17 replies to this topic

[Fr. Mike]

It sounds like this Conservative Republican believes that President Bush makes a better Democrat President than John Kerry would have.

So how do the Democrats now come up with a candidate in 2008 more liberal than Bush? It appears they have a fine Democrat in office right now if one were to believe this columnist. Maybe more hawkish than Kerry but more compassionate than Kerry too.

This is the second conservative columnist this week I have read who seems to have a problem with social spending--or in what President Bush defines as compassionate conservatism .

Does this article really mean that most Republicans "thought" that all Bush was doing when he made those pledges was talk--and he had no intent on following through?

Well at least he walked his talk in this part of his campaign promises. Maybe he realized that with outsourcing higher paying jobs and his trade policies--that there woukd be more need for social programs.

I suppose the Democrats should thank their lucky stars that one of their own [in thought] was elected.

Another question. How do the Republicans approach 2008 for a candidate as socially conscious as this one? Boy the mid term and 2008 elections are going to be interesting.

Hey, Big Spender
Should we have known that President Bush would bust the budget?

Thursday, March 16, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST

This week's column is a question, a brief one addressed with honest curiosity to Republicans. It is: When George W. Bush first came on the scene in 2000, did you understand him to be a liberal in terms of spending?

The question has been on my mind since the summer of 2005 when, at a gathering of conservatives, the question of Mr. Bush and big spending was raised. I'd recently written on the subject and thought it significant that no one disagreed with my criticism. Everyone murmured about new programs, new costs, how the president "spends like a drunken sailor except the sailor spends his own money." And then someone, a smart young journalist, said, (I paraphrase), But we always knew what Bush was. He told us when he ran as a compassionate conservative. This left me rubbing my brow in confusion. Is that what Mr. Bush meant by compassionate conservatism?

That's not what I understood him to mean. If I'd thought he was a big-spending Rockefeller Republican--that is, if I'd thought he was a man who could not imagine and had never absorbed the damage big spending does--I wouldn't have voted for him.

I understood Mr. Bush to be saying, when he first came on the national scene, that he was the kind of conservative who cared very personally about the poor and struggling, who would take actions aimed at helping them, and that those actions would include promoting policies aimed at keeping the economy healthy and capable of pumping out jobs. I also understood Mr. Bush to be saying--and he often said it--that he meant to allow and encourage faith-based programs that helped young men who were getting in trouble with, or at risk of getting in trouble with, the law. It was clear by at least the 1990s that local programs run and staffed by the religious and their organizations had a higher rate of success than did programs that excluded religion. Under Mr. Bush, the feds would no longer funnel money exclusively into nonsectarian programs. The inner-city pastor would now be able to get a portion.

I didn't understand Mr. Bush's grand passion to be cutting spending. He didn't present himself that way. But he did present himself as a conservative, with all that entails and suggests. And as all but children know, conservatism is hostile, for reasons ranging from the abstract and philosophical to the concrete and practical, to high spending and high taxing. Money is power, more money for the government is more power for the government. More power for the government will allow it to, among many other things, amuse itself by putting its fingers in a million pies, and stop performing its essential functions well, and get dizzily distracted by nonessentials, and muck up everything. Which is more or less where we are.

Yesterday USA Today ran a front-page story that seemed almost designed to give every conservative in America a Grand Klong, a fanciful medical condition that has been described as a great onrush of fecal matter to the heart. Not because it was surprising but because it wasn't. The headline: "Federal Aid Programs Expand at Record Rate." The text:

A USA Today analysis of 25 major government programs found that enrollment increased an average of 17% in the programs from 2000 to 2005. The nation's population grew 5% during that time. It was the largest five year expansion of the federal safety net since the Great Society created programs such as Medicare and Medicaid in the 1960's. Spending on these social programs was $1.3 trillion in 2005, up an inflation-adjusted 22% since 2000 and accounting for more than half of federal spending.
Enrollment growth was responsible for most of the spending increase, with higher benefits accounting for the rest. The paper quoted a liberal think tanker saying the increase in the number of people on programs is due to a rise in the poverty rate. It quoted a conservative congressman countering that entitlement programs should not be growing when unemployment is near record lows. Arguments about the report and its numbers will ensue.

Back to Mr. Bush in 2000. I believe it is fair to say most Republicans did not think George W. Bush was motivated to run for the presidency for the primary reason of cutting or controlling spending. But it is also fair to say that they did not think he was Lyndon B. Johnson. And that's what he's turned into.
How did this happen? In the years after 9/11 I looked at Mr. Bush's big budgets, and his expansion of entitlements, and assumed he was sacrificing fiscal prudence--interesting that that's the word people used to spoof his father--in order to build and maintain, however tenuously, a feeling of national unity. I assumed he wanted to lessen bipartisan tensions when America was wading into the new world of modern terrorism. I thought: This may be right and it may be wrong, but I understand it. And certainly I thought Bush was better on spending than a Democrat, with all the pressures on him to spend, would be.

A John Kerry would spend as much and raise taxes too. But could a President Kerry spend more than President Bush? How?

In any case, what bipartisan spirit there was post-9/11 has broken down, Mr. Bush will never have to run again, and he is in a position to come forward and make the case, even if only rhetorically, to slow and cut spending. He has not. And there's no sign he will.

Which leaves me where I was nine months ago, in the meeting with conservatives, rubbing my brow in confusion.

The president likes to speak of his philosophy when it comes to foreign affairs. But what about domestic affairs? I think he has a real responsibility to speak here about his thinking, about what he's doing and why.
Mr. President:

Did you ever hold conservative notions and assumptions on the issue of spending? If so, did you abandon them after the trauma of 9/11? For what reasons, exactly? Did you intend to revert to conservative thinking on spending at some point? Do you still?

Were you always a liberal on spending? Were you, or are you, frankly baffled that conservatives assumed you were a conservative on spending? Did you feel they misunderstood you? Did you allow or encourage them to misunderstand you?

What are the implications for our country if spending levels continue to grow at their current pace?

What are the implications for the Republican party if it continues to cede one of the pillars on which it stood?

Did compassionate conservatism always mean big spending?

Ms. Noonan is a contributing editor of The Wall Street Journal and author of "John Paul the Great: Remembering a Spiritual Father," (Penguin, 2005), which you can order from the OpinionJournal bookstore. Her column appears Thursdays.

[Center Punch]

which one's Pro Life...

[Center Punch]

tappin' the screen....

Fr......?

[Fr. Mike]

Which candidate in 2008? I don't know.

[Center Punch]

?????????????????????

Quote

Is Bush a better Democrat than Kerry?

[Fr. Mike]

Of the two mentioned there is only one who is pro life. John Kerry believes it is fine to kill the unborned. But I don't believe that is the position neccessarily shared by every Democrat or for that matter every Republican.

Of course if the State legislators would address this infantcide and criminalize it, we would not have to consider what a Federal candidate personally believed or not. Two states are headed that direction and more are sure to follow.

[Buddy Kidd]

However, any way you cut it, the Democratic Party is for Pro-Choice and the Republican Party is anti-Abortion. Kerry was/is Pro-Choice and President Bush was/is anti-Abortion. So, how do you answer your question?

[Irongoat]

Bush is not nearly as funny.

[Fr. Mike]

I have a serious problem with the Democrats lining up and advocating for pro choice. The party is made up of trade unionists, blue collar workers, the poor, enviromentalists, teachers ....folks that push for programs to aid their constituents. Yet the weakest in society-- they have no problem advocating for their death. One would think they would be the ones with pitchforks picketing the clinics.

On the other hand you have the Republican party made up of business owners, farmers, managers , the more affluent....they are the ones leading the charge against this infantcide. One would think that they would be the party of "scrooges" looking at the unwanted babies as a burden that will cost money and therefore need eliminated.

In truth the Republican party has been the more socially conscious. I think it has more do do with an attitude of entitlement. The Democrats talk a good talk but behind the talk lies a chip on the shoulder that implies they are owed something.

Nobody likes to be confronted by those they want to help with a person that has a chip on the shoulder.

Party politics hides the real people that make up the votes. The Democrats in practice tend to be a party of takers and the Republicans a party of givers. And this is just my humble opinion based on years of dealing with people.

Whic brings me back to the question of the topic. How does the Republicans party come up with a better "giver" and the Democrats come up with a better "taker"? Regardless of what their party mantra is.

Edited by Fr. Mike, 18 March 2006 - 12:36 PM.

[Buddy Kidd]

Because there is no average Republican just as there is no average Democrat.

One other old myth which you have repeated is about Republicans being "business owners, farmers, managers , the more affluent....". The Democratic party is headed and run by the richest of the rich. You are talking about a time of long ago, not today.

[Buddy Kidd]

Your ignorance of how well the US economy is doing right now is astounding. In fact, your ignorance of the US in general is astounding.

[Buddy Kidd]

As I have said before, your ignorance of economics is astounding.

[Buddy Kidd]

That is bull and you know it. You made the flat out statement that Liberals do better with the economy than Conservatives. You can try to qualify yourself all you want now but your original statement still governs. You constantly make statements which you know nothing about, or make exaggerated claims for shock value. Your opinions are worthless.

[Irongoat]

I have been silent for years when it comes to Canada. I am not a Canadian and I feel it is not my place to tell the world what is wrong Canada.
Out of respect to the Canadians posting here I continue to keep any criticism of the great nation of Canada to myself.

I ask all forum members who are not Canadians to refrain from posting negative responses about Canada. Thanks -

Edited by Irongoat, 19 March 2006 - 01:45 PM.