Rumbling on the Hard-Right

The Washington Times ^ | December 30, 2003 | Stephen Dinan

[GunsareOK]

President Bush is beginning to anger certain hard-line conservatives, particularly over fiscal issues, the way his father did in the year before he lost to Bill Clinton in 1992.

It's not clear how deep the dissatisfaction goes, and whether it will translate to damage at the polls in November.

[Texas_Dawg]

and Bush could cause his own defeat.

Well, considering the chances of him losing are about 0, your statement is pretty pointless.

[antaresequity]

Bush will be re-elected in a landslide...By "True Conservatives"

My vote matters. Thats why I don't throw it away.

[GunsareOK]

I would write in Tom Tancredo.

But to answer the hypothetical of Bush, Nader, or Dean with no write-ins allowed, I would vote for Bush.

[Zipporah]

To have blind loyality to a party rather than principles is not being conservative.

I bet you think you've got it ALL figured out.. I could give a care if I am statistically insignificant or not.. matters not to me. SO you are saying I am a socialist.. NOW that is so ridiculous that it doesn't bear addressing. My loyalities are to God, Country and paleo-conservative values.

[StoneColdGOP]

Ok,I'll try with you-Where and when has President Bush ever said he supported amnesty for illegals ??

As I said on another thread minutes ago on this very topic:

Nor will he ever SAY it!

Some mid-level offical will announce it at a sparsely-attended press conference, if that.

And it won't be called "amnesty" either. Give Karl Rove time to come up with some non-offensive phrase for this most outrageous violation of America's integrity.

[Who is John Galt?]

One issue wonder - how will our (NRA here also) RKBA be reclaimed under a Democrat President?

The president swears an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. That makes the "one issue" the United States Constitution - "the supreme law of the land." That Constitution includes an amendment protecting our "liberty teeth" - the 2nd Amendment. But perhaps you can tell us "how [our RKBA will] be reclaimed under" any Republican president who ignores the Constitution he swore to preserve, protect, and defend? Is it magic? Something that automatically happens when a Republican is elected? "The world wonders"...

;>)

[Missouri]

The Nazis need to be (and are being) routed out of the GOP

You wouldn't know a Nazi if you were looking right at him.

You need to brush up on your history. By using this rhetoric you insult the soldiers who had to face the Nazis of WW2. No comparison.

[JustAnAmerican]

"who would have ever thought the supremes would have upheld that piece of trash."

The point is Bush was elected to the office he now holds because "He" was supposed to "Think" before acting. That's one of the reasons we elected him. CFR is the death of free speech just as turning a blind eye to illegal aliens is the death of America. And Bush has been in the drivers seat behind both of these.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

What gives you the right to judge whether or not people here are conservative or not? I've read all your posts and you're sitting on your high horse determining who's conservative and who's not.

There are a lot of people here who are dissatisfied with Bush's absymal domestic and immigration policies. Does that automatically make them DU members or DNC infiltrators?

I am sick and tired of those who tell us that if we don't toe the GOP establishment line and vote lockstep then we are "wasting our vote." Sorry, but my vote is not for sale to those who disregard the Constitution.

I like Bush and support him 110% on the war and foreign policy, but if he doesn't get in gear in regards to the aforementioned domestic and immigration issues then we may see a rerun of the 2000 election.

[Texas_Dawg]

You wouldn't know a Nazi if you were looking right at him. You need to brush up on your history. By using this rhetoric you insult the soldiers who had to face the Nazis of WW2. No comparison.

Haha. Of course the national socialism proponents in the US are not out killing Jews, building Autobahns, nationalizing industry, etc. right now. They don't have the power. But if you don't think that Pat Buchanan and his friends would be totally up for doing some of (if not all of) the above, with a more modern, American spin on each, then you haven't been paying attention to Pat Buchanan or his fans on the FRinge.

[Lael]

Well, considering the chances of him losing are about 0, your statement is pretty pointless.

You are right.

But will you be right Jan 13,2004 when Vincente Fox visits and expects to get "Shmeered" with an Amnesty program in any of its guises???

Maybe you love 'em in Texas, but in California [see Recall Exit Poll results], or in Arizona [Bush pulled off a squeaker!], or other areas that were close?

[Texas_Dawg]

What gives you the right to judge whether or not people here are conservative or not?

Common sense and a dictionary.

[At _War_With_Liberals]

Thanks. Enough is enough already. The relativistic argument that spending/debt is really LOW is BS.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Common sense and a dictionary.

Yeah, common sense that God gave bread mold.

[!1776!]

