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]

He's not a conservative.

He absolutely is. One of the most conservative we have ever had. So much so that he's willing to make sure he does not lose the White House (which he took back for us) to liberals, even if it means having to give in on some things he'd much rather not have to sign.

[RinaseaofDs]

You are better off not arguing with old Texas Dawg. He's logic intolerant in a way that is, well, sort of sad. I wasted a fair bit of unrecoverable lifetime before somebody alerted me to the issue. It must be a right of passage for FR newbies.

Buchanan is right here. The war is the only issue that prevents Bush from facing a primary opponent. On his watch we lost the 1st amendment to the constitution(he signed the bill), the door is open to legalizing gay marriage, he abandoned Estrada and the other clearly conservative court appointees for the bench. He signed the largest entitlement ever into law (prescription drug benefit).

He's about to grant amnesty to 8 million illegal aliens, and has done zero to end the H1B and L1 visa programs.

Meanwhile, manufacturing is out the door, primarily because the government won't back off of all the regulatory costs and legal mandates required of manufacturers in the US, yet says nothing when the jobs go to nations where none of those mandates are in place.

He is a ghastly conservative. He said he wouldn't sign campaign finance reform and did it anyway, which would have been normally enough for most conservatives to be infuriated, but then there's the war.

If the democrats had a credible guy on their side, a Sam Nunn hawk with decent fiscal sense, Bush would have a problem.

I feel, literally, as if I have a gun to my head this year. If I vote for someone other than Bush, I'm putting my family in jeopardy. We are going to have to wait four more years and see what we end up with.

You can't look at the last four years as a liberal and be all that unhappy. Look at how much of their agenda has been accomplished. So what that it wasn't Clinton claiming it as part of a legacy.

Save yourself some lifetime on this one.

[Muleteam1]

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

I just listened to a radio program where the caller was a supposed hard-line conservative but is "angry" at George Bush. This sounds like a DNC plan, albeit very transparent, to attract illiterate conservatives. Well, this is one true hard-line conservative who does not buy it and does not intend to roll-over for the socialist Howard Dean.

Muleteam1

[Publius Maximus]

Anyone aiding and enabling a Democrat to get elected, especially in these critical times is just plain enemy of the US and the American people.

This is bunk. The truth is the truth: The Republican party, under Bush II, has become the thing it hated most: A money-dispensing, vote-grubbing party more determined to do what will maintain majority (and buying votes ALWAYS works in a democracy, it's why they all eventually go broke) than what will preserve the Republic. There is no excuse for the Medicare vote, except as a grotesque, unapologetic 'triangulation' of a typically Democrat issue for purely political gain.

WHile I will hold my nose and vote for Bush next year, I don't have any illusions that he's really a conservative.

Incidentally, Clinton was the best thing that ever happened to the Republican party. He causes a major re-alignment in Congress - breaking a 40 year stranglehold his Party had on the institution. Dean can be just as devastating to liberalism. Problem is, he's going to be outflanked on liberal issues by Bush - who is going to use liberal issues to bankrupt us by the end of his second term, at which point conservatism will be discredited.

I know it's a sin not to gloat about Bush, but he has a lot to prove before I can honestly say I support him 100%. War on terror - sure, because none of the quacks in the Democrat fold have a freaking clue about the nature of the enemey. But on social issues, and particularly spending issues, Bush II has been a complete dud so far. Maybe he'll use his second term to become the draconian budget cutter his opponents claim he is. I hope so.

But this nonsense about being a traitor because one is mad enough at Bush's pandering to consider letting others elect him is just nuts.

[stopem]

It's a long way till Nov 2004 so I wont make any decisions until than but there are disturbing issues that Bush needs to take care of for the sake of conservative votes.

And illegal aliens, immigration, and protecting our borders are high on the list as is spending.

[Texas_Dawg]

Short Memory: 8 Years of Clinton.

A. MEN.

They are like the few Iraqis who fully supported the invasion and celebrated its success but now complain that the place isn't a paradise yet.

[nwrep]

Gunsareok, why don't you acknowledge the one issue on which your votes for Bush would be crucial, if it helps get him re-elected? And that issue is Judicial appointments. If you are a conservative, the notion of someone other than Bush being the President should bother you on the Judicial front.

Regards.

[Texas_Dawg]

It's a long way till Nov 2004 so I wont make any decisions until than but there are disturbing issues that Bush needs to take care of for the sake of conservative votes.

For you, maybe. He'll win in a landslide though b/c most conservatives are very happy with him, and the moderates trust him enough to vote for him as well.

