Republicans Against Bush
Ryan writes:
Reader/Frequent commenter/Friend Mike McKain asks a question in the comments for this post:
How widespread do you think the distaste from Bush is in the mouths of most Republicans?I think it is pretty widespread at this point Mike, and there are a couple reasons why. For the purposes of explaining this phenomenon, I will divide Republicans who are not happy with Bush into two groups: “The base,” or conservatives and libertarians who’s disagreements with the President is mostly ideological, and “the disappointed,” those who may disagree with the President, but who’s beef is motivated by Bush incompetence.
Well that’s a start, but Ryan gets it wrong once again. Here is why conservatives are mad at Bush.
Conservatives to Bush, “How dare you prove my beliefs wrong!”
I am becoming more and more convinced that a large part of Conservatives anger towards Bush, is that Bush put conservatives principals to work and these principals FAILED! Conservatives who look at the world in Black and White have had no choice but to go into Panic mode because of this.
Read the whole thing, but if you are at work, here is the digest version:
THE CORE BELIEFS THAT CONSERVATIVES HELD THAT BUSH HAS PROVEN TO BE FALSE:
1) Tax cuts pay for themselves by generating more revenue
2) Democrats want to spend your money while the GOP is more fiscally responsible
3) Republicans are better at using the military and projecting US power abroad
4) Policies aimed at helping big business will stimulate the economy
5) When social conservatism fails it’s because YOU weren’t conservative enough
6) The GOP is more virtuous then those heathen Democrats
You’re hilarious.
“1) Tax cuts pay for themselves by generating more revenue.”
Well, they have generated more revenue….
“4) Policies aimed at helping big business will stimulate the economy”
Well, the economy has grown at ridiculous rates…
“5) When social conservatism fails it’s because YOU weren’t conservative enough”
Bush hasn’t tried to be socially conservative.
Bush hasn’t proven the ideals fo conservatism wrong, because he hasn’t put those principles into action.
AMEN!
(oops, sorry if I offended you godless liberals…)
‘
“When social conservatism fails it’s because YOU weren’t conservative enough”
Bush hasn’t tried to be socially conservative.
Irony thy name is Burris.
Explain that one to me.
Ya gotta love these Republicans who voted for Bush because he was conservative, and now that the conservative policies have failed, it’s “Bush isn’t a conservative.”
Well, they have generated more revenue….
No, the stimulus of deficit spending has generated more revenue despite the tax cuts. That’s over now, because Republicans have increased debt so much that now we have to raise interest rates to protect the dollar.
Isn’t it interesting that Republicans have never managed to cut taxes without borrowing to cover it. That tells the whole story right there about tax cuts paying for themselves.
Well, the economy has grown at ridiculous rates…
Yeah, .06% is pretty ridiculous. Prior growth was just a sugar rush from all the borrowing and spending; now it’s time for the headache.
Bush hasn’t tried to be socially conservative.
You meean all those anti-gay marriage amendments right before the election were just a bunch of sleazy bullshit politics? Say it ain’t so!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19209733/
Republicans abandoning Bush
NBC/WSJ poll: President’s, Congress’ ratings drop to lowest levels ever
In the poll, Bush’s approval rating is at just 29 percent. It’s a drop of six points since April, and it represents his lowest mark ever on this question in the NBC/Journal poll.
Back in April, 75 percent of Republicans approved of Bush’s job performance, compared with 21 percent who disapproved. Now, only 62 percent of Republican approve, versus 32 percent who disapprove.
“In the poll, Bush’s approval rating is at just 29 percent. It’s a drop of six points since April, and it represents his lowest mark ever on this question in the NBC/Journal poll.”
This has EVERYTHING to do with the immigration crap. Look at the timing. His stance on immigration (i.e. OPEN UP THE DAMN BORDER and make all the illegals magically legal) is decidedly UNCONSERVATIVE.
“No, the stimulus of deficit spending has generated more revenue despite the tax cuts. That’s over now, because Republicans have increased debt so much that now we have to raise interest rates to protect the dollar.”
Hey anon. Try reading the news. This appeared in Bloomberg on June 12th.
“Since the start of the fiscal year on Oct. 1, the budget deficit totaled $148.5 billion, down 35 percent from a shortfall of $227 billion a year earlier. For all of this year the shortfall could narrow to $150 billion, the Congressional Budget Office said May 4. That would be the smallest deficit this decade.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aoJzsK7uPlRI&refer=us
“Isn’t it interesting that Republicans have never managed to cut taxes without borrowing to cover it. That tells the whole story right there about tax cuts paying for themselves.”
