Conservative groups break with Republican leadership

The Washington Times ^ | 1/16/2004 | Ralph Z. Hallow

[Ricardo4CP]

National leaders of six conservative organizations yesterday broke with the Republican majorities in the House and Senate, accusing them of spending like "drunken sailors," and had some strong words for President Bush as well...

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

Semper Fi' Brother! (RVN 70-72)

[e_engineer]

The Constitution Party breaks with Republican leadership??? What kind of bait and switch is this thread??? When, pray tell, did the Constitution Party ever support the Republican Party???

The article does not mention the Constitution Party. Here are the Conservative organizations that the article mentions:

Coalitions for America
Citizens for a Sound Economy
American Conservative Union
Citizens Against Government Waste
Club for Growth
National Taxpayers Union

Coalitions for America seems to be affiliated with www.freecongress.org/

[inchworm]

Then send them back to their own country, and tell them to become conservative activists and stop voting for they're socialist PIG leaders. Maybe then they're country will prosper too. I'd also tell them that comming hear to fill our prisons is not really what most Americans call looking for prosperity.

[harpo11]

You are right, on if this passes Congress.

I've heard too many conservative commentators gleefully wink and nod and say hey, let Bush move on with his proposal, it's DOA when it hits Tom Delay's desk. And who else are you guys going to vote for?

Yeah right, I thought I heard that when Bush promised he would never sign CFR, and Congress passed it to him to sign, he signed it, then we were told to expect the Supremes to shut it down, but they didn't.

I don't like being BS'd by WH spin about this Bush proposal, but you are right, if it passes, the blame is on Congress and thank you, BigSkyFreeper, for your well stated comments.

[inchworm]

Well aside from the war Bush is fighting like a wuss. Liberizing domestic policy is a slap in the face to those who died to establish this country.

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

The unregistered illegals are difficult to locate and keep under control. But under an accountable system like the one proposed, fewer of them will be able to engage in criminal activity because we will know who they are.

Of course, many will still cross illegally but employers will be forced to stop supporting them under the new rules.

Accountability also applies to employers as well.

[BigSkyFreeper]

Yep. Under Bush's proposal, none of them will work unless they become documented, then the feds will be able to know just where they live and work.

[SoCar]

Bush ignores the few Conservative members of Congress that are there, just ask Ron Paul. If Bush wanted a Conservative agenda he would pursue one, but he doesn't because he is not a real Conservative.

George Bush, unlike members of Congress, is President of the entire U.S.A. and has a much larger and diverse constituency then Ron Paul (BTW a Libertarian, not a Conservative) or any other Congressman. If he governed as a true Conservative he would be a complete failure as most of his legislation would not get passed and he would alienate the majority of voters and assure himself a one term Presidency.

The reality is that most Americans are not true Conservatives. The numbers are simply not there for Conservative policies to be the order of the day. Due to the nature of the electorate, some compromise is necessary.

George Bush has governed as a right of center President, which is the best we can realistically accomplish right now. We need to move the country ever so slowly in our direction until the true Conservatives are the majority. We are not there yet and Bush is smart enough to see that. I believe that in his heart he is a Conservative that simply recognizes the realities of what is possible in todays political climate.

I find it ironic that here on FR he is frequently denounced for not being Conservative enough. Yet at the same time he is called an extremist by the opposition party.

I will proudly cast my vote this year to reelect George W. Bush as President. He is a good man who is advancing the Conservative agenda in the only way he can. Politics is the art of the possible and he knows that. I only wish that more people here were as savvy. His recess appointment of Judge Pickering reveals the true heart of the man to me.

If we do not support him with all we can and get a Rat like Dean, Kerry, or Edwards we put this nation in great danger. This election is too important a one at to critical a time to take a stand simply to make a point that Bush is not a "true Conservative." Please face the reality of the electorate as a whole and have realistic expectations of what can be accomplished at this time.

[BigSkyFreeper]

"Liberalizing domestic policy" started nearly a half century ago. I won't blame Bush for something FDR and the Democrats started and continue to embrace to this very day.

[BigSkyFreeper]

This country is so polarized, Howard Dean is unelectable, and Pat Buchanan wasn't and will never be electable.

[inchworm]

Bush would win this election by a wider margin if he embraced sealing the border.

