Bill Kristol to Conservatives "Small isn't Beautiful"

[Molon Labe]

This is why people like Bill Kristol should be severly scrutinized before we hold them up as "Conservatie" torch bearers. He is not one.
Read the Republican creed. None of what he says resembles it.



Kristol's article here. "Small isn't Beautiful" http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/08/op...stol.html?_r=1

By WILLIAM KRISTOL
Published: December 8, 2008
President-elect Barack Obama and a Democratic Congress are about to serve up a supersized helping of big-government liberalism. Conservatives will be inclined to oppose much of what Obama and his party cook up. And, I believe, rightly so.

But conservatives should think twice before charging into battle against Obama under the banner of “small-government conservatism.” It’s a banner many Republicans and conservatives have rediscovered since the election and have been waving around energetically. Jeb Bush, now considering a Senate run in 2010, even went so far as to tell Politico last month, “There should not be such a thing as a big-government Republican.”

Really? Jeb Bush was a successful and popular conservative governor of Florida, with tax cuts, policy reforms and privatizations of government services to show for his time in office. Still, in his two terms state spending increased over 50 percent — a rate faster than inflation plus population growth. It turns out, in the real world of Republican governance, that there aren’t a whole lot of small-government Republicans.

Five Republicans have won the presidency since 1932: Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and the two George Bushes. Only Reagan was even close to being a small-government conservative. And he campaigned in 1980 more as a tax-cutter and national-defense-builder-upper, and less as a small-government enthusiast in the mold of the man he had supported — and who had lost — in 1964, Barry Goldwater. And Reagan’s record as governor and president wasn’t a particularly government-slashing one.

Even the G.O.P.’s 1994 Contract With America made only vague promises to eliminate the budget deficit, and proposed no specific cuts in government programs. It focused far more on crime, taxes, welfare reform and government reform. Indeed, the “Republican Revolution” of 1995 imploded primarily because of the Republican Congress’s one major small-government-type initiative — the attempt to “cut” ...

[EricMartin]

I believe what he's trying to say is: "To hell with principles, there's no use in standing up for anything, it's all about winning – no matter the compromises". He doesn't want to offer an alternative to the Democratic Party – he wants to play by their rules. "Our boys in Washington can regulate your life way better than their boys in Washington".

[Molon Labe]

I believe what he's trying to say is: "To hell with principles, there's no use in standing up for anything, it's all about winning – no matter the compromises". He doesn't want to offer an alternative to the Democratic Party – he wants to play by their rules. "Our boys in Washington can regulate your life way better than their boys in Washington".

Yep...that his M.O......Still trying to sell his left wing s@!t as "Conservatism".
If that's what he wants fine....but just be a man about it and admit you're a "statist".

He's got it completely wrong. He says the "Contract for America" failed because it tried to "cut" government too much. Wasn't the promise of smaller government the entire reason why the Republican's got a landslide?
It's not the voters fault the Republican's didn't deliver and are in the minority again. But it's sure as hell the voters fault when they didn't hold the guys accountable for it.

Gosh....If what he's saying is true...then it would appear conservatism is pretty much dead....and we might as well keep trudging toward this quasi plutocratic socialism he's basically supports.

[ReaganForRus]

Help this ignorant Texan out......didn't Reagan support the congressional omnibus budget reduction act of 1986 (COBRA) in which there would be one dollar of new spending for each three dollars of budget cuts as part of his Grace commission report? Didn't the Gingrich Republicans along with Blue Dog democrats pass a balanced budget bill only to have the Courts overturn it as being "unconstitutional" on the infringement of the legislative branch's power by the executive branch?

Kristol is wrong and is from the same piece of cloth as most of the people in Government, they want the unfettered power of the purse and will do anything to retain power. There will be a reckoning........so run Kristol, you cur, run..........tell'em we're coming, and hell's coming with us!

[Lager]

The case for a smaller government has not been made effectively in quite a while. While most traditional conservatives understand why a smaller government is better for society and provides more freedoms, a person in our country today might look at their government check, or the prescriptions they're getting subsidized and think it's okay with them, as long as the government doesn't start messin with their TVs.

[PeterS]

This is why people like Bill Kristol should be severly scrutinized before we hold them up as "Conservatie" torch bearers. He is not one.
Read the Republican creed. None of what he says resembles it.



"It turns out, in the real world of Republican governance, that there aren’t a whole lot of small-government Republicans."

Isn't he simply stating the obvious? Conservatives don't elect conservatives. Don't blame Kristol for that.

[PeterS]

The case for a smaller government has not been made effectively in quite a while. While most traditional conservatives understand why a smaller government is better for society and provides more freedoms, a person in our country today might look at their government check, or the prescriptions they're getting subsidized and think it's okay with them, as long as the government doesn't start messin with their TVs.

Well what is small government? Isn't that the problem when making the case for it? As a percent of GDP government was smaller under Clinton but taxes were higher? Is that small government? And government is messing with our TV's so do we now have big government even though we are paying lower taxes?

[Lager]

You're correct. Defining small government and defending it has been a problem with conservatives who supposedly espouse the value of it. Big government is not only related to size; the amount of taxes or percentage of GDP it takes to support it, but also the amount of control and power of limits it has over everyone's lives.

[marinejcksn]

Here's another idiot along the lines of Chris Buckley & Peggy Noonan & David Frum & Horowitz. F*** Kristol and every NeoCon loser like him. These jerks probably soiled themselves when oh mighty Colin Powell called out Rush this week...they're all a bunch of phony repuke RINOS and I say it's time to purge. We've been binging on this crap since Reagan left office...kick these morons out on their behinds now.

By the way; here's the list of the 10 Republicans who voted to GIVE the big 3 our tax dollars:

Kit Bond

Sam Brownback

Susan Collins (what a suprise)

Elizabeth Dole

Pete Domenici

Dick Lugar

Olympia Snowe-job (again, no suprise here)

Arlen Specter (God, what a F***ing disgrace my senator turned out to be)

George Voinovich

John Warner

[Spâtha]

Beware NEOCONS!
Their only objective is 'getting along' with liberals, not supporting consertave ideals.