tieguy said:
And if Mac is right and GW is infact a free spending liberal in conservative clothing than you would think Slothrope would be head over heels in love with him.
Gee Tie, of all people I thought you would have figured it out by now why Susie and the rest are screaming like he*l at Bush. They're jealous that he's out done them at being liberal!
Seriously, "what if's" are just that, what if's and shouldn't really factor into any dicussion because like time itself you just can't go back. One of the basic principles of true conservative political thinking is smaller gov't with less spending and even if you take the added spending of the war on terror and the Iraq situation out of the picture, the simple truth is Bush has vastly increased gov't spending and the size and scope of gov't with it. This alone goes against the very economic core of the conservative principles that republicans have claimed to have in the last many years.
But there is bright side to all of this is the American public and voter is halfway smart enough to figure it out or even care. In Bush's shift to "the dark side" the democrats have been most vocal about the excessive spending and excessive growth of gov't. It's like in some respect we've entered an alternative universe or something. We now have plenty of video tape and printed word of a variety of democrats extolling the evils of deficent spendings, unbalanced budgets and excessive and unnecessary growth of gov't power. It's not a question of if but when they get the reins of power back in this country, the American people should hold them to what they said in the past.
Now there's good reason to do this on their part and play this dangerous political game. Their core like Susie won't go anywhere else so that vote is very safe just about no matter what they do. On the republican side or Bush side so to speak, I'd say in your case that you are unlike to venture over to the democratic side of the isle. So they (democrats) find themselves free to publically take up a bit of the conservative economic stance in the hopes of making that a part of the public discourse that some of the folks who voted republican in the past but aren't entrenched republicans will become disenchanted with the republicans as a result of economic policy and either vote democratic, 3rd party or not vote at all. In any of the 3 cases the democrats win because the republicans lost votes.
In the case of the republicans, they feel they have the core conservative vote or people who think they are conservative locked up so in their game plans it's all about trying to show the democratic voters on the edge that they can be liberal too. Like the scenario above the same is true except the republicans benefit.
America has 2 core divisions of voters of about 40% each that for all practical purposes will only vote the party and nothing else. The remaining 20% and that may be way to high aren't nearly as committed one way or the other and this is where the battle lies. That small uncommitted voter out there. The vote in America is so close it's come down to trying to sway that last tiny % vote that may make the difference in the next election.
On another note, have you ever been to the website for the Project for the New American Century and done any reading? You should. PNAC was started back in the latter 90's by Bill Kristol along with folks like Cheney, William Bennett, Rumsfeld and a number of other folks with many serving with the Bush adminstration. The vast majority of economic and especially foreign policy of the Bush adminstration has been driven by many of these folks.
As to the Iraq/foreign policy issue and it's effects on gov't spending one needs to understand timelines and events. One such event in the timeline is the "Clean Break" report that Richard Perle help draft and presented to Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu back in the mid 90's. A copy of the report can be found at the link
The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies Jerusalem, Washington
On March 2, 2003' Maureen Dowd wrote the following in the New York Times:
"In 1992, Dick Cheney, the defense secretary for Bush 41, and his
aides, Paul Wolfowitz and Scooter Libby, drafted a document
asserting that America should prepare to cast off formal
alliances and throw its military weight around to prevent the
rise of any `potential future global competitor' and to preclude
the spread of nuclear weapons."
The report entitled, "Defense Strategy for the 1990's" was released in Jan. 1993' a few weeks before Clinton took office and thus prevented Cheney and friends from implementing this policy that was drawn as a result of the collaspe of the Soviet Union thus making America the lone Superpower. Here's is a link to the report written by Cheney:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pdf/naarpr_Defense.pdf
Understanding timelines and the persons involved does help present a clearer picture to what is happening and in some cases why. One of the best timelines I've seen can be found at :
Complete 911 Timeline
It doesn't answer all the questions but it fills in enough that you can then search for specific gov't documents and the like to get a vastly greater understanding of what is really driving much of this.
Ever heard the term "Greater Israel"? I had to but never gave it any thought at all nor knew it's meaning until I stumbled upon this map recently. If true, I can begin to understand the Arab world's anger.
Greater Israel - Wikipedia
Now I say if true because it's not definitive IMO but consider #3 at the article above. Consider this being passed about by various Arab outlets and then consider the persons and timelines and the reports of conquest of Iraq and it's westernization to American standards then one begins to see what the Arab street is really thinking and thus reacting like it is. If this was happening to us with the same circumstances I dare say most if not all of us here wouldn't be to happy now would we?
Lastly, the irony in all of this is the conservative position during the Clinton years on what is known as Nation Building. Clinton was lamblasted for his policy in the Balkans and IMO rightly so but it seems the current so-called conservatives have for gotten what they said at the time as they sit silent as Bush faces his own "Balkans" problem. The other irony is the same folks who themselves sat silent during the Clinton years have now taken up the anti-Nation building mantra as though they created it. That's the politics again that we face.
Bush on nation building, Iraq, bin Laden
Enjoy the beautiful spring weather as the flowers are a popping here and I'm sure will be there soon.
Take care!