Since 1962 (as far back as CBO numbers go on their website) we have spent more than we have taken in (with the exception of two years). Now there were 5 Republican and 4 Democrat presidents in that time span. The two “surplus” years were 1999 and 2000, admittedly during the Clinton watch. But keep in mind it was the Rep. controlled cogress (elected in 1996) that held his feet to the fire to get those surpluses. Not to mention the Tech Bubble driving revenues.
As to your foolish argument that tax cuts only seem to work because more money is borrowed to cover it up. I submit to you the following numbers:
In 2004, revenues were (in billions) 1,880.3, in 2006 that shot up to 2407.3, an increase of 527 Billion.
In 2004, expenditures were 2,293.0 (in billions), in 2006 that went up to 2,655.4, an increase of only 362.4 billion. So it would seem to me that the tax cuts were working without borrowing the difference.
Source: http://www.cbo.gov/budget/historical.pdf
I mention 2 and 6 as one of the reasons, but may I remind you, Republican does not always indicate conservative, just as Democrat does not always indicate liberal (which parties are Castle and Carper in again?).
3) Republicans are better at using the military and projecting US power abroad
Since when is that a policy goal? Not that either side wants the military to be ineffective, but I’d rather just be left alone rather than ‘project US power abroad.’
4) Policies aimed at helping big business will stimulate the economy
Corporate welfare is not conservative
5) When social conservatism fails it’s because YOU weren’t conservative enough I’m not even sure what that means.
Since when is that a policy goal?
It is not a policy goal – it is a myth that George Bush has demolished.
yup, illegals welcome sign is not what conservative OR liberal Americans will tolerate.
see a recent rightwingosphere poll on GOPer popularity (hint: GOP is in the gutter):
http://delawareway.blogspot.com/2007/06/bushs-fringe-base-kicks-sand-in-his.html
I’m creating a new PAC called the Koncerned Konservatives of Konservia, otherwise known as the CCC.
A drastically increasing pluralist society will continue to reject the innate xenophobia within the GOP.
“I’m creating a new PAC called the Koncerned Konservatives of Konservia, otherwise known as the CCC.”
With those initials no doubt a DEMOCRATIC PAC.
Chris, aka, The ProJectioNatoR. You Rock!
Noun: A person who will externalize and attribute (an emotion or motive, for example) unconsciously to someone or something else in order to avoid anxiety.
“The ProJectioNatoR.
Noun: A person who will externalize and attribute (an emotion or motive, for example) unconsciously to someone or something else in order to avoid anxiety.”
Thank you for clearing that up for me. I always wondered why you all claimed republicans were racists when history clear says otherwise. Now I understand. That’s ok, you can’t help you prejudices.
Really, what history? Lincoln? Do you have to go back that far to make your point?
Vast majorities of minorities (racial and social) vote Dem, Liberal, Progressive, and not the GOP.
Actions speak louder than words, Pee Wee Chris.
“Really, what history? Lincoln? Do you have to go back that far to make your point?”
How about back to the heart of the Civil Rights movement. It was a Dem who passed it, but he need the Republicans in congress because a bunch of racists democrats wouldn’t do it.
How about more recent than that. When “Whiteboy” Bush took office, he put Colin Powell in as Secretary of State and Condi Rice in as National Security Advisers. Besides V.P., there was no higher administrative positions he could have appointed African-Americans too. The response, Dems and so-called “black leaders” demean and dismiss the two as “Uncle Toms”. And they say it is us that are racists.
By they way, what was the high level cabinets the “black president” Clinton appointed? Surgeon General and Poet Laureate. Try that for “tokenism”.
“Vast majorities of minorities (racial and social) vote Dem, Liberal, Progressive, and not the GOP.”
And how many of them, instead of being given a chance to succeed on their own, have become wards of your misguided social programs. They have become dependent on it instead of being encouraged to be successful. Now they have to vote for Dems because they are their “big dealer”.
Minorities that have made it on their own and broken free of the nanny-state tend to gravitate to the GOP because they know that true GOP (not the overspending Bush Admin) put policies in place to help people make it on their own with dignity and respect, instead of relying on the teat of the federal government.