George W. Bush Angers Conservatives

NewsMax | February 8, 2004 | NewsMax e-mail

[George W. Bush]

Kerry = higher taxes
Bush = larger deficit

Taster's choice. I doubt the election will turn on it directly though, at least in the sense of people voting on it as an abstract economic concept.

However, if Bush's tax policy produces a boom in employment in key states like Ohio, it is probably going to determine the election in that way.

[Final Authority]

When National Review includes several pieces concurring with this, it shows that GWB should be concerned about his core supporters. There were two pieces about immigration, at least one about deficit spending, smaller comments about other issues. They were not kind to GWB.

[tcuoohjohn]

Perhaps we suffer under the delusion that Conservatism is monolithic. It is a bit too easy to percieve something as " one thing" indivisible. Conservatism is as diverse as Liberalism. Relying on the monolithic perception is poltically dangerous I believe. GWB's spending has angered many on the traditional right. The dramatic expansion of federal power has angered others. I suspect that GWB may only be hearing a specific set of voices within the conservative movement. Thus he may suffer from selective hearing.

[The_Eaglet]

bump for further review

[O.C. - Old Cracker]

G.W. needs to utilize the bully pulpit that has been granted him and draw a deeper line in the sand. One thing I would suggest is to come out with a rousing endorsement of Mel Gibson's, The Passion of the Christ. I think he is too much of a political animal to try that, but such a display of courage would lockdown millions of votes for his November 4 bid.

[Protagoras]

It was the Republican House that controlled Clinton's spending.

And Bush's. Goose, gander.

[Terry Mross]

Again, it gave us Clinton for another term. And the repubs don't "control" Congress except in numbers only. Now we've got a president who "rubber stamps" everything Congress sends him. The problem is what Congress sends him is what the dims want. They'll spend us into the largest deficit we've ever had then blame Bush. I remember Al Gore complaining about Elder Bush's "largest tax increase in history". Ross Perot asked him how he voted and he said, "I voted for it, but...." And he got away with it. The same thing will happen to Younger Bush. They'll hang him with his own rope and I find it frightening that a dim will be in the White House while the Muslim Extremists are trying to destroy us. If Clinton hadn't been in office a second term, 911 wouldn't have happened.

Finally, the repubs "control" Congress and the only thing I've seen is a tax cut that wasn't as big as it should have been and will, more than likely, be rolled back.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

You see what you want to see, which is erroneous.

So the NewsMax staff is seeing what they want to see, which is erroneous?

And the pollsters, they are seeing what they want to see, low numbers for Bush, which is of course erroneous?

[raloxk]

"when the repubs took congress in '94 it was the worst thing that ever happened to this country. Had that not happened Clinton would have been a one termer. "

nonesense on both counts. Had hte public endorsed all DEM party rule in 1994, it is lieky they would have done so again in 1996 as the economy was improving.

You seem to think the anger that propelled the GOP to victory in 1994, could have been absent but somehow appear in 1996. NO,

[nopardons]

NewsMax has many writers who just bash away at the president;they've been doing so for a long time.

Polls can be made to come out anyway the pollsters want them too.

And at this time, Reagan was losing at this time, of his first term too. DID REAGAN LSOE HIS REELECTION BID ?

[nopardons]

NewsMax has many writers who just bash away at the president;they've been doing so for a long time.

Polls can be made to come out anyway the pollsters want them too.

And at this time, Reagan was losing at this time, of his first term too. DID REAGAN LOSE HIS REELECTION BID ?

[nopardons]

Interesting little rant, sloppy personal attack, but all of it's based on your FEELINGS and not on fact at all.

And a " base " IS comprised of those whose votes can be counted on, NOT on fair weather voters. You've just proved how little you understand that term and politics and me. :-)

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

but all of it's based on your FEELINGS and not on fact at all.

LOL.. You forgot the < >irony< > tags.

[nopardons]

No actually I didn't. ;^)

[George W. Bush]

And a " base " IS comprised of those whose votes can be counted on, NOT on fair weather voters. You've just proved how little you understand that term and politics and me.

No. The base is the party activists, those elements whose policy passion drives the primaries in a contested primary.

The party faithful are the ones who turn out to vote for the party's nominee, rain or shine. They may or may not bother to vote in primaries.

My terms and conclusions are correct.

You are a FRinger in this election year. Like most people at FR.

[nopardons]

Since I have been a party activist for decades, I'm a fringer now, because you and I disagree about Bush ?

Really?

I'm the one who doesn't understand, but YOU do ? ROTFLOL

[rmmcdaniell]

I agree. I think in the next 20 years, the USA will have split into 4-5 individual regional nations, with 2-3 choosing a ridgid "original constitution" type of government, with a NATO-like partnership.

When that happens, the parts of the country that have the more free and capatilistic qualities better have airtight boarders and a good military. Otherwise the parasites will want to move where the eatin' is good.

[George W. Bush]

Since I have been a party activist for decades, I'm a fringer now, because you and I disagree about Bush ? Really? I'm the one who doesn't understand, but YOU do ? ROTFLOL

Hopefully, you've calmed down. We were not discussing Bush.

I was not threatening your dolly.

We were discussing the difference between 'base' voters (activists) and party loyalists.

I stand by my remarks. You are a FRinger as far as Bush, Rove, GOP/RNC are concerned.

Dissident conservative elements may or may not be FRingers. Given the GOP failure to make headway with minorities (blacks, Hispanics, gays, prochoicers, affirmative action people) via symbolic appointments and throwing money at them, the question is whether Bush must turn toward his 'base' and instead try to get their votes and stop trying to be all things to all people.

I think it is obvious that Rove's plan to discard conservatives once and for all has failed. They have not attracted the replacement voters they need.

We'll see. Maybe Rove will decide that conservatives are FRingers or can be co-opted. But the party faithful, like you, are already FRingers. It remains to be seen whether BushCo and congressional Republicans will consider conservatives to be FRingers in this legislative year and campaign season. And in November, we'll know for sure. Admittedly, it will be too late once we finally know. Some of these arguments are actually moot, as I'm sure you know.

I still think it revolves around Congress. The GOP can still get our votes for GOP congressmen and for Bush. Most of the complaints against Bush actually are complaints against the Congress's actions under Bush's influence. Many of these kinds of discussions at FR don't even identify the proper target.

At the risk of redundancy: It's the Congress, stupid.