Bush Finds Party Faithful In an Ugly Mood

WSJ ^ | 2/12/04 | JACKIE CALMES

[TomServo]

WASHINGTON -- For all the attention paid to partisanship in this town, the more interesting -- and consequential -- fights here in this election year will pit Republicans against Republicans.

A new level of tension is emerging between President Bush and the congressional Republicans he expects to deliver his election-year agenda. Among the sore points, Mr. Bush's initiative to give legal status to immigrant workers who are here illegally, a bid to attract Latino voters, instead has roiled the party's conservative faithful. Republicans have been put on the defensive over the President's policies on Iraq. And record deficits and spending suddenly have Republicans questioning his fiscal stewardship.

[miloklancy]

No more likely another terrorist attack on our country, losing control of Congress, increased attacks on the second ammendment, forced secularism, political witch hunts on conservatives, appointment of even more liberal judges, increased taxes, more wasteful spending, and further erosion of the conservative agenda. If you don't think Bush is a strong enough advocate of the conservative agenda, wait to you see John Kerry as your president. Also who do you think Bin Laden, Syria, Iran, and North Korea want to win?

[skinkinthegrass]

The War On Terror, like it or not is and will continue to be the central and most critical issue this year.

Oh!, that's understood...but, You gotta' admit, an active/focused Pro-GWB electorate is vital.

[jpsb]

Bush says:
[The movement of American factory jobs and white-collar work to other countries is part of a positive transformation that will enrich the U.S. economy over time, even if it causes short-term pain and dislocation, the Bush administration said yesterday.]

I say:
The movement of American voters and contributions to other parties is part of a positive transformation that will enrich the U.S. economy over time, even if it causes short-term Republican pain and dislocation, the Jim administration said yesterday.

[anniegetyourgun]

Like THIS single issue?

[Dave S]

"Single issue" people are good folks. Just because it may not be *your* issue is no reason to be snide.

So you have nothing against pro-choice or gay activists then?

[snooker]

if we want to reclaim our rights, we must first reclaim our responsibilities.

yep that was me. but some people can't afford all that they need. Especially as age catches up with them.

I don't think you want to take this to the extreme. But if the highway robbery which has become the drug industry worldwide were done away with, a lot more could afford to pay their own way. As it stands now, people are being asked to pay 100's of dollars a month to get access to new drugs.

Society needs to be compassionate and respond to the real needs of it's members. Denying people drugs and health care that is needed to sustain them isn't compassionate.

So you could assume it's the responsibility of society to supply these needs for the less fortunate. Charity isn't a bad thing. It only goes bad when taken to extremes.

[cc2k]

Fitzcarraldo wrote:

---

and as for the budget deficit you can thank Mr. Bin Laden for that.

---

How exactly did Mr. Bin Laden and his gang of terrorist thugs require massive increases in spending at:

• the Department of Education
• the Department of Labor
• the Department of Agriculture

And I also suppose you are going to tell me that Mr. Bin Laden is responsible for the 33% increase in the budget for the pills for grandma program in under 2 months. I wonder if Bin Laden is the reason behind the increase? Or if Bin Laden is a reason that the President might have stretched the truth to make the numbers look smaller than they really would be in order to get a few fiscally conservative Republicans to sign on to that program in the middle of that Friday night? (actually very early Saturday morning before it was over)

I will grant you that Homeland Security and the global War on Terror has been at least partly responsible for some of the spending increases. However, there have been huge increases in areas not related to Homeland Security or Defense. And many of those huge increases have been to pander to voters that will never vote for a Republican no matter what. So why are the Republicans and the President risking their base for this?

Fitzcarraldo wrote:

---

IF Kerry or some Democrat wins, the situation will be far worse - don't these folks realize that?

---

I will agree with you on that. Again this November, I will most likely hold my nose and vote for President Bush. Unfortunately, I see a defeat for President Bush as a very likely outcome. In 2000, it was the "broken glass Republicans" that put him in office. In 2004, the Dems have kept their hatred of President Bush at a fever pitch, and now there are lots of "ABB-Anybody But Bush Democrats." Also, I see parallels between the 2004 Democrat Primaries and the 2000 Republican Primaries. Both of those battles, "electability" became a main issue early in the contest.

This year isn't going to be a cakewalk for President Bush. He needs to keep all the voters he had in 2000 much worse than he needs to worry about picking up any liberals with his "me too" socialism. True socialists won't vote for a Republican under any circumstances. They will always vote for the Democrats.

[Luke21]

Without the Supreme Court we get nothing. The Supreme Court declared a moratorium on the death penalty in 1972 after the Warren Court had spent twenty years devising new protections for criminals. It took a long time and the deaths of many innocent people to undo those disastrous years. That's why the libs have fought us so much on the judiciary. They use it to rule and get their way without leaving tracks. Without a conservative president appointing conservative judges, we got nothing.

