Forget the economy, which will continue to chug along comfortably. Forget Iraq, which will slowly become more and more stable. Here is Bush’s real vulnerability:
National leaders of six conservative organizations yesterday broke with the Republican majorities in the House and Senate, accusing them of spending like “drunken sailors,” and had some strong words for President Bush as well.
“The Republican Congress is spending at twice the rate as under Bill Clinton, and President Bush has yet to issue a single veto,” Paul M. Weyrich, national chairman of Coalitions for America, said at a news briefing with the other five leaders. “I complained about profligate spending during the Clinton years but never thought I’d have to do so with a Republican in the White House and Republicans controlling the Congress.”
CadillaqJaq
And then they warned of “adverse consequences” if the Senate passes and Bush signs a pending Omnibus spending bill… so what will they promote if the Senate and Bush do just that? Vote Democratic in November 2004?
Didn’t the Christian Rightists get pissed off at Bush-41 and stayed at home in 1992 and who got elected?
Go ahead, snip it off: it’s only your nose.
Meezer
Absolutely, Cadillaq. I’m from a long line of fiscal conservatives but I’ll worry about that when I’m not blown up, thank you. Also, why the constant carrying on about a billion here or there? The whole entitlements deal is going to blow up and it won’t matter who is pres. The electorate won’t do anything (or allow it to be done) until our grandchildren turn on their selfish parents and grandparents. Which they will, eventually.
Andrew Lazarus
IF spending like a drunken sailor didn’t have an eventual adverse effect on the economy, then what would be the problem? Right, we can talk about philosophy of government or whatever, but let’s get real. If people can indulge themselves seemingly for free, they will.
Of course, the rub is in the IF part. Either inflation, or the need to cut Social Security drastically (incidentally, have you thought how much the economy would be hurt by a major loss in seniors’ spending power?), default on bonds or some other misfortune is the inevitable hangover from the binge. The trick is to somehow time it around elections so it doesn’t damage the Republican Party. They may have pulled it off, but I wouldn’t be surprised to see the recovery flatten out and even some bad news by 4Q 2004.
S.W. Anderson
The one thing that’s allowed to get in the way of ideology and operating a legislation vending machine for corporations and big financial interests in the Bush-Cheney-Rove White House is the re-election imperative. That trumps all.
If one-armed pool shooters in northern Louisiana are perceived as a coveted voting bloc, expect to see W trot out a billion or two for disabled-friendly community recreation/billiard parlors, with announcement of the program staged in a friendly northern Louisiana town. Call it compassionate preservatism (as in preserve my presidency).
As for the economy chugging along comfortably, tell that to some 10 million to 14 million people who’ve been screwed, blued and tattooed over the past four years — then duck, if you know what’s good for you.
MB
As one of the pissed-off right-wingers, I am longing for the conservative fiscal practices of Clinton! The prescription drug bill and the open borders nonsense are two of the most ill-conceived ideas everput forth. We are being drained by overspending and illegals. Bush lost my vote, screw Halliburton, screw Fox, screw the neo-cons.
Greyhawk
And who gets the vote?
This is the problem created by the lack of a viable second party in America. Hopefully there will be such loyal opposition by 2008.
lk
I am older than most. I want to ask all those younger than me – How are YOU going to pay for MY Social Security? Start putting a little aside every month for me.
Peter
To Meezer:
Here’s what I don’t get. If you are a fiscal conservative, and don’t want to get blown up, why aren’t you willing to pay, today, for the protection? You are saying that yes, some spending is worthwhile, as long as I can pass the bill on to future generations?
mig0
I hope that the conservatives who make the decision to stay at home and not vote for Bush remember their decision should Bush lose this election. It’d be disingenuous for them to suddenly repeat the anti-clinton rage of the 90s with Anti-Dean/Clark/whoever rage. It’d be their own damned faults.
Howard Owens
No election has ever turned on the deficit, and this one won’t either.
Katherine
The weird thing is, Howard “unelectable”Dean is the one best positioned to make the case on this issue.
Emperor Misha I
No.
It’ll be George “Drunken Sailor” Bush’s fault, nobody else’s.
Unless you think that anybody with an “R” after their name is entitled to my vote, which may very well be the case where you’re concerned.
