Posted on 01/24/2004 8:22:34 PM PST by neverdem
ARLINGTON, Va., Jan. 24 — To many people, President Bush — tax-cutter, born-again Christian, invader of Iraq — is the face of American conservatism. But here at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, many of the assembled are questioning whether he is conservative enough.
Conservatives complain about the administration's spending on Medicare and education and its proposed spending on space exploration, its expansion of law enforcement powers to fight terrorism and its proposed guest-worker program for immigrants.
To underscore the discontent, the American Conservative Union, which organizes the conference, held a dinner in honor of Republicans in the House of Representatives who voted against the president's Medicare bill. The conference called them fiscal heroes. The topic of one panel discussion was "G.O.P. Success: Is It Destroying the Conservative Movement?" and another debated whether the administration's antiterrorism efforts were endangering people's rights to privacy and freedom. The keynote address was delivered by a conservative Democrat, Senator Zell Miller of Georgia, in part to make sure the administration did not take conservatives for granted, said David A. Keene, chairman of the union.
"There are troubling signs that the ship of conservative governance is off-course," Representative Mike Pence, Republican of Indiana, said in the opening address.
Too many "big-government Republicans" have come to see government as a solution instead of the problem itself, Mr. Pence said.
"One more compromise of who we are as limited-government conservatives and our majority could be gone as well," he said, adding, "It is time for conservatives to right the ship."
No one here is likely to pull a Democratic lever in a presidential election any time soon, and red, white and blue "W" pins, as in George W. Bush, remain the fashion accessory of choice. But conservative activists argue that the polarization of politics means the president needs their enthusiastic support more than ever: with fewer voters left up for grabs in the middle, turning out as much of the party's base as possible is becoming especially crucial.
"For an ideologically driven political activist, these are the best of times," Mr. Keene said.
Many conservatives attribute the 1992 electoral defeat of the first President Bush to disillusionment at the conservative grass roots over his failure to understand the movement and his willingness to raise taxes.
"Bush Sr. jumped over the line and we had to whack him," said Grover G. Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform and a strategist of the conservative movement.
But the Conservative Political Action Conference has also been a significant component of the party's ascent in national politics. For 31 years, the conference has been where the Republican big tent is assembled, convening disparate groups like evangelical advocates, gun enthusiasts, antitax groups, antilabor groups, pro-business groups and libertarians.
It has also been an opportunity to enlist young recruits. More than two-thirds of the roughly 4,000 attendees are college students, who pay $20 each to attend.
"Good times," one young advocate said, eyeing a late afternoon schedule that included a panel on Islamic radicalism and a speech by Oliver L. North.
But with both houses of Congress and the White House in Republican hands, and with the Democrats still trying to select an opponent to face President Bush in November, many conservatives are left with nowhere to direct their criticism but at less-conservative Republicans, known here as "Rinos," for Republican in Name Only.
For the Bush administration, which has maintained close ties to the movement, the conference is an opportunity to send a customized message to die-hard conservatives without alienating moderates in the party. The White House sent officials like Elaine L. Chao, the labor secretary; Ken Mehlman, manager of the president's re-election campaign; and Ed Gillespie, chairman of the Republican National Committee.
(Page 2 of 2)
In a speech on Thursday, Vice President Dick Cheney delivered what amounted to a State of the Union message refracted to the right. Thanking the audience for "its commitment to the cause we all share," he trumpeted "the Bush doctrine" of holding accountable foreign nations that harbor terrorists. He emphasized the administration's stance against abortion, calling the president's signature on the bill banning so-called partial-birth abortions a "milestone."
He upbraided Democratic senators for blocking the president's judicial nominees, and he praised the president's appointment of a conservative judge, Charles W. Pickering Sr., while the Senate was in recess.
None of those sentiments, which drew sustained applause here, made it into the president's State of the Union message on Tuesday.
Mr. Cheney drew a less enthusiastic response when he called on Congress to extend the antiterrorism law, the USA Patriot Act, which is due to expire next year. Many conservatives fear that the act and other administration moves give the federal government too much power. In recognition of a new alliance on the issue, the American Civil Liberties Union set up a booth at the conference for the first time this year, Mr. Keene of the conservative union said.
