GOP slams Bush policies at retreat

The Washington Times ^ | 2/6/04 | By Ralph Z. Hallow and James G. Lakely

[ovrtaxt]

Growing frustration over President Bush's immigration plan and lack of fiscal discipline came to a head behind closed doors at last weekend's Republican retreat in Philadelphia.

House lawmakers, stunned by the intensity of their constituents' displeasure at some of Mr. Bush's key domestic policies, gave his political strategist Karl Rove an earful behind closed doors.

[Bikers4Bush]

Well this is just special, you attack my position and when I defend it you claim I attacked yours. How very victimish of you.

I don't need to be the arbiter, Bush is a Republican but not a Conservative. His talking mouthpiece as much says so with the line ""But he is trying to lead the country, to broaden the party." One does not broaden the party on principles but does by being a whore for the opposition.

You cry and use screename attacks and then accuse me of yelping?

The telltale sign that someone has lost, attempt to enlist others in your fight to help you.

Pathetic.

[kellynla]

"An obvious statement that needs to be repeated over and over again until people wake up." That is why I am here. And on this birthday of Ronald Reagan who said "a nation that cannot control its borders is not a nation." I believe the message is getting out. Tom Delay was on the Laura Ingraham show this am and he certainly has gotten the message. He so much as guaranteed that any amnesty bill would be DOA in Congress and he whole heartedly supports securing the borders.

[hchutch]

Childish?

If that's how you wish to view me, fine. I really don't care.

[lewislynn]

Bush had already told them if they didn't want CFR then by God don't send it to me.

LOL..You're a fraud.

[Miss Marple]

Karl Rove has jerked Tancredo around for a couple of years, when he should have listened to him. Tancredo owes him nothing. The Bush Amnesty is a colossal blunder, both as politics and policy, and all of the voices now trying to silence the tide that has swelled against it are the same voices who would see, hear, and speak no evil throughout the Predsident's first term.

It was a PROPOSAL and is not policy. It is already obvious that whatever passes the Congress won't bear much of a resemblance to it.

This is not the first time that Tancredo has pulled one of these breeches of confidence, and it probably won't be the last.

After all, he has found THE issue on which he can get air time on the news networks. I imagine that after this little story, he will get another round of interviews and maybe a spot on Larry King.

Meanwhile, no one is addressing TANCREDO's guest worker program. Everyone thinks that Tancredo will institute massive deportation, as far as I can tell.

Why should Tancredo NOT expect to be jerked around? He has repeatedly come out opposing the President on immigration, first by griping that he wasn't doing anything, and then opposing the President's idea of a solution. He has done this at the very time that the President is trying to increase Hispanic support in the party, and he has made no effort to sound conciliatory.

Piffle. If Karl Rove went to the papers quoting things Tancredo had said in a closed meeting, you would be livid. Just because it is Tancredo and he happens to support your point of view you think it is A-ok.

Constituents of Tancredo should ask themselves whether he is doing his best for the people of his district, or whether he is using a single issue to give himself a higher profile.

[hchutch]

Why is pointing out the obvious consequences of the tagline that Bikers4Kerry has posted causing such distress?

To paraphrase George Orwell, the Tancredo write-in crowd (as well as the Constitution Party and other third-party folks) are objectively pro-Kerry in 2004, just as John warner was objectively pro-Charles Robb ten years ago (I remember that - I was a passionate supporter of Oliver North that year). A backstabber is a backstabber, and I don't care if they're a squishy moderate like Warner or "conservatives" who go third party.

If this causes discomfort, that is not my concern. My concern is keeping a strong leader and good President in office - and that is what there is right now. Now, folks like me and Poohbah are going to point this out.

[Willie Green]

said White House spokesman Trent Duffy. "But he is trying to lead the country, to broaden the party.

When it comes right down to it, Mr. Duffy, the proper way to achieve that goal is to persuade Americans to support the conservative position on issues. NOT by cramming the liberal agenda down the throats of the conservative base.

[AmericanVictory]

You speak as if Washington were a place of leadership.

[NittanyLion]

Why is pointing out the obvious consequences of the tagline that Bikers4Kerry has posted causing such distress? If this causes discomfort, that is not my concern.

For starters, it causes needless tension on this forum that will ultimately lead to flamefests.

As importantly it reflects poorly on all of us, you most of all. But it isn't my reputation, so do whatever you want.

