GOP slams Bush policies at retreat

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

[hchutch]

And I outlined why. He indirectly re-elected Charles Robb to the United States Senate in 1994 and has shown no regret or remorse over it.

I wonder why it is you feel that I should hold self-professed conservatives to a lesser standard than I hold that RINO to, particularly when their actions indirectly elect a liberal Democrat. How is that any different in terms of the judges nominated or laws signed than if they voted for the Democrat? Do they not harm the principles they claim to espouse by such actions, despite their professed intentions?

In the case of my non-support of John Warner, it was the childish actions of a RINO. But I will be equally harsh on conservatives who act just as childishly, and who threaten to do greater damage to the conservative cause than merely denying a conservative a Senate seat.

Arguing that indirectly electing a liberal to office advances the conservative cause is delusional at best. Those who continue to advocate a course of action that do so, despite pointed comments that explain the likely RESULT of that course of action, are not doing the conservative cause any favors. If anything, they advocate a course of action that not only has ill effects over the short-term (losing an election) but long-term ill effects as well (it engenders a sense of distrust that makes a politician LESS likely to stick his neck out for us).

[hchutch]

Yeah, and what else did we get? A military that was spread too thin, a gutted intelligence service, and liberal activist judges. Oh, yeah, and a tax increase.

Thanks, but no thanks.

[AntiGuv]

I don't suppose you could help me recall when the last time was that Bush vetoed a spending bill?

[Nick Danger]

People who admit things as they are, then work to change them, show backbone... it's a good thing that these representatives said what they did.

Don't insult our intelligence by labeling this as "backbone." It's just more craven duplicity from the Professional Politician class. Watch this:

The White House "has told us they will support a freeze if we have the votes, but some of us want the president to take the lead on this," confided a Republican House member who has been negotiating with the administration on the budget.

If I'm in the White House, and I hear this, my reply is, "Oh, so while you're telling us that the people in your district want a spending freeze, you don't actually believe it yourself. You want us to provide air cover for the freeze. The only reason you would want that is if you thought a freeze would get you in trouble with your constituents."

So which is it, Congressman? Do your constituents want this? Or are you just trying to have it both ways? You want to be able to go to your conservative donors and say, "I told that White House to stop spending!" and then you want to turn around and go to the town hall meeeting and say, "The spending freeze is imposed on us by the White House. I would have voted to support the River City Furry Animal Museum project, but those scrooges in the White House wouldn't let me."

This is the Same Old Same Old. "Vote for me! I'm a penny-pinching fiscal conservative who really knows how to bring home the bacon!" Feh.

[North Coast Conservative]

To push his Medicare Prescription Drug benefit through Congress he the President took off his gloves and beat the Republican faithful to a pulp until he found enough votes to push it through.

To get his nominees through the vetting process, and out to the floor to be voted on, up or down, he has done what? He hasn't used the bully pulpit, he hasn't worked through his Republican Senate to force a real filibuster, not the flimsy excuse for one, he did not go to the recess appointment route except for Pickering.

Do you remember how Bill Lan Lee was used as a supository for the Republican Party "INTENTIONALLY" by Bill Clinton, when he could not get through the Republican controlled Senate?

We control the Senate and the lack of leadership, and Bully Pulpit politics that would show the country that the illegal and illegitmate actions of the Democratic party will not be tolerated has not come.

Miguel Estrada finally had enough humiliation and withdrew, after he was boxed around for what, two years?

The Pres isn't totally at fault, but he seems to get his way with Republican elected officials when he wants to.

That's why I think there has been little support.

In God We Trust.....Semper Fi

[hchutch]

Still denying that it would be a reasonably foreseeable result of his course of action?

Why does pointing that out bother you?

[gubamyster]

ping

[AntiGuv]

Perhaps you're the one who can remind me when was the last time Bush vetoed a bill?

[Bikers4Bush]

Thinking something is idiotic doesn't equal taking offense.

And since it wasn't your opinion but instead what you are claiming I said it's appropriate to give you the opportunity to apologize.