Mr. Cheney took the podium shortly after Representative F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., the Wisconsin Republican who heads the House Judiciary Committee, vowed that extending the act before reviewing its results by 2005 would happen "over my dead body."
A few hours later, Bob Barr, the former congressman from Georgia, denounced the administration's expanded powers as a dangerous threat to liberty. "We don't want a surveillance society," he said.
Mr. Cheney remained silent on the growth in domestic spending, the most repeated conservative criticism of the president here. John Berthoud, president of the National Taxpayers Union, called the administration's record "abysmal."
Representative Tom Feeney, Republican of Florida, accused the administration of "baby-sitting the nanny state, the welfare state."
Asked about some of the criticisms of the administration at the conference, Mr. Gillespie, the Republican National Committee chairman, said there were inevitably differences within the party, and that "we are a majority party now." But he expressed confidence that the president's agenda would energize conservatives and moderates alike.
For now, Mr. Keene of the American Conservative Union said, the president appeared to be trying to shore up his conservative support.
"At least he recognizes that his ship might be a little off-course," Mr. Keene said, "and even if he liked the new course, the crew doesn't, and he needs them to get to the next port."
Very occasionally they hit it right on a First Amendment or criminal process issue, sometimes Lenin was right about the treatment of workers too.
They do exploit the liberties supposedly guaranteed by the Constitution, but can you show me anything else? I wish I could have Bob Barr as my Congressman as opposed to Eliot Engel.
Gotta love it, eh? Dimocrat Zell Miller warning Bush not to be too liberal - what irony!
***An ex-Republican base voter***
I'm curious: You would really follow Bush over the spending, entitlement program or amnesty cliff simply because he was convinced there was no cliff?
***An ex-Republican base voter***
***An ex-Republican base voter***
I wouldn't say that I am following him, as you phrase it, at least in the sense that I don't support him on those particular issues.
My position is this: If one moral candidate exists I will vote for him. If two, I will vote for the one with sounder policies. If no moral candidate exists, I will not vote for any, even those with sound policies, because I would be culpable for any evils they might perpetrate.
The best use for the nyt news paper,,, line the bottom of your bird cage.
Then some of you should renounce your citizenship and move elsewhere.
Refusing to vote is not a protest - it is an failure to do your civic duty.
99%? No exaggeration there?
Funny, he disagrees with this conservatives and others maybe about 15%. But then, the rest of us must recognize the realities of the world and know that 100% agreement is impossible.
If the Republican Party were to narrow to only "true" conservatives, it would go the way of the Federalist, Whig, Know-nothing parties. Parties that focus on a small minority view only - are ineffectual and then go extinct.
Parties that create a clear core and common area of agreement and accept a range of views outside of that commonality grow, flourish, and become able to influence the government. This is how the Republican Party came into being from Free-soilers, Whigs, and abolitionists and how they came to be a significant party.
The result: look at the IL GOP
You're kidding right? Or are you just using George Ryan?
This is what Pres. Bush said in the first debate after Gore said he would demand and sign CPR the first thing as President:
You know, this man has no credibility on the issue. As a matter of fact, I read in the "New York Times" he said he co-sponsored that bill. But he wasn't in the Senate with Senator Feingold and so, look, I'm going to -- what you need to know about me is I will uphold the law, have an attorney general that enforces the law. The time for campaign funding reform is after the election. This man has outspent me and the special interests are outspending me. I am not going to lay down my arms in the middle of a campaign for somebody who has got no credibility on the issue.
Later he said that:
I would support an effort to ban labor union and corporate soft money as long as there was dues check-off. I believe there needs to be instant disclosure on the Internet as to who has given to who. I think we need to fully enforce the law. An attorney general that says if a law is broken, we'll enforce it. Be strict and firm about it.
In the second debate, campaign finance reform was not discussed. In the third debate, Gore reiterated his support for McCain-Feingold but Bush did not mention it.
This matches what I remembered, that Bush supported some reform but not the current bill.
There was no "over my dead body" comment. If you are going to attack someone for not having a source, have one that is more reliable than your anger.
Secondly, check the facts before launching a vitriolic attack on someone - it makes the arguement more sound. From the Post-Gazette: " promising during his hotly contested 2000 campaign that he would help steel industry states like Pennsylvania and West Virginia. " and the Akron Beacon Journal reported "when Bush imposed the tariffs, he fulfilled a 2000 campaign promise to traditionally Democratic voters in West Virginia, Ohio and Pennsylvania ." I found similar statements in a USA Today search.
