Conservatives Negative on Bush, Immigration and Shooting the Moon.

[eblack101]

Friends,

I don't want to say that I told you so...but, Yaaaaooooooohhh!
(think of James Brown) I feel good....!

You may know Andrew Sullivan.com, the 1st Conservative to
really haul in a following on the internet, largely because
straight (newspaper & heterosexual) columnists quoted him
all the time, and also because he made some noteworthy scoops
of the legit media, which really put the internet, and hence
himself, on the map. Oh, and he's come out as a homosexual,
just to put a little social zip in his fiscal conservatism.

Here are 3 short reflections on Bush's conservatism...and, not
too surprisingly...a few comments on his budgetary
performance.  Because I want to post a balanced offering, I'd
like to point out that prominent Libertarians are learning to
exercize their negative vocabulary on our high flying Resident
with equal vigor.

Question:  Can you hit 2 foul balls at the same time?  You can
if you're in the Bush League : 

try immigration and jobs reform (gasp) and a moonshot at the
same time.  And just because a real moon shot will commit the
nation to huuuuge budgetary problems in the future is no
reason to forget that opening the nation to "guest"
workers will also cost us a humongous amount of money before
it's over.  They're already discussing some idiot program to
allow illegals to collect social security (gasp!) even though
they haven't paid into it.

It's a small comfort, but this is old hat for the Corpos, or
should I call them the Neo-Corpos: this kind of madcap Chinese
fire drill is exactly the same way they've organized
post-invasion Iraq. "Let them eat cake.  No?  Well, let
them eat ice cream, then.  What, It's melted already?  But we
just trucked in 18 million bucks worth from Kuwait!  Ok,
Ok...let them eat dates!  The dates are what?  Irradiated? 
Whuul, what the hail does that mean?".

Well, here's a few from Andrew Sullivan:
www.andrewsullivan.com


"I'm talking about this $170 billion foray into space.
After all, the next generation will be paying for a collapsed
social security system, a bankrupted Medicare program, soaring
interest on the public debt, as well as coughing up far higher
taxes to keep some semblance of a government in operation.
But, hey, the president needed another major distraction the
week before the Iowa caucuses, and since he won't be around to
pick up the bill, why the hell not? Deficits don't matter,
after all. And what's a few hundred billion dollars over the
next few decades anyway? Chickenfeed for the big and bigger
government now championed by the Republicans.

" This space initiative is, for me, the last fiscal
straw. There comes a point at which the excuses for fiscal
recklessness run out. The president campaigned in favor of the
responsibility ethic. He has governed - in terms of guarding
the nation's finances - according to the motto: 'If it feels
good, do it.' I give up. Can't they even pretend to give a
damn?"


Andrew has clearly forgotten, or just doesn't care, that Bush
also campaigned for humility in foreign relations. Here's
another:


THE DISCREPANCY:
Dan Mitchell from the Heritage Foundation explains how the
White House numbers for spending conflict with, er, reality: 

The Bush Administration is measuring annual changes in budget
authority (a form of hypothetical money that indicates how
much a certain department or agency has in its hypothetical
checkbook) while Heritage - and everyone else - measures
annual changes in budget outlays (how much money actually is
being spent).
Budget authority, I should mention, is not a fraudulent
concept, but it does allow for fraudulent game-playing. You
can shift budget authority between fiscal years. You can
deliberately reduce budget authority in the short run even
though you realize that your outlay trendline makes that
untenable. etc, etc.
Outlays are where the rubber meets the road, so to speak. I
will gladly defend the WH's tax policy, but their spending
policy is obscene.
Obscenity covered with obfuscation. Tax and spend is bad
enough. Spend, borrow and spin is worse. 


Do you detect a certain frustrated, pissy quality?  Here's
another one. Back to Andrew Sullivan.


HOW BUSH COULD LOSE: I'm not sure what to make of the NYT poll
yesterday. Obviously, I don't trust NYT polls. But if this one
is at all accurate, it's grim news for Rove. The strategy of
bankrupting the country to appease various interest groups
hasn't worked too well.

Bush is still behind on prescription drugs for the elderly -
despite a future cost of trillions directed to the wealthiest
segment of the population. Despite booming growth and
productivity rates, Bush still gets a net negative on the
economy. It's even stevens on Iraq.  The president's only real
ace is national security - which, during the war on terror, is
a big ace. (It's certainly the sole reason I'm still giving
the president the benefit of the doubt.) But here's the thing:
much of the national security advantage is retroactive. It
refers to the admirable way in which Bush responded to 9/11.
Looking forward, there's a big opening for a Democrat who
wants to say the following: "I want to do more to improve
homeland security, put more emphasis on securing loose nukes
in Russia and around the world, stay the course on Iraq - but
also move to mend fences with old Europe and our other allies.

Domestically, I'm going to improve our finances by raising
taxes on the very rich, but cutting taxes on the middle class.
And, above all, I'll be a check on one-party government in the
Congress, and prevent Bush from appointing extremists to the
Supreme Court." That's a powerful message.

My hunch is that the Democratic primary voters have begun to
realize that they've sent their message of anger, but now
realize they can win, if they find the right guy. For a
cultural liberal, fiscal conservative like me, Bush's only
current advantage over a centrist Democrat is his conduct of
the war on terror. What we'll see in the next few weeks is if
the Dems can see this. It's grim news for Bush if they can. 


eblack101 again.  Andrew hasn't noticed that this message, in
flagrante, is already being broadcast by Kerry, and in near
flagrante by Dean.  Oh, yeah, and "for a fiscal
conservative like me "(Andrew), he's probably noticed
that Dean's a frontline, fire hardened fiscal conservative
too.


You may be happy to hear, friends, that this is the 2nd
"How Bush Could Lose" article by a conservative
columnist that I've read in the past 2 weeks.  And they both
suggest the same formula...it must be "blowing in the
wind".

[Old and In the Way]

1. Great post!

Only an idiot would vote for this moron again.

You know that old saying, "fool me once, won't get fooled again"

[wonderwhy]

2. I concur. A great post, indeed.

Traditional conservatives & Republican-voting
libertarians don't recognize themselves at all
in this administration. Finally, it seems,
the cracks are beginning to appear.
Can't wait for the wall to collapse.