[NeoCaveman]

And the two disappointments you mention would have been far worse under the only other alternative in our 2-party system.

You forget the option of gridlock! Klintoon couldn't get these passed and it wasn't for lack of trying.

Besides I already said I was voting for Bush again. Can you tolerate any disagreement at all? Sheesh.

The "Party is always right" mentality only applies to Stalinists and Democrats (but I repeat myself)

[At _War_With_Liberals]

""I see no erosion at all in the president's support, and that is largely because of the president's conduct of the war and the belief in the very strong character of President Bush," he says."

Gillespie and the RNC have had this answer/plan ready, when they prognosticated the likely reaction to Bush's socialism.

In a nutshell: "The far right old school exremists are irrelevant and will be ignored, because we do not need them. And ANY DEBATE OR RECOGNITION of their CONCERNS can only lead to problems, so screw them." Any questions now?

This is what Gillespie talks about off the record with insiders. When that NH newspaper 'outed' this position, he denied it profusely. LIAR.

[Texas_Dawg]

WHile I will hold my nose and vote for Bush next year, I don't have any illusions that he's really a conservative.

I don't know... maybe you're just not very intelligent. Who knows? Must be something like that though.

[VU4G10]

"The Bush Administration has announced they are giving amnesty to illegals ??? When you make a statement like that, I am sure you can provide a link to the official announcement!"

Just pick a word: "Regularization,’ ‘Legalization,’ ‘Permanent Status,’ and ‘Earned Adjustment.’

[KEVLAR]

I guess that a good portion of us who read and post at FR do not meet your high standards for being conservative.
Your calling folks socialists, loons etc. does not change the reasons some are unhappy with the presidents handling of certain issues. If your name calling is any indication of what makes a conservative, you can count me out.

[goodnesswins]

I doubt ANYONE here supports Pres. Bush 100%, but we don't drink enough "koolaid" to vote for someone else which will ASSURE we have a LIBERAL in office. Just not quite that masochistic.

[theFIRMbss]

>It's not clear how deep the dissatisfaction goes
>>Not very.

I hope you are right.
But I'll tell you, my parents
are both working class

Republicans, and
so are their friends. These people
are television

and newspaper types.
My parents and all their friends
completely swallowed

the media's line
about Bush -- he's dumb, hated,
ruining the world...

No matter how I
explain to these people that
TV and papers

show a tiny part
of the political world,
their generation

grew up believing
mainstream news was all there is
and by keeping up

with the mainstream news,
they were informed and involved
and ready to vote...

I'm sure the future
belongs to netizens. But
I'm afraid enough

of the TV crowd
is still around to fracture
Republicans bad...

[e_engineer]

National socialist? Possibly. Conservative? Not a chance.

Name calling shows the weakness of your position.

It is Bush who fails the test of conservatism with his stand on illegal immigration, his willingness to violate both the 1st (CFR) and 2nd (AWB) amendments, and his outrageous growth of government.

[Texas_Dawg]

"The far right old school exremists are irrelevant and will be ignored, because we do not need them. And ANY DEBATE OR RECOGNITION of their CONCERNS can only lead to problems, so screw them."

Hear, hear. More power to him. The Nazis need to be (and are being) routed out of the GOP so that true conservatives like GWB can run the party again.

[Texas_Dawg]

Name calling shows the weakness of your position.

It's not name-calling at all. If you happen to support the tenets of national socialism, then yes, you are a national socialist.

[Texas_Dawg]

I'm sorry, but your parents just aren't conservatives then. They sound more like populists.

[At _War_With_Liberals]

"The war is the only issue that prevents Bush from facing a primary opponent. "

And the admin and the RNC shamelessly used Saddams's capture and Xmas to effectively BURY the announcement of amnesty.

And FOX and The Wall St Journal have buried the issue. The Rat media buried it because they FAVOR it.

The Wall St Journal printed a position editorial advocating ANY amnesty plan Bush chooses, on XMAS eve- to bury it.

[At _War_With_Liberals]

" just listened to a radio program where the caller was a supposed hard-line conservative but is "angry" at George Bush. This sounds like a DNC plan, albeit very transparent, to attract illiterate conservatives. "

It's an RNC PLAN.

