A Concerned Bloc of Republicans Wonders Whether Bush Is Conservative Enough

NY Times ^ | January 25, 2004 | DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK

[Neets]

The sky is falling yet again Dane.

[deport]

Who is putting out this "talking point"?

---

Who knows.. but it's organized. Maybe coming from deep inside the belly of the DNC.... the far right fringers.... 3rd parties....

It will change to something else in the next few weeks and then something else a little later on.... and then a different topic after that.

They are using up their ammo now.... let them... In about two months or so the Bush/Cheney campaign will unleash the $100+ million and begin to put out positive messages as offsets..

[gatorbait]

I'm not terribly worried about the Bush administration using this authority, but what do you think a Hillary administration might do with it?

One of my concerns as well... any suggestions?

[Huck]

I didn't think anyone was questioning this. I thought it was pretty clear in 2000 he was center-right. Much of his liberal social agenda was actually promised in his 2000 campaign. The question of late has been is GWB so liberal that conservatives shouldn't vote for him. And the answer is no. We're stuck with GWB's liberal social agenda because he will be the best viable choice come November.

[FirstPrinciple]

The problem is not that Bush doesn't agree with conservatives 100 percent of the time. The problem is he disagrees with them 99 percent of the time.

[FirstPrinciple]

You are wrong. All it will do is Democrat-ize the Republican party. Every politician wants to be in a winning team instead of following one's principles. Instead of preaching conservatism, the GOP simply let liberals join the club without questioning their authenticity. The result: look at the IL GOP.

[FirstPrinciple]

I think what happened is that a lot of people thought (including myself) that he was just proposing those silly ideas of expansion of dept of education, etc. in order to win. They thought he was a conservative at heart and had to tilt to the left in order to win, but would be back to normal once he won. I guess they (including myself) thought wrong. But, he did say that campaign finance will become law over his dead body. He did say that he was a free trader and imposed steel tariffs. He did say he wouldn't spend federal money on stem-cell research, and then reneged on his promise. I could not use the l-word because I don't want to get banned.

[Dane]

The problem is not that Bush doesn't agree with conservatives 100 percent of the time. The problem is he disagrees with them 99 percent of the time

IMo, it is actually your problem that you disagree with Bush 99% of the time.

Looks like you are against tax cuts, the PBA ban, tort reform, not letting the UN run US foreign policy, etc.etc.

[FirstPrinciple]

I hope these people are happy that they are part of the mushy-middle. Must be warm and toasty in there. I would rather be on the fringe because when the govt trash compacter starts squeezing from the side into the middle, I want to be the first to jump out.

[FirstPrinciple]

You know the Constitution does allow the White House to veto these spending bills. Why doesn't George use his veto pen? Must be a willing accomplice otherwise.

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

You say you want to be the first to jump out?

Where will you go? France?

[FirstPrinciple]

The PBA ban doesn't do anything and shifts the attention. What tax-cuts when he just campaigned and signed a trillion dollar unfunded mandate? Tort reform - where? UN not running US foreign policy? I guess that is why Bremer was out there at the UN begging them to come back to Iraq.

Of course, it is my problem that he disagrees with me 99% of the time. But something tells me, I cannot be the only one.

[FirstPrinciple]

Funny, why you would think of that to be the first place to go? Sorry, wouldn't follow you there.

[Dane]

Of course, it is my problem that he disagrees with me 99% of the time. But something tells me, I cannot be the only one.

Yep the others are Kerry, Clark, Dean, Edwards, Kucinnich, Hillary, Ted Kennedy, etc. etc.

[FirstPrinciple]

How astute of you. If you choose to be blind, knock yourself out. Just remember these are the same conservatives who stayed home in 92 and 96. We do exist.

[Cicero]

I'm a bit surprised. This article is calm, rational, and accurate. I was expecting more of the NY Times's usual rabble rousing, divide-and-conquer rhetoric, aimed at splitting Bush's supporters. But this article doesn't pull any of those tricks. If Bush loses conservative support over these issues, it will be his own doing.

[Dane]

How astute of you. If you choose to be blind, knock yourself out. Just remember these are the same conservatives who stayed home in 92 and 96. We do exist

And you expect me to give you a big smooch for helping the Clintons?

Sorry I don't kiss pigs.

[FirstPrinciple]

Getting off-topic must be your forte. You said, I was in the same league as Kerry, Dean, et al. And I told you why there are more conservatives like me. Without admitting you were wrong, you changed the topic. More importantly, I don't kiss men. Thanks for the offer. Go back to VT.

[Dane]

Getting off-topic must be your forte. You said, I was in the same league as Kerry, Dean, et al. And I told you why there are more conservatives like me. Without admitting you were wrong, you changed the topic. More importantly, I don't kiss men. Thanks for the offer. Go back to VT

LOL! You in your reply #75 you basically admitted that you helped the Clintons.

I can't help it if you don't like what you see in the mirror.

[FirstPrinciple]

Why can't you just admit that you were wrong and conservative Republicans do exist and go back to kissing men?