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.

[Sabertooth]

Do not take my actions agaisnt Warner as an endorsement of the attempts to indirectly vote for John F. Kerry.

But, they are.

Warner's disloyalty is one thing - and were there other ways to make him pay the price for betraying Ollie North, I would exercise THEM as opposed to the write-in.

So the only loyalty that matters is loyalty to party, such that only disloyalty to party can be punished by disloyalty to party

By making deviation from party uber alles the only political sin punishable by the ultimate political penalty, which is the loss of your vote, you've demonstrated what you value most:

The Party.

[miloklancy]

Karl Rove absolutely deserves to hear the brunt of these criticisms, as I believe he is the major architect of the policies that have ticked off conservatives. Even more evidence, that Mr. Rove needs to get the boot if Bush wins a second term. However we cannot be blinded by rage and foresake the awful consequences of bringing Bush down this year. Otherwise we have learned nothing from 2000 and nothing from 1992.

[AntiGuv]

So the electorate of this country needs to be lead away from its high spending proclivities?

Isn't that what Reagan did? Didn't Reagan veto 78 spending bills during his time in office??

That's hardly a conservative solution -- is it.

Are you saying Reagan was not a conservative?

The soldiers in the filed want to defeat the enemy.

Reagan won 44 and 49 states in his respective national elections. He didn't do it by pandering to the lowest common denominator.

If the electorate doesn't care, then why the hell should the politician president?

What if the electorate does care? We'll find out this November (or December, as the case may be..)

[Poohbah]

Otherwise we have learned nothing from 2000 and nothing from 1992.

Oh, the "true conservatives" learned a LOT from 1992 et seq.

They learned that being a minority malcontent is financially profitable with an extreme left-winger in the White House.

It doesn't pay NEARLY as well without said lefty extremist.

Follow the money...

[chris1]

If you remember in 2000, Bush did not get the popular vote, and but for the grace of morons in Florida and Gore's incredible ineptitude, Bush would not even be there. I dare say that pandering to the illegal alien vote will gain him any extra votes. Heck, why not propose allowing felons to vote? Yeah that will get him some votes, but cost him many more who will be alientated. Tell me, what principals do you stand for? Less spending on frivolous programs? Tighter border security? NEA funding? Medicare drug bill for many who don't need it at the expense of everyone else?

[chris1]

The lesson of 1992 is that Republicans should run on traditional conservative policies that most people agree with. When faced with liberal or liberal light, voters go for the real deal. If Bush acts like his father on the domestic issues, he will be toast.

[miloklancy]

What about the hit the economy took resulting from the attacks on Sept 11, 2001? These attacks were the result of 8 years of letting our intellegence infrastructure deteriorate under Bill Clinton, as well Clinton's apathy towards threats which were building up around the world. It will be a close election this year, not unlike 2000. We cannot afford to put a new President in office who looks at the War On Terror as a matter simply to be litigated and tried in International courts.

[FreeReign]

So the electorate of this country needs to be lead away from its high spending proclivities?

Isn't that what Reagan did? Didn't Reagan veto 78 spending bills during his time in office??

Reagan's first first three budgets were roughly the same or even higher as a percentage of GDP compared Bush's.

That's hardly a conservative solution -- is it.

Are you saying Reagan was not a conservative?

Reagan had higher spending as a percentage of GDP, a citizenship amesty, a tax increase and believe even a "CFR" type limitation on free speech law passed in about '86. What would YOU call that?

If the electorate doesn't care, then why the hell should the politician president?

What if the electorate does care? We'll find out this November (or December, as the case may be..)

Do you think the electorate cared back in 2000 when the majority of them voted for either Gore or Nadar?

[Poohbah]

If you remember in 2000, Bush did not get the popular vote, and but for the grace of morons in Florida and Gore's incredible ineptitude, Bush would not even be there.

And had your buddies bothered to F***ING VOTE FOR BUSH ON ELECTION DAY, Bush would've gotten the popular vote.

Also, I find it interesting that you're repeating Democrat canards about how voters were confused.

I dare say that pandering to the illegal alien vote will gain him any extra votes.

There isn't any "illegal alien vote" worth pandering to. Illegal aliens generally don't attempt to vote.

Heck, why not propose allowing felons to vote?

Your man Kerry will do it.

Yeah that will get him some votes, but cost him many more who will be alientated.

Those votes were already alienated. Sorry, your side sat out one election too many.

Tell me, what principals do you stand for?

Actually trying to accomplish something useful on taxes, pro-life issues, and getting conservative judges...

...unlike you.

Less spending on frivolous programs?

Yup. Too bad the Congressmen who whined at Rove are the same ones who appropriated all that spending for frivolous programs.

Tighter border security?

And you're whining about the government spending too much money.

Better dig REALLY deep, buddy, and pay those taxes 'til it hurts--because securing 2,100 miles of border ain't going to be cheap.

But we didn't have a serious illegal immigration problem until 1965. We also had a guest worker program until 1965. I submit that the two are connected.

NEA funding?

Medicare drug bill for many who don't need it at the expense of everyone else?

And it was voted for by WHO again? Republicans in Congress, perchance?

[hchutch]

"But, they are."

No, they are NOT.