[LLBeet]

Were Bush omniscient and omnipotent, I would be very disappointed in him. But since he is neither, I would vote for him rather than see our country dragged down to become a second-rate socialist nation at the hands of the Democrats. We are living in dangerous times, with enemies from both the outside and within our borders. We do not have the luxury of looking for a 100% pure conservative President. Life, and politics specially, is full of compromises, and as long as we can achieve most of our main goals, such as preserving freedom, growing the economy, and defeating fanatical terrorists, we should support Bush and his Administration. The thought of a Dean or Clark as our President is just too ghastly for me.

[luckydevi]

How So?

The growth of government under his watch is depressing.

Newflash: Bush is not a conservative.

[Mr. Bird]

It's a simple calculation for me. The winner of the '04 election will come from either the Dem or GOP party. While I have been frustrated with several of Bush's actions as president, I have absolutely no intention of acting (or failing to act) in such a way to help the Democrat.

I loved Keyes in '00. I voted for Bush.

[Texas_Dawg]

I guess that a good portion of us who read and post at FR do not meet your high standards for being conservative. Your calling folks socialists, loons etc. does not change the reasons some are unhappy with the presidents handling of certain issues. If your name calling is any indication of what makes a conservative, you can count me out. I hope you don't think FR represents mainstream, traditional conservatism. Some here might, but FR is full of radical reactionaries that are not very conservative at all. Is it everyone here? No. But it's a solid percentage.

[edsheppa]

Mr. Viguerie was widely quoted [in 1983], too, criticizing the incumbent's "leftward drift" on spending and the growth of government.

And we all know how poorly Reagan did in 84.

These holier-than-thou one-note doomsters make me laugh.

[Wild Irish Rogue]

" Just pick a word: "Regularization,’ ‘Legalization,’ ‘Permanent Status,’ and ‘Earned Adjustment "

Again-where is the link to any official announcement of a Bush plan to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants ??

[North Coast Conservative]

LOL....yeah, no conservative would ever say that.

I think you are wrong. But the way I heard it was:

"We survived eight years of Bill Clinton. We can survive again if we have to in order to get our point across."

Gun Control, (AWB)
Immigration Control
The Pill Bill
Same Sex Marriage

are issues that I believe can torpedo this presidency, just as No New Taxes did for his father.

Bush/Cheney'04 is worried about the undecideds who they feel will determine this election. They are addressing the decidedly huge Democratic advantage in the Get Out The Vote effort with "Voter Registration", "Voter ID", and the "72 Hour Plan". They want to outhustle the hustlers. However they assume that all of the Hard Corps Right that they are alienating will stay with them.

I see more and more evidence every day that will go to the Constitution Party as a protest vote. They may not vote for Dean, but the result may be the same.

Can they attract more voters by looking like Demoncrats than they turn off?

I will be looking for answers to that at CPAC next month.

In God We Trust…..Semper Fi

[Texas_Dawg]

The growth of government under his watch is depressing.

Newsflash: Our deficit as a percentage of the GDP is very manageable.

Newsflash: Our electorate is split 50/50 in the middle of a war that the overwhelming majority of the world and 40% of the US despises.

George W. Bush is one of the most conservative Presidents America has ever had.

[JohnnyZ]

I will vote for him if he lets the assault weapons ban fall.

The AWB will never get out of the House. Even if the Chris Shays GOP Northeast liberals join up with the Dem leadership, Democrats in rural areas & swing districts are not going to vote against guns right before the election, ESPECIALLY not with Dean topping the ticket.

I think Bush is awesome, but of course there are always things that could be better: spending habits, more free trade, more trade enforcement, ending illegal immigration (more legal is ok by me), immediate Marriage Amendment.

I think 2004 will be a GOP victory, followed by a renewed mandate for 1) lower spending, 2) more competition in Medicare (1&2 when we pick up a couple votes in Congress in 04 -- 51-48 ain't much of a Senate majority, and the House has its liberals), privatization of social security, and dealing with immigration.

[Zipporah]

SO you are saying because the poster is not voting for Bush "You're also not a conservative whatsoever.".. I am not voting for Bush BECAUSE I'm a conservative.

[SunStar]

His fiscal policies (an Education Bill that panders to NEA teachers who won't vote for him anyway and the drug expansion of medicaid), his failure to control the southern border, and his signing of "campaign finance reform" are my main gripes as well as his reluctant arming of the pilots.

I agree. However, the policies you listed were clearly espoused during the 2000 campaign as things he would do... Education bill, prescription drugs, and campaign finance reform. He also said he would "take out Hussein", limit Partial Birth Abortion, and appoint "strict constructionists" to judicial roles. He has done all of these things. I voted for him knowing what he promised to do, and I didn't agree with everything he said.

[BamaAndy]

With all respect--and I know you've heard it before, but, every vote not for Bush is a vote for the democrat. Better to fight with a chance to win and win a filibuster proof majority in congress (when after that happens, we should expect conservatism to finally have a chance to prove its worth--and do the things that ought to be done for the sake of the country and freedom). With democrats we have less freedom and with more democrats we'll have even less. Please reconsider. President Bush is a guy of his word and although has signed things that are grievous, he has avoided slipping faster into socialism--that the democrats would have us do today. Following your point, I cheer for Nader and hope as many of the lefties vote their conscious! That means they lose and that means the country wins. Thank you and God bless.

[Texas_Dawg]

Your FR handle is hilariously ironic.

[GunsareOK]

In the past, I would have said that a vote for the "assault weapons" ban reauthorization would have been a critical vote. As I said, the signing of campaign finance reform, the failure to control the borders, and the expansion of medicaid, just to name a few things have already convinced me to vote for another candidate.

I realize that neither Alan Keys nor Howard Phillips will be elected, but if they were, I would be confident that they would make good choices of Federal judge nominees.

I will vote my conscience for President. Sorry if some don't like it.

[showme_the_Glory]

Conservatives only have one choice in 2004 and the overwhelming majority of them will make that choice happily.


Yep!!!! Happy to vote Bush in 04.

[headsonpikes]

...it is nice to have a man and not a weather-vane for President.

Truly - and a man who cares for the country, at that!

[At _War_With_Liberals]

"And that issue is Judicial appointments."

Bush will appoint no SC judges in the next 5 years. Not one activist judge, by nature, will step down and allow a conservative justice to be appointed. Not a possibility.

[riri]

LOL. They used to make fum of posters and say they were posting from the White House basement. I am convinved you are GHWB posting under the name Texas Dawg.

[Texas_Dawg]

SO you are saying because the poster is not voting for Bush "You're also not a conservative whatsoever."

Yes.

I am not voting for Bush BECAUSE I'm a conservative.

You're not one at all actually. Sorry to break it to you. You'll be part of a 1% FRinge group of right-wing socialists.

[FairOpinion]

So according to you, we should keep electing socialists, because that is really good for the Republican party.

[NeoCaveman]

Bush will appoint no SC judges in the next 5 years. Not one activist judge, by nature, will step down and allow a conservative justice to be appointed. Not a possibility.

You think they will all still be alive in 5 years? I'd take that action, might even give you odds.

[rintense]

As much as I have disagreed with Bush on various issues, I am a self-professed Bushbot and will remain so in 2004. The advancement of conservatism can not (and will not) happen overnight in this country. And while many can say some of what GWB has done is not conservative, his overall agenda is. And this will continue, which is why GWB will have my vote.

[Texas_Dawg]

LOL. They used to make fum of posters and say they were posting from the White House basement. I am convinved you are GHWB posting under the name Texas Dawg.

I just care enough about Howard Dean not being in the White House to work on making sure it doesn't happen. There are many right-wing socialists at FR that don't care though. That's fine, that's your choice. Just don't kid yourself into thinking you're a conservative or that you represent a large percentage of people.

[Texas_Dawg]

As much as I have disagreed with Bush on various issues, I am a self-professed Bushbot and will remain so in 2004. The advancement of conservatism can not (and will not) happen overnight in this country. And while many can say some of what GWB has done is not conservative, his overall agenda is. And this will continue, which is why GWB will have my vote.

Exactly. Thank you.

[Fishrrman]

Wild Irish Rose writes:
The Bush Administration has announced they are giving amnesty to illegals ??? When you make a statement like that, I am sure you can provide a link to the official announcement.

The "official announcement" won't happen until his second term. You read this prediction here first.

Cheers!
- John

[!1776!]

What is "human resources"?

Is that salary costs?

If so how have salary costs increased or decreased when normalized by inflation?

Just curious.

[luckydevi]

define conservatism

[FairOpinion]

Were Bush omniscient and omnipotent, I would be very disappointed in him. But since he is neither, I would vote for him rather than see our country dragged down to become a second-rate socialist nation at the hands of the Democrats. We are living in dangerous times, with enemies from both the outside and within our borders. We do not have the luxury of looking for a 100% pure conservative President. Life, and politics specially, is full of compromises, and as long as we can achieve most of our main goals, such as preserving freedom, growing the economy, and defeating fanatical terrorists, we should support Bush and his Administration. The thought of a Dean or Clark as our President is just too ghastly for me.

===

Excellent. It sums up the key points perfectly.