[BigSkyFreeper]

No matter who's proposal gets passed, we're never going to truly seal the border. It would take the liberal idea of isolationism to accomplish that.

[inchworm]

Nighty night all. I'll try to keep an open mind about all this but this policy will need to show some bIG teeth for conservatives to back Bush, especially after CFR and pills.
We wont be stupid "trice"

[Steve Eisenberg]

The difference is, when their visas run out, they would have to leave at their own expense.

I'm no radical on this. If this is what the President wants, and Congress really puts in place a legal infrastructure to insure that most of today's illegals gradually go home, I'm for it. I just think that our role on FR should be to hold Mr. Bush to the fire, either by reminding people of the good (if insincere) details in his speech, as I do, or by just showing our displeasure with tolerance of lawbreakers, as other will do.

I've read a lot of articles on the President's plan, but I think this one, by National Interest editor John O'Sullivan, best explains the problem Bush's reckless plan presents us:

Not to put too fine a point on it, Mr. Bush is proposing to abolish the U.S. labor market by integrating it with the world labor market — including the third-world labor market. . . .

the Bush people argue that immigrants, including illegals currently here, will be allowed to take only those jobs that Americans have already turned down. But how will this prohibition be enforced? Very simply: It is not going to be enforced — at least for the illegals already here. The "senior administration official" who briefed the press on the Bush proposals stated clearly that the mere fact that an illegal immigrant was employed would be sufficient proof that no American had wanted the job.

Hard to believe? Here is the money quote: "If you're asking the question as to whether the person [the employer] needs to say, okay, well, here's Mary, and she's in this spot, do we need to hold on Mary and look for some American to fill that position, the answer is, no. We assume that by virtue of Mary's employment, that marketplace test, if you will, has been met." Several other statements to the same effect — and the senior administration official advanced no clear idea of how the government would ensure that the prohibition would be enforced for new arrivals.

The administration's next line of defense is to argue that the immigrants will be temporary guest workers who will return home after three years. Yet almost all experience with such programs in several continents across several decades demonstrates that guest workers become permanent residents in due course — very often as a result of the kind of "amnesty" that the administration is again proposing here.

But we need not rely on past experience to forecast their permanence. Guest workers will be here indefinitely because (a) under the Bush rules there is no limit to the number of times their three-year work program can be extended; (b) they can bring in their families and, if they have a child while here, they become the parents of a U.S. citizen and thus undeportable; (c) they will have greater opportunities to marry U.S. citizens; and (d) if all else fails, they can blend back into the underworld of illegal work and documentation that more than eight million of them already inhabit.

In response to this last point, Bush-administration officials assure us that, on the contrary, they will deport those guest workers who fail to leave the U.S. voluntarily when their work program is finished. But this assurance is in flat contradiction to their main rationale for the entire reform program — namely, that the alternative policy of deporting the eight million illegals here now is unthinkable.

If it is unthinkable to deport eight million illegals today, why will it be easier to deport two or three times that number in a decade or so when even more businesses will be alleged to be reliant on them and even more pressure groups will be pressing their case?

[SoCar]

Bush would win this election by a wider margin if he embraced sealing the border.

I'm not convinced that you are right about this. He would be condemned as a hard hearted racist who was unsymathethic towards hard working immigrants that only want to come here to better their lives. An ad campaign and propaganda war would be launched to convince Americans that there would be no one to pick their fruit or clean their hotel rooms. He could possibly lose crucial Hispanic support in states such as Arizona. This issue is sensitive and not as clear cut as we here believe.

When I first heard this proposal I was horrified. Upon further examination I realized that it is not so bad, although not what I would truly want. The fact is that the Rats are condemning it for not going far enough!!

If you chose to abandon Bush over this please take a moment to recognize that the alternative is much worse.

[BigSkyFreeper]

So in other words, Bush's proposal is wrong, there's no viable alternative, so we're back at square one. Which is a lot less than what Bush is proposing.

[auboy]

Excellent post.

[Kay Soze]

I agree we can push him right.

If don't who will?

I recall his fathers mistake and the 8 years of clinton.

The freepers are well read group but the "ready lips...crowd aint!

[Kay Soze]

I agree we can push him right.

If don't who will?

I recall his fathers mistake and the 8 years of clinton.

The freepers are well read group but the "read my lips...crowd aint!

[SoCar]

Thank you!