Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A Concerned Bloc of Republicans Wonders Whether Bush Is Conservative Enough
NY Times ^ | January 25, 2004 | DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK

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."


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: District of Columbia
KEYWORDS: aclu; acu; cpac; gop; limitedgovernment; patriotact; rinos
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 301 next last
To: Dane
The sky is falling yet again Dane.
61 posted on 01/25/2004 8:43:25 AM PST by Neets (Chicken Little Wanna-bees)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Neets
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..
62 posted on 01/25/2004 8:43:58 AM PST by deport (BUSH - CHENEY 2004.........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
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?

63 posted on 01/25/2004 8:45:46 AM PST by gatorbait (Yesterday, today and tomorrow......The United States Army)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: dts32041
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.
64 posted on 01/25/2004 8:51:57 AM PST by Huck (Was that offensive? I hope that wasn't offensive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Ophiucus
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.
65 posted on 01/25/2004 8:53:24 AM PST by FirstPrinciple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Ophiucus
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.
66 posted on 01/25/2004 8:58:02 AM PST by FirstPrinciple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: MJY1288
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.
67 posted on 01/25/2004 9:01:54 AM PST by FirstPrinciple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: 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

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.

68 posted on 01/25/2004 9:05:22 AM PST by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: lewislynn
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.
69 posted on 01/25/2004 9:05:57 AM PST by FirstPrinciple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: MJY1288
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.
70 posted on 01/25/2004 9:07:03 AM PST by FirstPrinciple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: FirstPrinciple
You say you want to be the first to jump out?

Where will you go? France?

71 posted on 01/25/2004 9:10:23 AM PST by PSYCHO-FREEP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Dane
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.

72 posted on 01/25/2004 9:12:28 AM PST by FirstPrinciple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: PSYCHO-FREEP
Funny, why you would think of that to be the first place to go? Sorry, wouldn't follow you there.
73 posted on 01/25/2004 9:13:46 AM PST by FirstPrinciple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: FirstPrinciple
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.

74 posted on 01/25/2004 9:15:40 AM PST by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: 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.
75 posted on 01/25/2004 9:18:07 AM PST by FirstPrinciple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
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.
76 posted on 01/25/2004 9:21:24 AM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 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

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

Sorry I don't kiss pigs.

77 posted on 01/25/2004 9:23:23 AM PST by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: 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.
78 posted on 01/25/2004 9:25:36 AM PST by FirstPrinciple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: 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

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.

79 posted on 01/25/2004 9:28:38 AM PST by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Dane
Why can't you just admit that you were wrong and conservative Republicans do exist and go back to kissing men?
80 posted on 01/25/2004 9:31:03 AM PST by FirstPrinciple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 301 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson