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.

[Poohbah]

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

If pointing out reality causes a flamefest, then the guys who don't like reality have a problem, not the guys pointing out reality.

[NittanyLion]

If pointing out reality causes a flamefest, then the guys who don't like reality have a problem, not the guys pointing out reality.

I couldn't agree more. Hopefully we can work together to overcome your problem and avoid further flamefests.

[Bikers4Bush]

My advocacy of Tancredo is objectively pro-conservative but you are free to your own fantasies.

[Bikers4Bush]

My advocacy of Tancredo is objectively pro-conservative but you are free to your own fantasies.

[Bikers4Bush]

I couldn't agree more.

[Poohbah]

I couldn't agree more. Hopefully we can work together to overcome your problem and avoid further flamefests.

It's not my problem.

I've been backstabbed one time too many by these self-anointed "true conservatives."

I just realized that they're not friendly long before the GOP did.

They priced themselves out of the market. That's THEIR problem, not mine.

[hchutch]

If someone's actions are objectively supporting John Kerry, why shouldn't it be pointed out? Why is that causing such distress? Why are you unwilling to address the conseuqences of your actions, and instead prefer to hide behind the claim that I am being "childish"?

If you want childish, look at John Warner's actions in 1994 after Ollie North won the nomination to oppose Charles Robb for a Senate seat.

[hchutch]

No, it elects the LIBERAL John F. Kerry.

Tancredo has not even run in the primaries. He didn't get a single vote in the Republican primary in New Hampshire.

So, your advocacy of Tancredo - particularly as a write-in/independent/third-party candidate is NOT pro-conservative by any objective measure, it is pro-Kerry.

[Bikers4Bush]

"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."

There was a time when I felt he deserved my support and now I don't feel the same. What you should be questioning is why the President feels that he can abandon the party and it's principles not what my screename is.

My actions are pro-conservative regardless of what you call them.

The truth doesn't hurt me at all, especially since it can set one free.

Name calling by you or anyone else is irrelevant and only proves the weakness of your position.

[Bikers4Bush]

Like I said, your fantasies are your own.

[NittanyLion]

If someone's actions are objectively supporting John Kerry, why shouldn't it be pointed out? Why is that causing such distress?

No distress on my part, I'm enjoying your self-immolation.

Incidentally, claiming that support of conservatism is equivalent to support of John Kerry is...somewhat Orwellian. It's also somewhat ridiculous.

Why are you unwilling to address the conseuqences of your actions, and instead prefer to hide behind the claim that I am being "childish"?

In point of fact, adapting names to make fun of people is an attribute normally associated with children. What else would you have me call it?

As far as consequences, we're seeing them on this thread. I've pressured my lawmakers to become more conservative, and in turn they're pressuring the White House to do the same. Conservatism is the big winner here, which is why I'm surprised you seem so upset. Shouldn't self-professed conservatives be happy by this turn of events?

As far as my cause, mission accomplished (at least for today). I'll keep fighting for my principles, and hopefully see more results like the one described in the posted article.

[Dead Corpse]

I just realized that they're not friendly long before the GOP did.

Hey Poo, you may have forgotten already, but the article at the top of this thread is about the GOP being upset with Bush's liberalism. The GOP itself is showing some "unfriendly" feelings for your God and Savior, hollowed be his name, George Bush.

Of course if you like his open borders policy, benefits for illegals, massive increases in discretionary spending that have NOTHING TO DO WITH SECURITY, THE ECONOMY, OR NATIONAL DEFENSE... then maybe you really should check out one of the democrats as they want to do even more of the same.

Give us a REAL conservative who would slam the borders shut, massively deport the illegals already here, respect the full force of our Second Amendment Rights, enact real free market reforms, abolish the IRS, and stop sending billions of our tax money overseas to people who hate us.

You know... like damn near any other Republican out there.

[Sabertooth]

It was a PROPOSAL and is not policy.

That's really a distinction without a difference, as the Bush Amnesty outlines a policy proposal.

