I was in Iraq when I ran across the Michael Kinsley piece about how Democrats, since the Reagan years, have out-economized the Republicans consistently. The old tax and spenders have proven not only more fiscally responsible, but more fiscally conservative than the Repubs since, as Kinsley put it, "time began" during the Reagan years. I know Kinsley's pretty far left and not many people like him, but he cites White House budget reports and they support everything he claims.
What led me to this particular article though was that the O'reilly Factor picked on just about every column Kinsley wrote EXCEPT this one during the time period. Billy O criticized darn near every opinion Kinsley had except the one that happened to really matter... money talks, right? Or does it? Why is it that the two parties lob opinion pieces back and forth at each other endlessly, but when the facts come up, everyone shuts up. More importantly, how long do the Repubs get to be called the smaller government party even though their governments have cost us more since the 80s. How long do they get to claim that cutting taxes will increase revenues even though it hasn't happened since Reagan's golden era? Why is tax and spend such a bad thing but cut and spend (even more) is ok? It simply hasn't worked.
For that matter, how long do the Repubs get to be called the pro-life party when abortions have consistently gone up under their watch, but gone down under Dems. (Check the abortion stats... the numbers, like Kinsley points out, favor the Dems... in fact, Clinton is the only President since Roe v. Wade to actually see the number of abortions performed during his terms go down in 7 out of those 8 years. If you assume that his first year was still the result of the previous pres, HW Bush, then the case is sealed - Wild Willy is the last pro-life pres we've had according to the numbers) I don't know who gets to decide which party represents what, but the facts seem to suggest otherwise lately. How come nobody talks about that anymore?
At this point I feel the need, again, to point out that I don't belong to either party. I'll admit, there was a time when, if undecided or uninformed about a candidate, I would vote Dem by default, but those days are no more. Again, I only voted for one dem in the last two elections we've had. Voting by party is simply too dangerous... and as the Kinsley piece and the abortion numbers suggest, too misleading these days. If you don't know the candidate you want, you're better off not voting. Never thought I'd say that out loud.
So anyway, how come nobody ever comments about those numbers and the conclusions they support? Why isn't our "liberal" media all over that?! And if the economy is the key, how come there are so many people out there still supporting this spend and spend president?
Sign me "just curious"
Luth
Out
6 comments:
I can't for the life of me think how the president controls the number of abortions. Did Clinton veto more abortions? Bush has a history of fewer vetoes in general, so I guess he isn't doing his job very well.
EXACTLY! That was my point during the elections too. And yet that was the most frequent reason I heard for supporting Bush in the last election. You can't be a good Catholic or pro-life unless you vote Bush. People sincerely felt they had to go against their religion to vote for any other candidate. It's good to hear the other side admit that even if it's an election too late.
Seriously though. I'll spell out the connection (according to me) between presidential administrations and abortion. The connection between Republican administrations and abortion is lip service/campaign fodder. I base this on their record of doing nothing to change the law except talking about it (while at the same time arguing AGAINST activist judges) and cutting programs that make it easier for women in bad situations to keep their babies. Dems, on the other, while labelled as the pro-death party, increase federal revenues and thus expand the programs that help women in bad situations keep their babies. The numbers, according to both Pro-Life and Planned Parenthood stats support my theory - fewer abortions are performed under Democratic administrations than Republican administrations even with the one year lag that a new pres couldn't be blamed for. In fact, that lag gives Clinton a perfect record for reducing the numbers every year he was in office. He's the ONLY president since Carter to see that happen.
Abortion is an act of desperation. Remove or reduce the desperation and the abortions dwindle. Talk is cheap. Action gets results. You can talk all you want about being more responsible and how cutting taxes will somehow make that happen, but the record speaks for itself.
Wait, you're confusing me. Below you accuse Bush of being a big spender and by extension, accuse the Republicans of becoming the big government party. Now, you say abortions have increased because of Republican cuts and claim that many of those abortions would not have occured if the Democrats had been in power because they would have increased spending. You're trying to have it both ways. Darned if you do, darned if you don't.
And relative to the Republicans not supporting activist judges, you have a point. In recent days they have pussy footed around trying to avoid the appearance of a litmus test just to appease the more liberal congressman, like Ted Kennedy and his liberal henchmen. You better believe if a Democrat president were nominating a supreme that abortion would be a litmus test. "But, those slick Republicans better not try it". Hipocracy on the part of liberals and cowardice on the part of Republicans.
Let me clarify - Republicans cut programs to give the appearance that they are balancing out their tax cuts, but they still spend more since the Reagan years than Dems have. They simply do less with more. So by one measure, cost, Republicans are the party of big government. I'm not trying to have anything both ways... although I'd like to. I'd like for BOTH parties to do what they say. I'd like to have them both earn the reputations that put them in office and that the party in power uses to criticize the one that's not. But what I'd really like is for voters to see through the myths of what party does what. It hasn't been that way since Jefferson and Lincoln.
I really can't argue with your last point. Maybe the real problem is there isn't that big of a difference between the parties. Take Hillary for example (I live in NY, please take her!), What has been her modus operandi in more recent months? To appear more centrist. Why? To appeal to a broader base of voters. What has Bush done fiscally? He has increased spending (yep, I agree with your assessment). So, Hillary tries to be more Republican and Bush tries to be more Democrat blurring the lines. And it ain't just them doing it.
People from other perspectives might argue that Hillary (and Bill) always WERE more centrist and only APPEAR to be that way now that they've forced a second look. Bill called himself a moderate, and lived up to that, although he was called other things by the opposition party. Perspective does wonders for labels. Labels often blur clear vision. For instance, I have no problem crediting Reagan with his successes, though some of them seem to me to be matters of circumstance and others seem less significant than they were made out to be, but only now, in comparison to his son, have I gained a true respect for GHW Bush.
Post a Comment