In short, Bush did not make a "dead body" refusal on campaign finance reform and he did promise tariff aid to the steel industry.
I believe the flame is upon you.
I have never heard Bush saying he would impose tariff on imported steel. I am sure during the campaign he promised to help every industry, and not just steel. I don't see him imposing tariff on every goods. The steel tariff was political more than anything else. He lifted it soon after the steel union endorsed Gephardt. Check the Heritage article and the Washington Post article I linked. I would believe you if you can find me a source saying during the election that he said that he would impose tariff on imported steel. He didn't because he touted himself as a free trader. Even if he said he would help the steel industry, the fact that he said he was a free trader was tantamount to saying no tariffs, unless he didn't know what free trade was.
Your argument underscores the nature of conservatism. Conservatism is not a baseball team. It is a philosophy that I believe is true and better than socialism. As such, you cannot just sit back and let the other team (socialists) win. Conservatism is true and when presented to people in a clear cogent way, people will pick conservatism over socialism. Again, it is unlike a baseball team that people choose to support and may choose from many other teams. The GOP simply stopped preaching the Gospel, partly because the leadership of the party is no longer conservative. They want to win at any cost and disregard the principles of the party. Career politicians have never been the Republican way, and it never should.
Exactly. It was a campaign promise to a Democrat area of Pa. and WV.
Here's a couldn't be more clearer release from the opposition, State Rep. Guy Travaglio (D-Butler):
We’re not talking about lifting the tariffs a few months earlier,” Travaglio said. “This is 16 months ahead of time. That has the potential to do a lot of damage to the domestic steel industry.”The tariffs were set to expire in March 2005.
“The president made that promise to impose the tariffs during his 2000 campaign for president,” Travaglio said. “He should feel obligated to fulfill that promise. He has betrayed the entire steel industry.”
The promise was for aid in the form of tariffs which were temporary. A chance for the industry to get back on its feet. The tariffs during the campaign were one of the few issues I had a disagreement with Candidate Bush.
The discussion to retain Tenet centered around a luke-warm recommendation from Bush 41 administration members and that it would be temporary until a replacement could be found and scheduled for confirmation. There were issues and questions about what kind of fight would erupt over confirmation and how destructive to rebuilding the intelligence operations it would be. Then 9/11 came and a understanding was reached that any confirmation hearings would turn into a witch hunt. Tenet stayed as long as he did his job. The second Bush term might see his replacement. IMHO.
One is issue is about 50% which leaves one other. And how is BUsh pro-big government and pro-big part of daily life? Because he signed a budget with increased spending? And daily life? How?
strong dollar policy
Where? It's a common boogeyman of the manufacturing industry even though analysts are attributing it not to policy but to price adjustments, wondering if they are growth adjustments, and an increase in foreign transfer of investments back to the dollar. But economists argue opinion and NRO has a good one by Kudlow on the weakening of the inflation hawks arguement. Essentially, pulling out of a bad recession bodes well for Bush's economic and monetary policies.
amnesty
A straw man. Plenty of threads on that around here. Penalties somehow equal amnesty.
CFR
A big, big, big mistake by Bush. He fell flat there.
Sarbanes-Oaxley
How does a law that requires CEOs to attest that their financial reports are accurate not conservative. That act makes lying in published financial reports an act of fraud. Considering the amount of regulation that the DEms were getting ready to hurl at corporations, it was a good way to stop the danger.
LOL - you are so wrong - "brimming with wrongability."
As was the case in most other Northern states, The Republican Party in Illinois contained a number of diverse factions. There were outright abolitionists, and the Free-Soilers who had a more conservative bent; there were former Know-Nothings who distrusted foreigners and German-born voters who were repelled by Know-Nothingism. there were former Democrats and there were old-line Whigs to whom all Democrats were suspect;" - The Coming Fury, Bruce Catton
The precursor to the Republican party was a group of "anti-Nebraska zealots," Road to Disunion, William Freehling, but they failed to produce a national party. That required the larger conglomeration or broader views.
GOP simply stopped preaching the Gospel
Isn't that the problem with Gospel - people have different interpretations and those that don't agree are by definition, heretics.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.