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."
Spending has been significantly reduced since the 2001 Budget submitted by Bill Clinton. Even though spending has increased for military, intelligence, and homeland security, discretionary spending has actually decreased - considerably.
As for the deficit... wow! I don't know where to begin. But I don't think there is a candidate alive who is going to please you there.
I'm not the one who posted that.
I know you didn't post that comment. You directed a question to me, which I answered civilly...
#235: A Concerned Bloc of Republicans Wonders Whether Bush Is Conservative Enough ^
Respectfully, I would like to know why you think it would be a a very big mistake for the Bush Re-election committee to fall for that line?
I hope GWB and his advisors start paying attention to the grumbling within the ranks of those who brung him to the White House. Soon.
Are you sure it was the "conservatives" that brought him to the White House in the first place?
Because that line - "just a bunch of loud-mouthed fringers who are doing their usual whining" - is a lie.
Are you sure it was the "conservatives" that brought him to the White House in the first place?
We could debate that until we're blue in the face; and we could each drag up numbers and sources until we're cross-eyed. What matters is that conservatives are increasingly disillusioned with Bush's performance on the domestic ussues that we care about, and he may well lose the conservative vote in large enough numbers to bring a Democrat back into the White House. And we probably all agree that that would be a bad thing.
I hope he backs off with the Democrat lite platform. Soon.
Thanks.
And now you know why, in the debate the other night, Leiberman came out with a proposal to give free medical care to everyone from birth till they were 25 years old. Why can't anyone see through these people?
Exactly. As is yours, which I mentioned here...
Because that line - "just a bunch of loud-mouthed fringers who are doing their usual whining" - is a lie.
Are you sure it was the "conservatives" that brought him to the White House in the first place?
We could debate that until we're blue in the face; and we could each drag up numbers and sources until we're cross-eyed. What matters is that conservatives are increasingly disillusioned with Bush's performance on the domestic ussues that we care about, and he may well lose the conservative vote in large enough numbers to bring a Democrat back into the White House. And we probably all agree that that would be a bad thing.
I hope he backs off with the Democrat lite platform. Soon.
Thanks.
Tossing out numbers can be done by anyone, to support one's side. What is most important, in my insignificant opinion, is that the values of the conservatives within the Republican party are not dismissed as "fringe," because that is not so.
Wasn't it Kucinich who made that comment?
I could be misremembering...
I am suggesting that you believe you are speaking for all conservatives... but unless you are tapped into what all conservatives are feeling, you can't possibly speak for them.
You can speak for yourself...but not for them.
I would be interested in your numbers though.
Don't know if this is the original title of the article, and to tell you the truth I didn't read the whole article, but my first thought about the title was that Bush may not be as Conservative as some in the "concerned bloc of Republicans", but he's a heck-of-a lot more Conservative than any potential opponent in the upcoming election with a slim possibility of beating him. The timing aggravates me no end when "Conservatives" get all riled upon the eve of important elections, and start demanding their perception of perfection in elected officials who are just beginning to reverse the stranglehold of liberalism that has had a death grip on this country for a half century or more.
I haven't agreed with every decision GWB has made, but I've noticed that he seems to be trying to accomplish an end result with which I do agree in many cases. I believe he is a man of character, who genuinely wants what is best for this country, and our people. He has accomplished a long list of things that have benefited the conservative cause. This mess wasn't created in a day, and it won't be cleaned up in a day. What's wrong with constructive disagreement with a course of action in one who has provided some positives rather than helping to insure his defeat by someone who will certainly do the exact opposite. Conservatives need to think about basic things like this, and consider the possibly damaging consequences, before they go - inadvertently or otherwise - helping to cut the nose off our collective face...again.
I wouldn't be too concerned. Dems led by the Times promote wedge issues to split off Republicans, as with abortion, Bush 41's "read my lips" tax increase, and now, deficits. Sometimes it works as when Perot, and Anderson before him, captured a lot of conservative votes, but I don't believe that will be a problem this year. The Dem candidates have been forced to take extreme populist positions to get their base to pay attention to them and don't have a particularly strong field in a time of national peril from terrorists.
How do you spell
R eally
E loquent
L ogic
I s
E specially
F reeing!
beautifully put
Thank you. I know you already know this, but it's not your opinion (or anyone else's here on FR) of whether I am "fringe" or not that matters in the long run. I thought I made that evident when I said, "Respectfully, it will be a very big mistake for those in the GWB reelection inner circle to fall for the line that it's "just a bunch of loud-mouthed fringers who are doing their usual whining" about GWB's performance on domestic issues," that started this whole line of discussion.
I am suggesting that you believe you are speaking for all conservatives... but unless you are tapped into what all conservatives are feeling, you can't possibly speak for them.
You can speak for yourself...but not for them.
Exactly. And I thought I made that clear in my earlier comment when I said, "What is most important, in my insignificant opinion, is that the values of the conservatives within the Republican party are not dismissed as "fringe," because that is not so.
I wonder how I might have made that more clear.
Right-o.
The surest way is by answering the posts in order instead of reposting from old posts that have nothing to do my post 269.
My post 269 was in answer to your post 266. In 266 you reposted your post 244, which contains the following paragraph:
What matters is that conservatives are increasingly disillusioned with Bush's performance on the domestic issues that we care about, and he may well lose the conservative vote in large enough numbers to bring a Democrat back into the White House. And we probably all agree that that would be a bad thing.
Hence my answer in post 269 which says…
I am suggesting that you believe you are speaking for all conservatives... but unless you are tapped into what all conservatives are feeling, you can't possibly speak for them. You can speak for yourself...but not for them.
Now, you bring in your red comment, which states…."What is most important, in my insignificant opinion, is that the values of the conservatives within the Republican party are not dismissed as "fringe," because that is not so.
Since I have not dismissed you as fringe and you have acknowledge that I have not dismissed you as fringe… Thank you. I know you already know this… (post 266) the rest of your post #277 has nothing to do with my answer…
To recap: In post 269, I said that you cannot speak for conservatives. In post 277, you correct me by stating: Exactly. And I thought I made that clear in my earlier comment when I said, "What is most important, in my insignificant opinion, is that the values of the conservatives within the Republican party are not dismissed as "fringe," because that is not so. Your insignificant opinion has to do with whether or not the Republican party dismisses the values of conservatives as fringe, which is not the topic of my post in 269.
There… I hope that cleared up the matter.
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.