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

Sounds like the reassurances we had for CFR or Prescription Drugs.

Anything coming out of Congress that Amnesties Illegals would be a disaster.

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.

Perhaps if Karl Rove hadn't burned him on the issue where Tancredo has a better grasp of what the American people want than does either Rove or President Bush, they wouldn't be clashing. Karl Rove made this bed a couple of years ago when he banished Tancredo from the White House.

Now Tancredo gets payback. Boo hoo. Rove blew it.

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

I've addressed it. Tancredo's guest worker program would not be available for Illegals, only to foreign nationals applying from their country of origin. Illegals would have to self-deport to be eligible.

There are problems with Tancredo's plan, however, where it resembles the President's, in that both indulge the "any willing worker to any willing employer" folly. There have to be numeric caps. We can't have every new job in America placed up for grabs to six billion potential underbidders.

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.

This is so backwards.

The President has come out in opposition to the American people on Illegal Aliens. Tancredo is with us.

The President has risked alienating many Republicans and swing voters with this Amnesty proposal at the very time we're fighting the WoT and the institution of marriage is under attack.

There will be no conciliation of the President's Amnesty. Haven't you been listening the past three weeks, if not the past three years?

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.

You've incorrectly read my mind. I want this debate wide open.

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.

Why is it that everyone else is accountable, but never President Bush?

You've used one excuse after another to give him a pass on every bad move he's made. You can still support him without being disingenuous.

Heck, I support him. and more now than I did Monday, as a result of the Massachusetts Supreme Court's gay marriage decision. To me, that's leapfrogged way past the WoT and Illegals as the most imminent threat to American civilization.

However, there's no way on earth that I can hold this President unaccountable and above criticism when he blunders as badly as he has with his Amnesty proposal. I've been warning about this issue for two years, and that it would threaten Republican prospects in 2004. Now it's happened quite as I've said, just as CFR went wrong quite as I said, just as Prescription Drugs are overbudget quite as I said, just as Schwarzenegger has double-crossed on CDLs for Illegals quite as I said.

The problem here is President Bush, and his resolute unwillingness to diligently enforce our immigration laws, preferring instead a large Amnesty for millions of Illegal Aliens. Two-thirds of Americans have consistently hated the idea of Amnesty, and that will not change.

I submit that the time for pretending there isn't a problem is long over.

[NittanyLion]

I've been backstabbed one time too many by these self-anointed "true conservatives." I just realized that they're not friendly long before the GOP did. They priced themselves out of the market. That's THEIR problem, not mine.

If you're jaded because of your interactions with conservatives who were unappeasable, then shame on them. If you were lost to the conservative cause because of a history with unfriendly conservatives, then it truly is their problem - and your reaction is understandable. And I mean that quite honestly.

I'm not trying to score a cheap point here, but surely you can see that the actions of some of the more strident Bush supporters here are having a similar effect? What do you suppose happens to people who have their name changed to "Bikers4Kerry"? You think maybe they decide that Bush supporters are also unfriendly and unworthy of support?

You're repeating the same pattern you blame for your own alienation from conservatives. You're making what you describe as "their problem" YOUR problem. JMHO.

[Miss Marple]

No one is pretending there isn't a problem, including the president (else he would not have put forth his proposal, which is NOT policy, or we would currewntly have a guest worker program).

We are in an election year. I do not want ANY public statements which erode support for the President and the GOP. I also think Tancredo is foolish, in that he could mobilize Hispanic democrats to target some people in the house.

There needs to be a solution, but the type of public discussion I think you would find satisfying is not one that is inclined to be positive.

[hchutch]

How does indirectly electing John F. Kerry President advance conservative positions?

You want to talk delusions, the notion that electing someone who is MORE liberal than Teddy Kennedy, dierctly or indirectly, is the biggest one I have seen on this forum to date.

The President has not abandoned anything - his positions have been quite clear on the issues. The one time I think he did waver (CFR) was understandable based on circumstances that were beyond his control (to wit, Enron).

