mixed grades on fighting terrorism. The simple fact that there have been no more 9/11 type incidents says they have done plenty right. On the other hand, Norman Minetta is still Transportation Secretary, and Homeland Security is a nightmare of big government gone crazy. We are still being invaded every night by armies of illegals and they have done little to stop it or even slow it down. As I have said before, politics is not about the perfect, it is about choosing between flawed candidates. The best thing Bush has going for him is the obvious fact that none of the Democrat challengers is credible. The leading challengers, Dean and Clark, not only support totally counterproductive policies, but raise reasonable doubt as to their mental stability. The remaining candidates are either worn out Washington political hacks or obviously unqualified.
This is a typical mistake made by "idealistic" followers of politics. A rational vote is not made on the basis of one's approval of someone's policies. Rather it is an attempt to make sure that the worst candidate does not win. Faced with a choice of voting in Vladimir Lenin or Howard Dean, a rational conservative would vote for Howard Dean. Obviously that doesn't mean they support Dean - it simply means they are rationally trying to stop Lenin getting into power. You stop the worst candidate winning by voting for the most popular non-worst candidate, not by voting for a no-hoper who represents your views. This is why "first past the post" electoral systems are dominated by two parties. Third party fringe candidates have no hope of winning until they become as popular as the 2nd party, because voting for them actually *increases* the chance that the exact opposite policies will be enacted. For example, if Clint Eastwood ran on a low tax libertarian platform, he would split the conservative/libertarian vote between himself and Bush. Between them they would get more votes than the Democrat candidate, but individually they would both get *less* votes. Therefore having a libertarian or principled small-government conservative running would actually be the worst thing that could happen, as it would guarantee a Democrat victory (much as Ross Perot's candidacy resulted in Clinton becoming president). This is why politics is never idealistic and always results in crap slimy candidates with no principles, such as Clinton, both Bushes, Nixon, LBJ etc. Even someone like Reagan has to sell out for tactical reasons.
Unfortunately you can't take away the money from the government, firstly because they have more guns, secondly because they control the supreme court (so the income tax will never be declared unconstitutional), and finally because so much of society now benefits from government largesse. A politician that advocated cutting federal or local spending by 50%, let alone the 90%+ that should be cut, would be annihilated at the ballot box by an awesome alliance of every federal teat-sucking special interest group under the sun. Polls consistently show that people are for lower taxes and higher government spending. People are stupid. So long as it is legal for politicians to buy voting support from special interests by borrowing to raise spending and/or cut taxes, you will never have lasting tax reduction or fiscal responsibility. Clever political administrations like Bush/Rove or Reagan will "cut taxes" whilst boosting spending, because the resulting debt accumulation will not come home to roost on their watch. Once their 8 year term is up, taxes will rise again to cover the defecit. The net result is higher, not lower taxes than when the "tax cutter" took office. Just look at Reagan - a fiscal disaster in the Bush mould, who did more to increase the size of the federal government than Carter. Bush will do the same - in an attempt to buy support with short-termist voodoo economics he will inadvertently move America closer to a socialist economy. Assuming he gets re-elected, the total tax burden and federal spend as a % of GDP will be higher when Bush leaves office than it was when he entered. That is the result of "conservative" support for free spenders like Bush, just as it was for supporters of Reagan. They advance socialism and roll back economic freedom just as surely as any left-wing Democrat.
Yes yes!! But the reality is that idealism doesn't work with politics, which you also pointed out perfectly. I don't really like any of the candidates...I'd like to see a Clark/Soros ticket just to see what happens... Maybe Americans should continue with this whole experimental mentality about choosing a President and see where it goes. I don't think anyone could have done worse than Dumya. He was a big experiment that went wrong. People were pissed at Clinton and thought they were getting good leadership from daddy Bush and Powell. And maybe it's time for the real conservatives to send a clear message to the republican party by snubbing Dumya, as was the case with those who voted for Nader. FWIW, I only shop at small businesses now (unless I have no choice) and pay only in cash, often saying to them "please DON'T PAY YOUR TAXES." Yeah, I know it doesn't make much of a difference, but it's all I can do.
Maverick, Don't get me wrong, I am for cutting taxes and regard them as legalized theft. But how can income taxes be unconstitutional when there is a constitutional amendment specifically to authorize them? The original constitution prohibited taxes that were not levied on everyone equally. Clearly that would not do, so the voters were euchered into approving an amendment to allow income taxes. Of course, they were assured such taxes would never be more than 3 or 4 %. That episode teaches us several important lessons regarding politicians and taxes. Rule one, never believe what they say. Rule two, never approve an additional tax until an offsetting one is actually removed. Rule three, no tax increase is ever temporary.
You make many excellent points, but I must quibble regarding our greatest president, Ronald Reagan. Reagan perhaps can be faulted for not vetoing excessive budgets thrust upon him by asolidly Democrat congress, but the ultimate responsibility for that spending and the resultant deficits should be put on Congress and the Democrats. They castigated Reagan for not spending enough and made a big show of declaring his budgets "dead on arrival." The genius of Reagan, in contrast to previous Republican presidents, was that he cut taxes anyway. Tax revenues increased dramatically under Reagan but the deficits grew even faster. Finally the Democrats realized he had outfoxed them. The deficits were so large that they put a limit on the growth in spending. Presidential candidate Walter Mondale accused Reagan of deliberately doing just this. The one inflexible law of our government is that they will spend every cent they can lay their hands on and about 4 to 5 % more. The ONLY way to restrain spending and growth of government is to limit tax revenues. If that means horrendous deficits, that is a small price to pay to put some limits on government. Where I agree with you is that Bush has increased the role and size of government. Unlike Reagan such increases were not forced on him. In fact, he has pressured Republicans in Congress to go along with his increases. He is more in the mold of Nixon, who co-opted disastrous Democrat policies to ensure his relection.