You also see fit to ignore the REST of the post. Not surprising, you have done it before. You see, I have to pay a penalty, too. I have NO influence over John Warner now that he has won re-election - he owes me... nothing, as Poohbah has said elsewhere on this thread and others. You might belittle that, but it is something I have to live with.

Looking at Jim Robinson's posts, I can only assume that he came to the same conclusion I pretty much came to after that 1994 debacle: Our best shot is the Republican party, and I will call out those who make any efforts that risk putting Democrats in power.

If he feels my stance vis-a-vis John Warner is incompatible with the goals of this forum as he has expressed them in his posts, then he certainly is capable of letting me know, either through a warning or by stronger action. But that is for him to decide, not you.

[WRhine]

And y'all sat out one election too many. You ain't the base anymore. Bush isn't going to stick your neck out for him after y'all voted in smaller numbers in 2000 than you did in 1996.

B/S. Bush never would have won in 2000 without strong conservative support. Just look at how poorly Pat Buchannan did in that election. What was his tally? <1%? It was precisely because of motivated conservatives that Bush prevailed.

You're living in a dream world Poobah, but like I said, it won't be the first time the Liberal Wing of the republican party discovers what happens when they push candidates that have more in common with the democratic party than they do with conservatism.

[Poohbah]

We cannot afford to put a new President in office who looks at the War On Terror as a matter simply to be litigated and tried in International courts.

But the "true conservatives" will be happy, because then they can sell their conspiracy videos and books to a bunch more people.

[Poohbah]

B/S. Bush never would have won in 2000 without strong conservative support.

Fergawdsake, DOLE got more conservative votes than Bush did!

[AntiGuv]

Reagan's first first three budgets were roughly the same or even higher as a percentage of GDP compared Bush's.

Reagan increased military spending by $806 billion over the course of his Presidency, or did you forget about the spectacular success of outspending the Soviet Union into dissolution?

On the other hand, this is what happened to discretionary (pork) spending, as compared to GWB:

Reagan had higher spending as a percentage of GDP, a citizenship amesty, a tax increase and believe even a "CFR" type limitation on free speech law passed in about '86. What would YOU call that?

Reagan inherited far higher spending as a percentage of GDP. GWB has increased spending as a percentage of GDP at a faster rate than any President since Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" and since FDR's "New Deal" before that.

I did not support Reagan's amnesty. That was not any more conservative than Bush's proposed amnesty. However, Reagan had a comprehensively conservative record of economic and budget policies whereas Bush has a broadly liberal record. Moreover, Reagan always had to deal with a Democratic House whereas Bush has mostly had a Republican Congress.

Do you think the electorate cared back in 2000 when the majority of them voted for either Gore or Nadar?

In 2000 the electorate was still drinking the Kool-Aid of the dot-com bubble. That's what they were voting for.

[Barnacle]

Thanks for the ping Gub,

It looks like there may be hope for our beloved party after all, but only if Conservatives remain vocal.

[churchillbuff]

If these idiots keep it up

Which "idiots" -- the conservatives who want Bush to stop spending like a Democrat, or the Bush people who are spending like Democrats?

[Map Kernow]

Lots a Luck on “getting out the vote” on Election Day if the conservative base is unmotivated.... You’ll need it.

They either turn out their base, or they turn off their base. All the folderol about "Congressional hypocrites" and "electing Democrats" aside, if the GOP hierarchy keeps thinking and acting like it's the base's fault instead of their fault (and the fault of their idiotic anti-conservative policies and proposals) that the GOP loses elections, they'll turn off their base for good, and all this discussion about whether the base turns out for the Republican ticket will be a fond dream.

[Sabertooth]

You also see fit to ignore the REST of the post. Not surprising, you have done it before. You see, I have to pay a penalty, too. I have NO influence over John Warner now that he has won re-election - he owes me... nothing, as Poohbah has said elsewhere on this thread and others. You might belittle that, but it is something I have to live with.

I ignored the impertinent part of your post, and focused on your double-standard: by your logic not voting for a GOP nominee is an indirect vote for a Democrat.

When you do it, though, it's ok. In fact it's a burden you happily bear.

Looking at Jim Robinson's posts, I can only assume that he came to the same conclusion I pretty much came to after that 1994 debacle: Our best shot is the Republican party, and I will call out those who make any efforts that risk putting Democrats in power.

Except when those efforts are yours.

1994 was not a debacle btw, it was a smashing success that resulted from the high turnout a highly-motived conservative base.

If he feels my stance vis-a-vis John Warner is incompatible with the goals of this forum as he has expressed them in his posts, then he certainly is capable of letting me know, either through a warning or by stronger action. But that is for him to decide, not you.

How melodramatic. I don't advocate any action against you.

I don't mind debate or disagreement, and don't need any heavy-handed assist in that regard.

You voted your conscience against Warner, and that's your prerogative.

Don't others have the same prerogative?

[WRhine]

Fergawdsake, DOLE got more conservative votes than Bush did!

Yeh, Right LOL. I'll tell ya what though, while it is TRUE that Dole fared poorly with conservatives, another major factor that led to Dole's defeat was that many left-leaning republicans (like you) voted for Clinton because they liked the way their 401K s were performing. Of couse Dole has the distinction of running an even worse campaign than Bush I--which is quite a feat.