I did not vote for him in the 2000 primaries. I primarily backed Steve Forbes, although my vote went to McCain after Forbes dropped out primarily due to McCain's stance on foreign policy. Bush has been quite impressive, though, and earned my support.

He was honest about his positions on some of the same issues you are complaining about today. He said he was not for a hard-line position on illegal immigration. He said he was going to try to pass a prescription drug benefit.

Why don't you listen to Alan Keyes if you won't listen to me?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1071872/posts

[Sabertooth]

I've been backstabbed one time too many by these self-anointed "true conservatives.

And you've always played so well with others.

I just realized that they're not friendly long before the GOP did.

And friendly is your middle name, after all.

They priced themselves out of the market. That's THEIR problem, not mine.

You must be a happy guy, since this issue is no longer a problem for you.

[Bikers4Bush]

This is not a Kerry or Bush issue for me so listening to you, Allen Keyes, Karl Rove of Bush himself means nothing.

It's actions that concern me and more specifically the actions that Bush has taken and will take with a majority in both the House and Senate to back him.

Instead of advancing the conservative agenda (the traditional leanings of the Republican party) as he could have done to this point it has been retarded.

[hchutch]

How does indirectly electing John F. Kerry to the office of President of the United States advance the cause of conservatism?

And no, this conservative is NOT happy at the turn of events. This conservative SUPPORTS Bush on immigration policy. Government spending isn't a big deal to me.

You asked Poohbah if he'd run into either unappeasables or had a history with "unfriendly conservatives" in the past. Well, I can't speak for him, although I do remember he has recounted some past experiences on this forum.

For me, it was John Warner backstabbing Ollie North that has me questioning ANYONE who would take action that would directly or indirectly elect a liberal. I will note that Senator Warner has NOT received my vote in the past two elections for Senate - I wrote Ollie in both times. Should Warner run for re-election, I will do the same.

That's my experience. And I see no reason why I should hold those who profess to be conservative to any less of a standard than I am holding Senator Warner to. If that causes you difficulty, so be it.

I'm not going to let people act childish and indirectly elect liberals. Particularly when you read what their national security positions are (the link is from Hugh Hewitt's Weekly Standard article):
http://64.177.207.201/pages/8_470.html

[Sabertooth]

No one is pretending there isn't a problem, including the president (else he would not have put forth his proposal, which is NOT policy, or we would currewntly have a guest worker program).

You're still fixating on this policy/proposal hairsplitting?

The President hasn't recognized yet that he is the problem on this matter.

President Bush's Illegal Alien Amnesty policy proposal is a symptom of the problem, not evidence of a productive search for a solution.

We are in an election year. I do not want ANY public statements which erode support for the President and the GOP. I also think Tancredo is foolish, in that he could mobilize Hispanic democrats to target some people in the house.

You didn't want to talk about this in the off years either.

Who proposed this "not an Amnesty" Amnesty this election year?

Now, people like Tancredo or folks on this website who've been warning that Bush would do this, and that it would be a disaster, are supposed to be quiet, because we're "in an election year?"

That's pretty bold-faced.

The single public pronouncement that has caused the most erosion of support for President Bush was made by President Bush himself, and I've linked it above. That fact is as unavoidable as the conversation that has inevitably ensued, and you can not silence it.

Heck, I just listened to nationally syndicated radio hostess Laura Ingraham talk for 15 minutes about the very article at the top of this thread.

We are talking about the President's unpopular Amnesty proposal this election year because the President announced his unpopular Amnesty proposal this election year.

There needs to be a solution, but the type of public discussion I think you would find satisfying is not one that is inclined to be positive.

The type of discussion and solution I would find satisfying would also satisfy two-thirds of the American people. Yet you submit that it wouldn't be positive?

The source of the non-positive elements of this conversation is President Bush. He had a chance to be on the right side of an issue that has the support of most of the American people and cuts heavily against the Democrats, to our great electoral advantage.

He failed to do so, and here we are.