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."
What do you think of Owens in Colorado for 2008? I have no problems with Jeb Bush, but it will strike too many as being a dynasty.
I believe I read the same story or a very similar one.
I'm tired of the good-cop/bad-cop game the Republicans and Democrats play. I wish there were some alternative.
I don't rat coverage is causing the wailing on this thread. It's all Bush/Rove strategerizing and stealing rat issues that causing the divisions.
Frustrating isn't it?
An aside, but wasn't Norquist involved in a pro Arabist oranization? I am not certain but it may well have been posted here. Bob Barr? Let's see, is he not up to his elbows with the ACLU now? You know, the Patiot Act has yet to result in anyone's free speech rights being abridged, nor anyone dragged into Ashcroft's prayer meeting/torture chamber. Ah well, snivel rights panderers seem to like having an enemy to whine about. Whingers(Whining fringers) seem to love this kind of thing, and the NYT is happy to give them a megaphone to shout out their deluded rantings.
You have a good point - a wider base of commonalities that would be more reliable would help the Republican Party in the long run. It would also avoid the Democrat mess of a loose coalition of extreme Left groups.
In 1999, they interviewed me and I was quoted in a Rick Berke piece.
This was right around the time that Pat Robertson had said that the Republicans should give up on impeachment because Clinton had won. So all his questions were "What do you think about Pat Robertson saying Republicans should give up on impeachment?" Naturally, he got quite an earful and the Times got their yearly "dissension in the conservative ranks" story out of CPAC.
The last time I was at CPAC (two years ago) the "dissension in the ranks" story found its genesis in airline searches and how disgruntled conservatives were that grandmothers and preteens were being stripped at airports and this was going to make us turn on President Bush. And Wayne LaPierre was the big instigator at CPAC at that "dissension in the ranks" brouhaha. So this year it's Grover Norquist.
About the only thing President Bush could do now to lose my vote would be to leave Laura and go to Canada to marry Wesley Clark.
There is one thing I know for sure, these "purist" and so-called "true" conservatives will never be happy, because anybody with their "principles" will never be elected in this country, their only hope is to purchase an Island somewhere, call it a Country and anoint a Dictator, because the people they support are unelectable in a Free Republic where all voices are heard and represented.
And yes... I'm sick of them as well
Great post! Somebody asked me the other day if there was any way I wouldn't vote for W. My response was only if Hillary were the VP candidate!
As far as Norquest saying "Bush Sr. jumped over the line and we had to whack him," I would say in return.... And look at what that got us you effin moron
Some choice.
Conservative enough? What they won't say out loud is they wonder if he's conservative at all.
Will history accurately remember GW as Karl Rove's puppet?...I wonder.
I have also read that Norquist lobbied for an organization with Arab sympathies.
With the exception of the First Amendment clause mentioning of freedom of religion, turning it into freedom from religion, and the Second Amendment, which they misinterpret for whatever reason, the ACLU almost always goes all the way to uphold the Constitution as they see it. They were on the same side as the NRA opposing the McCain-Fiengold Campaign Finance Reform on the basis of freedom of speech.
U.S. Constitution: Fourth Amendment(Search and Seizure)
Amendment Text
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The Patriot Act seriously infringes on the Fourth Amendment not the First, IIRC. Ashcroft and Co. said it would use its provisions only in cases that involved terrorism, but they have already broken their word. I have read a number of stories about using the Patriot Act as cover for routine criminal cases, in particular, one in Las Vegas, IIRC. The feds have used its provisions to invade privacy and then go to a federal judge after the fact to obtain authorization. That means they can monitor your activities, wait until you have left your house, inspect all of your personal possessions, install bugs to monitor all of your private communications, all before obtaining a warrant. I'm not terribly worried about the Bush administration using this authority, but what do you think a Hillary administration might do with it?
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."
Sensenbrenner is no liberal pantywaist.
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.