My concern is keeping a strong leader and good President in office - and that is what there is right now. Now, folks like me and Poohbah are going to point this out.

If that's really your goal, then substantive posts instead of foolish namecalling will be more effective. Changing his screenname irritates him and convinces no one else.

Alternatively, if your goal is to win a tit-for-tat Internet dispute by baiting the other poster into saying something that will get him banned, then by all means proceed.

[NittanyLion]

I intended to cc. you on 269 and omitted your name. Sorry...

[Bikers4Bush]

"A backstabber is a backstabber" do you mean like someone who campaigns as a Conservative and then serves as a moderate liberal. That kind of backstabbing?

As for discomfort, you have neither the means or the standing in my life to cause me discomfort. I was married once, nothing phases me now.

You do however have the ability to weaken any arguement you make by using rediculous plays on screenames as a way of attempting to make your point.

But hey, it's a free country and we can all set our own standards for thoughtful arguement. Some of us just set our standards higher.

[Bikers4Bush]

No big deal, thanks.

[skeeter]

the proper way to achieve that goal is to persuade Americans to support the conservative position on issues. NOT by cramming the liberal agenda down the throats of the conservative base.

bares repeating.

I'm forever amazed at the lack of faith of many 'conservatives' in the values they claim defines them.

[Poohbah]

What year was the most decisive GOP electoral victory in our lifetimes?

The "base" was trashing Newt Gingrich and the GOP all the way to the 1994 election, and then took credit for the win that they'd shunned voting for.

Then, in 1995, the "base" refused to send letters of support to their newly-elected Congresscritters during the budget showdown.

Then, in 1996, they threw a public hissy-fit over the GOP "caving in" to Clinton on the budget--the very issue they refused to support the GOP on.

I was there, buddy. I learned in 1994-96 that "true conservatives" are not the "base." The RNC took a while longer to figure it out.

[hchutch]

I am just pointing out the conseuqences, having lived through one of those elections where backstabbing cost a conservative a seat.

I don't like it, and I'm not going to tolerate it. Nor am I going to bother with niceties. His advocacy of Tancredo is objectively pro-Kerry. So, why should I treat him any better than I would treat a Kerry supporter?

[NittanyLion]

When it comes right down to it, Mr. Duffy, the proper way to achieve that goal is to persuade Americans to support the conservative position on issues. NOT by cramming the liberal agenda down the throats of the conservative base.

I suppose it's kind of tough to show American voters the effectiveness of conservative policy when one doesn't bother to actually implement it.

It seems to me if folks truly believe conservatism works, then they'd advocate its implementation as a means to attract moderate voters. After all, demonstrate it's effective and people will flock to your side. The fact that many folks equate attracting moderates to enacting liberal policy, tells me they inherently have more confidence in liberal policy than conservative policy. That says something...

[Poohbah]

Because the rest of the folks who agree with you, and think as you do, spent a decade slow-rolling the GOP...well, you're going to suffer.

Listen to you. What a coalition-builder.

I'm not interested in building a coalition of the unwilling.

If y'all aren't willing to vote for the GOP--and the record TO DATE says that you aren't--then the GOP isn't willing to waste its resources on your issues.

You're demanding up-front patronage.

Unfortunately, politics doesn't work like that. Politicians want to see the votes BEFORE they stick their necks out.

[Dead Corpse]

I have no intention of wading through 250 posts worth of bile, but has anyone else brought up the the fact that the GOP was ragging on Bush as being too liberal? Does this mean that the GOP wants a Democrat elected as some here have asserted of those of us who have question the authenticity of Bush's conservatism?

Contrary to what the 'Bots around here think, if your own party starts thinking you've abandoned your principles.... you are in deep sh*t.

[NittanyLion]

I don't like it, and I'm not going to tolerate it. Nor am I going to bother with niceties. His advocacy of Tancredo is objectively pro-Kerry. So, why should I treat him any better than I would treat a Kerry supporter?

By all means, continue. Childishness of the sort you describe stands in stark contrast to those of us trying to debate substance; indeed it only bolsters our case.

[hchutch]

When one is advicating action that are directly at odds with their screen name, I think I have reason to question how thoughtful you really are.

Your actions are objectively pro-Kerry. It is no different in my book than what John Warner did to Ollie North here in Virginia, back in 1994. Warner's actions were objectively pro-Robb.

I'm just willing to call the "stay at home" and "third party" people (which you are one of) what they are to any objective observer. The truth hurts, doesn't it?