The percentage listed under each image is the percent spent of total spending on Human Resources averaged over each term. Fiscal year data is displayed

I think I asked for a definition of what Human Resources was in the chart provided.

Your reply says human resources up front, but then begins mixing in social programs.

"Human Resources" is unclear in the chart title. If the chart was supposed to reflect "social spending" why not just title it as social spending?

To me, Human Resources could possibly include social spending, but would seem more logical for salaries.

That makes the information unclear, and therefore the intent questionable. If it is a combination of salaries and social programs then the data needs to be bifurcated to separate the two for a true picture of social spending as related to total outlays. Your response doesn't clarify that though, it uses "Human Resources" as in the chart, but switches to social programs for the rest.

Why?

[Taliesan]

I wish I could make this into a 10,000 word post, but it really is extremely simple.

There will be two realistic candidates. Vote for the most conservative one of the two.

Anything else is stupidity.

[hawk1]

Bush has no intention to stop the invasion. He will only encourage it. He hides behind double talk to defend his disastrous immigration policies. It is remarkable that politicians ignore their voters on this issue. Arnold seems to have the same problem. The license issue apparently will be revived in Jan. Too bad for California, McClintock was not elected.

[At _War_With_Liberals]

"Even so, are you willing to take the chance that a conservative judge steps down, for one reason or another, with another "Clinton" in office?"

No.

[pogo101]

Your argument that the great conservative Bush will appoint SC justices is bullsh**.

I understand you're not convinced Bush will pick "another Scalia" (or whomever is to your liking). But isn't it fair to say that Bush's SC (and other federal court) picks will be FAR more to you liking than would Howard Dean's or Dick Gephardt's?

[!1776!]

The president swears an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. That makes the "one issue" the United States Constitution - "the supreme law of the land." That Constitution includes an amendment protecting our "liberty teeth" - the 2nd Amendment. But perhaps you can tell us "how [our RKBA will] be reclaimed under" any Republican president who ignores the Constitution he swore to preserve, protect, and defend? Is it magic? Something that automatically happens when a Republican is elected? "The world wonders"...

Once again, how will our RKBA be reclaimed under a liberal President?

That said, which branch of government is responsible for writing laws under the Constitution (one hint - each them also take a similar oath to uphold the Constitution).

I'm not willing to help the left whittle more of my 2nd amendment rights away by putting someone who would take over with a chainsaw in charge of the agencies responsible for implementing laws written by Congress.

[q_an_a]

so who are you voting for? are you going to do what happened in 2000 where Dean says, "I won the popular vote." and then hope for an electoral college win? What is your strategy and who do you think would be a better manager of the presidency?

[hchutch]

Quite frankly, given the current state of the world, I question whether the paleo-conservative values are in this country's best interests.

Personally, if folks like Sam Francis are not outright racists, then they either are involved with racism's first cousin - or they have no problem with those that do. I will not support any candidate who holds to that sort of ideology.

[Hillary's Lovely Legs]

The same winning strategies of the CRA nutjobs.

[Who is John Galt?]

Apply your "common sense and a dictionary" to Dubyah's declared position on the Clinton/Feinstein 'assault weapons' ban, compadre.

(I know real Texans, and I must admit - you dodge issues like a Vermont liberal... ;>)

[JohnnyZ]

Your argument that the great conservative Bush will appoint SC justices is bullsh**. You have to rely on them DYING to even make the case.

Actuarial analysis tells me the odds are strongly in favor of at least one vacancy on the Supreme Court in the next 5 years. I'd estimate the chances at:

0: 10%
1: 40%
2: 30%
3 or more: 20%

Rehnquist is 80. Sandra Day is 74. Stevens is 84. Ginsburg is 71.

Bush has a strong record of nominating conservative justices, and has even gotten many of the most conservative past the Democrat filibuster gauntlet.

[FairOpinion]

I don't know about this particular chart, but I was told that other similar once including spending on Homeland Security as "social spending". Just goes to show you, how far some people go to try to present Bush in a bad light.

I bet the Dean campaign help them with the numbers.

[Zipporah]

Paleo-conservatism has nothing to do with race. It has to do with the constitution.. my holding those values is neither racist or 'socialist' (whereever that label came from).. now how do define racism? What candidate has a 'racist' ideology? The last one I can recall is David Duke..

[WayneM]

Great post!

There's a whole lot of real conservatives who will vote for Bush simply because he is the lesser of two evils.

Amid out of control pork barrel spending, gay marriages, and runaway illegal immigration (soon to be rewarded by a Bush-sponsored amnesty program) we will hold our collective noses and go to the polls to cast our votes for someone who is a politician first and a conservative second.

[jwalsh07]

I'm one of the "hard-line conservatives" who won't be voting for Bush.

I'm one of the "hard-line conservatives" who will be voting for Bush.

[At _War_With_Liberals]

"I am not a "one issue" conservative and the MOST important issue on the table is who is going to protect America from terrorism and their ilk"

NO IT IS NOT 'the most important issue. By professing to save THE COUNTRY, the citizens are getting screwed over in so many ways that it makes my head spin.

You have been conditioned into thinking this. We have decimated AQ and now have Iraq as a 'center of the ME' BASE.
I suuport and thank Bush for this, but I'm not going to bend over for his neocon domestic agenda. And many here feel the way I do.

[Who is John Galt?]

"Once again," perhaps you can tell us "how [our RKBA will] be reclaimed under" any Republican president who ignores the Constitution he swore to preserve, protect, and defend? "Is it magic? Something that automatically happens when a Republican is elected?"

"I'm not willing to help the left whittle more of my 2nd amendment rights away by putting someone who" ignores the Constitution "in charge of the agencies responsible for implementing laws written by Congress."

;>)

[At _War_With_Liberals]

"If people would start to understand that we have a President, not a king, and that laws originate with the Congress, maybe they could figure out how to win the war they are willing to sell out for a battle."

No sale. The most powerful man IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD has no influence on the domestic agenda and direction of the nation? Absurd.

[JohnnyZ]

Amid out of control pork barrel spending, gay marriages

You're blaming Bush for gay marriage now? Sheesh, holy fantasy world Batman!

[kildak]

Texas_Dawg, exactly what is your definition of true conservatism?

[!1776!]

I don't know about this particular chart, but I was told that other similar once including spending on Homeland Security as "social spending". Just goes to show you, how far some people go to try to present Bush in a bad light.

I really asked what I thought was an easy question to the original poster. Does this chart include federal employee salaries?

If the chart simply reflected social program spending it would have been a quick no, but I got the history of social programs 101 lecture which makes me suspicious. That and the title - Human Resources which could be just about anything including salaries, benefits, etc...

Honestly, the light of critical review can be very illuminating...

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Especially, when people claiming to be conservatives are working hard to get leftist peaceniks like Dean get elected.

A lot of us are just hard-working conservatives like you who's worried about the GOP drifting leftward. We're not a bunch of riff-raffs seeking to start flame wars with those who blindly support the policies of Bush and the GOP establishment. All we want is for Bush to lead on domestic issues like he's done on foreign policy.

So your statement is totally asinine and disrespectful.

[Lael]

Bush has no intention to stop the invasion. He will only encourage it. He hides behind double talk to defend his disastrous immigration policies. It is remarkable that politicians ignore their voters on this issue.

You have no idea just how correct you are!

Obviously, Karl Rove is cluless! [he doesn't have a 'success' letter in his name!]

Michael Savage plus the local talk shows have discovered this issue, and now talk very little about ANYTHING else!!

This must be the Arbitron Ratings driven, and 6 MILLION responses to Savage's Web poll [multiple responses are screened out!]

January 12, just two weeks from today, Vincente Fox visits, expecting Bush to "deliver". If he does, there will be 10 months of Bush Bashing over Immigration!

Savage is proposing that conservatives refrain from voting the Presidential Line over this.

After all, Bush just barely got in while losing the Popular Vote by half a million.

Can he do it while losing the Popular Vote by 6+ MILLION??

[At _War_With_Liberals]

"I am a GOP-bot because it is the only defender of American conservatism"

No sale. Bush, the admin, the RNC and neocon media have marginalized conservatives as useless extremists with a bankrupt, outmoded philosophy.

They waged the war on us. Bush has applied his "You are with us or against us" to us now. Only a weakling or someone who benefits DIRECTLY from the GOP policies will bend over for them.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

Dean as president would not be within view of the worst thing in the world.

He is weak and stupid and even the republicans could beat the daylights out of him on every issue.

The Constitution would be no more damaged under him than it has been under Bush. It's pretty much gone anyway.

I get so tired of the stupid shouting about people who don't vote for my heroic rockstar god president are enemies.

If a president sucks, he doesn't deserve your vote, period.
And George Hebert Walker Bush just plain sucked like Jimmy Carter. He didn't deserve to be president in the first place. Except for a few bright people in his administration, George W. Bush has been lukewarm to poor.

He'd have to do something really outstanding to get me back to vote for him again, and given what we've seen from him so far, he isn't likely to do anything like that.

When the war in Iraq started, most everyone I saw was very pleased with him.

Now, I hear more grumbles than compliments, even at the gun club.

He should wake up and remember who voted for him.