You want me to vote for Bush? Tell BUSH that. He’s the one that can change the situation. Votes are something you earn, and he’s done diddly squat to earn mine.
Jeremy
If Lieberman were the democratic nominee, I’d vote for him in a second.
But most of the others are either completely nuts (Dean, Clark) and frankly, I wouldn’t trust them with the button (especially as Clark apparently liked picking a fight with the Russians).
Reality
Has anyone noted the obvious facta that being in a war, a near recession with plunging tax revenues, and political necessities will lead to higher deficits? The only reason Clinton “balanced the budget” was higher taxes and higher tax receipts from a booming economy, and forced fiscal discipline from a Republican congress. Would you rather Bush spent less? Sure. Should you trade him for the alternative? No way. Regardless, wait until the second term, when tax receipts go up with a healthier economy, and political realities allow spending cuts, and things will balance out.
The Snark Who Was Really a Boojum
Emperor Misha I,
“Refusing to decide is still a decision”. If you fail to vote for someone you regard as the lesser of two evils then you have consented to the greater evil should that be what the others chose.
– Snark
Brent
Reality,
Plunging tax receipts from a recession – yes, but also from a massive tax cut. Is the tax cut great? Sure, I like more money in my pocket, but if we are waging a war, shouldn’t we pay for it rather than passing it on to our children? Ever heard of the phrase “put your money where your mouth is”?
Finally, I think that those of us that are pro-defense need to take a look at Europe – when push came to shove, they cut DEFENSE spending not entitlement/social security spending. Given the choice, what do you think most people will choose? (1) cut defense and leave the Iraqis, Afghanis, etc. to take care of themselves or (2) cut the check that lets Grandma pay her rent?
My guess is, in that event, we’ll be abandoning many a military post around the world.
Joel
“The only reason Clinton “balanced the budget” was higher taxes and higher tax receipts from a booming economy, and forced fiscal discipline from a Republican congress.”
Er, we have had a Republican Congress for the past three years. Is this a new and unfamiliar use of the phrase “fiscal discipline?”
This is not a conservative president and this is not a conservative Congress.
Andrew J. Lazarus
Reality, George Bush said he’d be able to keep the budget in balance during the 2000 campaign. He didn’t say ‘only if the economy keeps booming’.
Now HIS OWN ADMINISTRATION with the most optimistic forecasts imaginable says they will cut the deficit in half by 2008. He will no more be able to keep that promise than the 2000 one. All that remains is which dog ate the homework excuse he provides.
We are no longer running a temporary deficit caused by the business cycle, but a structural deficit that the revenues from the current tax structure can not possibly support the budgeted expenses. Worse still, the deficit will skyrocket even higher if the various allegedly temporary cuts are made permanent, as Bush is expected to demand in the SOTU next week, because of provisions timed to explode in 2009 or later.
If Schwarzenegger can figure out how to solve a similar, but smaller, problem in California, he should hurry up and challenge Bush in the Republican Primary ( ;-) )
Charlie
Mischa, you’re funny but you’re not exactly being a rational actor. That’s fine, it’s your schtick, but — especially in a close election — failing to vote for Bush is necessarily a vote for whoever the opposing candidate is. I can vaguely understand, if not sympathize, with someone who would vote for Dean/Clark/Clinton et al because they actually think (misguided though they be) that it’s a better choice; someone who votes for them because Bush isn’t “pure enough” is just an idiot.
Ksec
Its just one of a long line of Bush failures. When we have a conservative President and a Conservative majority in Congress you are showing the country that your ideology and policies dont work. Proof is in the pudding baby.