My venom is directed at the person in charge the person who is "trying to lead the country, to broaden the party". Kerry is not currently captain of the ship that is in danger of running aground.

For the time being he is the voters in Mass's problem and not mine.

[NittanyLion]

Still denying that it would be a reasonably foreseeable result of his course of action? Why does pointing that out bother you?

It doesn't bother me in the least. As I pointed out earlier, your continued logical fallacies only bolster my argument. By all means, proceed.

[Bikers4Bush]

Agreed.

[Sabertooth]

And I outlined why. He indirectly re-elected Charles Robb to the United States Senate in 1994 and has shown no regret or remorse over it.

I wonder why it is you feel that I should hold self-professed conservatives to a lesser standard than I hold that RINO to,

I'm wondering why you're holding youself to a lower standard than that to which you hold others.

I wouldn't vote for North, myself, but you like him and don't like Warner. Fair enough, I don't begrudge a vote of consicence.

Why do you?

If their non-vote for this or that GOP candidate is an indirect vote for a liberal Democrat, why can't the same be said of your non-vote for Warner?

In the case of my non-support of John Warner, it was the childish actions of a RINO. But I will be equally harsh on conservatives who act just as childishly, and who threaten to do greater damage to the conservative cause than merely denying a conservative a Senate seat.

Not quite following what you're saying here.

Is Warner the "rino" whose actions were childish?

[Bikers4Bush]

So the past repeats itself in the future according to you then.

I'll have to make note of that with my investments. Enron will apparently rise again.

[hchutch]

This is the sort of thing that infurates me. It sounds a LOT like what Poohbah has described as well - and to be honest, I am getting more and more disillusioned with the folks who are making these kinds of arguments against the President.

[NittanyLion]

to be honest, I am getting more and more disillusioned with the folks who are making these kinds of arguments against the President.

How odd that the success of conservative activism would disillusion you. Isn't that what we're supposed to be about on this site - advocating conservative policy?

[Sabertooth]

Still denying that it would be a reasonably foreseeable result of his course of action?

Why does pointing that out bother you?

Still doesn't seem to bother you when you indirectly vote for Democrats, by your own logic, when you write in Olliie North instead of Warner.

Why not?

[Paulie]

"One glaring omission in all of the self-righteous indignation. Where was the self criticism? Every spending bill the hate was passed by them. Bush just made an immigration proposal it is completely within their power to vote it down."

Exactly my sentiments. In an early paragraph, the article says that the lawmakers were "stunned" by the outrage of their constituents. Stunned? Have most of them no sense of what's right or wrong for this nation? And you are correct. Not one of the things they're complaining about was or will be done without their approval. Sure, Bush is wrong in these areas, but I say it's time for Congress to grow up.

[AntiGuv]

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

That depends on which cause of conservatism you're referring to. If it's spending, immigration, and entitlements that you're referring to there's little doubt that a Republican Congress would be far more likely to block liberal policies when they're proposed by a Democrat than they are when a Republican such as Bush proposes them.

In terms of national security and social issues, I would imagine that it would not advance the cause of conservatism (to be exact, neoconservatism in the former case).

[hchutch]

Yes. His candidate (Jim Miller) lost the Republican nomination (which went to Oliver North) in 1994. I find it interesting that the same candidate ran against Warner for the nomination in 1996, and one of his big issues was Warner's conduct after the 1994 nomination was decided.

Disloyalty must have a price, Sabertooth. Writing in Oliver North was all I could do in 1996 and 2002 to make John Warner pay a price, although in 2002, I was hoping for a primary opponent. If you consider disloyalty in the form of indirectly electing a Democrat to be acceptable, or even understandable, then you really have no cause to complain when you find out that George W. Bush won't stick his political neck out for the issues you find important.

Or should I just pretend that John Warner's disloyalty was acceptable conduct?

[hchutch]

Well, which is more important? For me, it's keeping taxes down, pro-life, Second Amendment, judicial nominations and national security.

I've personally felt quite at home among the neoconservatives. To be blunt, I've been growing somewhat disillusioned with some aspects of the "culture war".