Oh, the religon of peace?
They are only a danger to us because we let them live. After they hurt us enough whomever is president will have to destroy them, like it or not.

[Who dat?]

I'm one of the "hard-line conservatives" who won't be voting for Bush.

Yep. You’re not going to be alone either.

IMO there are a lot of people that are going to be shocked when they find out exactly how many people there are in this country that, knowing *damn* good and well that they were probably making a mistake, held their nose and voted for GWB anyway.

And my prediction is that he’s not going to win. Whatever. It’s not worth arguing about. Just wait until election day and watch what happens.

[A Navy Vet]

"... laws originate with the Congress,..."

And the veto pen sits in the White House. Apparently, it's now rusting away in some old coffee can in the basement.

[At _War_With_Liberals]

"Absolutely false: Taxes. He cut them."

And added them to the deficit. Future taxes. Wake up.

[Who is John Galt?]

He should wake up and remember who voted for him.

Bump...

;>)

[At _War_With_Liberals]

"Ok,I'll try with you-Where and when has President Bush ever said he supported amnesty for illegals ??"

Fact: The admin supports McCains plan and influenced the writing of it. It will be tweaked. And now McCain will support Bush in exchange.

[hchutch]

Some of the comments Sam Francis has made (like the one below) cross that line in my book.

"The civilization that we as whites created in Europe and America could not have developed apart from the genetic endowments of the creating people." — SAMUEL FRANCIS, SPEECH AT THE AMERICAN RENAISSANCE CONFERENCE, MAY 1994

Source:
http://www.nationalreview.com/frum/frum031903.asp

I should note that those comments got Sam Francis fired from the Washington Times, not exactly a liberal newspaper.

The company that Francis seems comfortable with (American Renaissance, VDARE) certainly does not speak well for it. VDARE once ran a letetr praising a nasty chap by the name of Kevin MacDonald (who used to post here as macdonald14 until he was outed by Cachelot and banned). The "14" in that screen name, by the way, was a reference to something.

It looks to me, at least from what I've seen, that if paleo-cons are not racists and bigots, then they're engaging in the first cousins of racism and bigotry or they have no problem with those who do. And I have to agree with what David Frum wrote about them.

In my opinion, Buchanan's pretty damn close to racist, or at the least he has no problem associating with racists. He certainly seems to act like a bigot sometimes. He was the last one, and that was in 2000.

[FairOpinion]

My statement is factual.

Anyone not voting for Bush is helping the Dean/Dems win.

Anyone helping the Dems win is no conservative.

[!1776!]

"Once again," perhaps you can tell us "how [our RKBA will] be reclaimed under" any Republican president who ignores the Constitution he swore to preserve, protect, and defend? "Is it magic? Something that automatically happens when a Republican is elected?"

Since you won't answer my question, I'll take a stab at yours...

First, a liberal President will continue to erode RKBA through various means. It might be more illiterate judges that can't read "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" and instead rule that it is a "collective right."

Second, a liberal President will have to pander to his base, a la the Brady Center and PETA. AWB, is nothing like what they could dream up.

Third, the agencies implementing law (ATF in this case) can effectively strangle buyers and licensed dealers with red tape (especially if they have packed courts to fall back on). A simple rule change here, a different interpretation there, and you get an entire legal industry ground to a halt. The President is in charge of these agencies.

The gun banners tried Congress, and they had success for a while. The NRA has been the most effective organization at turning that tide but there is still a ways to go - those bills should never even make it to the President's desk.

Now they are working at the judicial level and having mixed results. Maybe you should ask the President's opinion on protecting the firearms industry from frivilous lawsuits because with or without AWB, it will be tough to buy a firearm from a bankrupt company.

Remaining are the implementing agencies. The CDC has historically been infested with gun banners. Only recently have they ever so reluctantly begun to see the light of day. There are other agencies out there that can make life a headache outside the light of the press that you either don't know about or don't want to acknowledge.

Is that better? Now please tell me how many steps backwards you are willing to take since you might not get your way on on battle in a larger war?

[FairOpinion]

The site where that chart is from is extolling FDR's virtues, and bashes Bush. That should also give you a clue, as to what they are really doing.

http://www.sentryoveramerica.com/issue24_GWB_vs_FDR.htm

GWB and FDR--Sad Differences

Reagan and FDR--Similarities


"The truth is, opposite to RNC rally cries, is that George Bush—based on official Office of Management and Budget data—is the biggest socialist in the history of the world. "

[Who is John Galt?]

Anyone helping the Dems win is no conservative.

And it can fairly be argued that 'anyone helping a non-conservative win is no conservative'...

;>)