The country is only as good as its leaders. A vote for Bush is a vote for failure. Vote Democratic if you want to live like a Republican. I havent seen one Repub who could run things without ruining the country. Put your own selfishness aside and vote for whats best for you and your country . Deep down inside you KNOW what that is.
jeremiah
Gee, if the Dems are the thrifty ones then why do they attack Bush over not fully funding this and that. You people all forget that homeland security was the biggest re-orginization of the Fed since FDR, and it cost money. You also forget that Bush had to trade spending in order to get reforms in place (accountability in education policy, more consumer choice in healthcare) In addition Bush has and will push SS reform, which would give people more control over the taxes paid, though it will cost alot to switchover. Quit being statists! The federal budget is a balance sheet, the economy is more important, and right now its growing faster than it has in twenty years, even after an attack that erased 3 trillion in wealth. The deficit is 5% of GDP, I’d say leaving the children with a non- radiated country with a functioning economy is more important. Bush has done nothing to earn your vote– screw you, he’s the only world leader willing to stand up to terrorists (aside from Blair) you think its easy? Sit out the vote, and get ready to submit foriegn policy to the constraints of the ICC and the UN, get ready to make deals with the mullahs in Iran, get ready for the fed to spend even more– and raise taxes, get ready for govt lawyers suing fast food joints, get ready for real amnesty under a media provided cloak. Join reality and quit bitching, conservatives are a minority of the voting public, 80% of the American people dont even know the names of the founders.
JKC
As long as they’re not connected with the government of Saudi Arabia.
Abb
Bush is finally putting astop to terror that has been going on since Jimmy Carter. He does need to cool it a little on the spending.He is getting so much done, he follows through with everything and if something needs to be dome he does it.
Ksec
The only problem with your theory is that you genuises invaded the wrong country. Now thats progress with a capital P. Only cost 300 bil too..and rising.
Maybe next time Bush’ll invade someone who is actually associated with terror. Like Saudi Arabia. Ooops. Bandar is his Bud, he wont even look their way. Real effective.
Andrew J. Lazarus
Bring us back a quote on how much it cost (money above and beyond pre 9/11 amounts). Compare to the size of the deficit. Then we’ll talk.
ed
As a Conservative I’m voting against Bush in 2004. I’m also voting completely against the RNC in 2004 as well. Do I care what the candidates are? Not one damn bit thank you. America survived 8 yeras of Clinton nonsense and so America will also surivive 4 years of whatever idiot gets elected. But it is past time, and very necessary, for the RNC to understand fully the limits of Conservative patience. Otherwise the Conservative vote becomse a laughable shell that the RNC can safely ignore. The phrase “who else can you vote for?” implies that, without any options, the Conservatives MUST vote however the RNC desires. This is **FALSE**.
Above all the RNC has provided me with a safety valve that I can use to justify my 2004 vote. The RNC controls both houses of Congress. With the election of a Democratic President this would result in a political gridlock. Perhaps not the best of all outcomes, but not the worst by any means. If nothing else it would prevent any more insanity from the RNC and perhaps teach those dogs a lesson that they badly need.
In my opinion President Bush, and the RNC, has largely treated Conservatives like a cheap $20 whore. Used when useful, abused when not. I object in the strongest terms to being treated like that and I’m going to translate that objection into reality. So far President Bush has transformed his presidency into being more Democrat than any Democrat could ever hope to be. If he were to change his party affiliation today I wouldn’t be surprised at all. As for his illegal immigrant program, it’s a monstrous lie if anyone actually believes it to be benign.
If anyone doesn’t understand that there are tens of thousands of people, all over the world, who have the training, education and experience to replace them, and would be willing to do so for nothing other than a heavily reduced salary and the opportunity to live in America, they are living in a fool’s paradise. This immigration plan of Bush’s is nothing less than a complete assault on the average worker here in America. What are the limitations to this program? No numerical limits, no plan for dealing with abuses and minimal limitations on how it gets implemented. This is nothing less than offshoring and outsourcing made simpler, easier and cheaper by bringing those workers here to America, but preserving their coolie worker status.
Before you misunderstand me you should consider that I have a 26+ year career in computer programming. I’ve worked many years as a subcontractor and I’ve had to deal with competition for programming jobs so it’s nothing new for me. But all of YOU should consider how life would be if YOU had to compete with someone who would be willing to do your job for 1/4th of your income.
THAT is the end result of Bush’s policy. And if you complain, so what. Where, and to whom, would you complain? And how many complaints would that group have to deal with? And how long would it take to investigate your complaint? And how many years would it be before you got an answer?
Just how irrelevant do you want to make yourself? Face it. The primary purpose of Bush’s immigration policy is to drive salaries down, so it’s great from the point of view of corporations. But from the viewpoint of average people, this is a disaster of epic proportions.
ed