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."
And therein lies the problem. The party (in my insignificant opinion) does not value the insignificant opinions of the little people they claim to care about.
The party doesn't want to hear my insignificant opinion, but they do want my vote.
You might be assuming, at least it would seem,
that everyone posting is on the same team.
It makes perfect sense when you know the true ripple...
They're not here to win. Their goal IS to cripple.
That's why I said "inadvertently or otherwise" earlier. They claim to want to advance conservatism, yet they are trying to cripple the only horse capable of victory that is in the race, and going in that direction.
What's ironic is that the 'middle course' so many Republicans try to take is actually probably the worst for capturing liberal-side voters. The situation is somewhat analagous to certain poker hands in which it would be reasonable to fold or to raise, but in which calling is stupid.
If Republicans would flat out oppose the Democrats' unreasonable proposals, they could articulate reasons for doing so. But if they go along with a Democrat-Lite proposal, they will undermine their reasons for not going along with the full Democrat proposal.
Perhaps the continued ascent of broadcasters like Sean Hannity will help somewhat, though the spinelessness of so many Republicans can make it hard for even men like him to fully articulate conservative positions, especially when doing so would expose the wrongheadedness of the Republicans' Democrat-Lite policies.
That is because if you use the basic, two-dimensional political spectrum, you will reach the totalitarian religious government as you go farther right. The far right wing does encompass the idea of strong governmental control of morality - witness the (anti)Constitution Party.
The more accurate model that has been coming into favour is the political compass. politicalcompass.org has an example. It is model that provides an explanation how authoritarian conservatives and more libertarian conservatives can both be right wing.
What I'm saying is to the center, Clinton's "it's the economy, stupid" made more of the center break for him. Clinton ran as a centrist, new Democrat, and the center responded to him more than they did to Bush41 claims that he cares without proof that he cared.
What I'm saying is that Perot did not exclusively take conservative votes from Bush41. Exit polling prove that Perot took votes away equally from Bush/Clinton...so, the conservative claim that they abandoned Bush and cost Bush the election are nonsense.
What I'm saying is that conservatives/liberals believe they control the election. They do not. They never have.
That is not to discount a conservatives/liberal vote. I'm not doing that.
But on these threads, there is a subtle threat that if Bush doesn't start playing ball according to conservative rules, then the conservatives are going to take their ball and go home and Bush will lose the election.
Conservatives have every right to hold this administration's feet to the fire... have every right to have their voice heard in the party... but you do not have the power to effect an election... because, in the end, it isn't conservatives (or liberals for that matter) that decide the election. It's the center... the independent... the 50 people in the office around me that aren't in to politics... could care less about conservative/liberal squabbles in the party... could care less that conservative/liberals feel abandoned... who will decide on election day whether or not the President deserves four more years or if the democrat candidate can do a better job delivering to the people the social programs and strong economy the people believe they are entitled to. And, to tell you the truth, the people who will decide the election aren't thinking politics right now and probably won't until September.
Since I'm a little too confused to hold a conversation with you... perhaps you should move on to greener pastures and converse with someone who is a bit more on the ball... I certainly won't mind.
Are you saying "they," meaning conservatives, are against the USA? I would never have guessed that conservatives could be thought of as anti-American. How long have you had this attitude towards conservatives?
The so-called "pure" conservatives who boast of driving support away from a President they don't 100% agree with and are gleeful about their sending a message put the worst offender in the White House who caused terrible harm to the nation. These absolutists are also jumping up and down to do it again.
That is not supportive of the good of the nation, that is spiteful and delberative destructiveness to this nation.
Those of us who are not die-hard republicans feel this way. I have never voted for a democrat and likely never will, but the ranting, sick (and they're the ones saying they're sick) republicans on this thread hardly help their cause with name-calling and temper tantrums.
Do you have a recommendation here?
Astute observation.
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.