The states can pass all the laws they want for the death penalty or anything else, but they must be determined to be constitutional at the federal level. Much of what was enacted in criminal law during the fifties and sixties didn't originate in Congress or the legislatures, but in the chambers of Earl Warren, Thurbad Marshall, William Brennan, and William O. Douglas.

There's my "cattle as you call it". Or do you even know what you are talking about?

[templar]

No more likely another terrorist attack on our country, losing control of Congress, increased attacks on the second ammendment, forced secularism, political witch hunts on conservatives, appointment of even more liberal judges, increased taxes, more wasteful spending, and further erosion of the conservative agenda.

All of these things are going on now. Some of them have accelerated. Add in open borders, outsourcing of technological skills and loss of manufacturing to the national security problem. Open your eyes.

[miloklancy]

You clearly learned nothing from 1992. All these folks who were disgruntled with Bush 41 thought they were going to make this grand point by blasting him for not being conservative enough by putting their fortunes with Perot. And what did we get? Bill Clinton as our President for 8 years by having the vote split three ways. Clinton sought to not only demonize conservatives, but he attacked our consitutionally right to bear arms and filled the judiciary will liberals. As for the outsourcing of jobs, do you really think corporations are going to want to keep jobs in the country, with a Democrat in office, who will no doubt be in bed with Big Labor, the culprits who forced this whole outsourcing in the first place? Bush's immigration plan, I don't agree with, but I also don't think it stands any chance of passing the Congress either. The choice is pure and simple, either vote for the candidate who will seek to destroy the conservative agenda, John Kerry, or vote for Bush, who will make the nation's security his top priority.

[sauropod]

Quit being obtuse.

[sauropod]

A "free market" approach will end up putting a price on the value of a human life. This is what ultimately I am asking. Should we (as a society) put a dollar and cents value on life here?

[sauropod]

"Big Labor, the culprits who forced this whole outsourcing in the first place..."

Back up this statement please.

I think it is greed of corporate CEOs etc. that causes this.

[templar]

As for the outsourcing of jobs, do you really think corporations are going to want to keep jobs in the country, with a Democrat in office,

Well, it seems the outsourcing phenomon developed with a Republican president, A republican controlled house and a Republican controlled senate. It didn't happen when a Democrat was in office. Again, open your eyes; the Republicans are not what they pretend to be.

[Reelect President Dubya]

You should have chosen a different screen name.

I said that Bush can use all the political rhetoric he wants.

I did not take offense when Ari Fleischer said Bush would sign the AWB renewal if it hit his desk.

It's Congress's job to keep it from hitting his desk.

If he goes out and actively campaigns for renewal of the AWB, however, then all bets are off.

[section9]

Bull. Bush is the traitor. You (and I) are taken advantage of election after election by these RINOs. And they know they can get away with it becuase most people take your view: Well, we have to kepp the other guys out. So the Pubs live and spend like Dems knowing they will wisper just enough of what you need to hear at election time. And the cycle of ignoring the Convervative base goes on for another four years.

What a steaming pantload of self-righteous freaking bullsh*t. So you feel taken advantage of? No one cares. Politics is a lot more than holding a pity party.

You appear not to understand that no conservative base ever won a freaking election. Bush does understand that, which is why he has a clue, and you have none.

Politics is about holding on to your base and convincing 2/3rd's of the middle to vote for you. It isn't about being "all Conservative, all the Time". Your advice is a formula for ceding the middle ground to John Kerry, who would get to run as a "moderate" because Bush would run to the right all the time.

The last two guys to try it your way were Barry Goldwater and George McGovern. Look what happened to them.

No one cares if you think Bush is a traitor. He will win without your vote.

better to blew 'em out of office for the longer view. If they realize their strategy has a price tag they will sober up for the next cycle. I will not vote for Bush if he walks on water between now and election day.

This is where the Defenders of the True Faith piss me off. We are in the middle of a freakng war and you ass clowns don't care if it gets handed over to some gigilo from Boston who makes Neville Chamberlain look like Lennox Lewis.

You are completely clueless. Do us all a favor. Stay on the fringes where no one can see how clueless you are.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[Ichneumon]

Translation: They're pi$$ed, but we still have the 'Hold your nose and vote' crowd.

Bingo -- needs to be said again.

[sasafras]

Whatever is your response - so I guess I was right - you have white man's guilt and can only talk the talk up there in your little comfortable setting in the snow where people like yourself can sit around and act elitist. I will commend you for finding that celebration of GW but lets face it thats an anomoly and not the rule. This entire country should be following Laredo's lead and GW bday should be one of our most celebrated holidays. Oh no we better not offend others right Dale?

[Swanks]

A little touchy, Chris back on you Medication please. Wash it down while your'e at it with RINO Kool-aid too. Your'e the worst of both worlds: Willing to vote cycle after cycle knowing the Republican Party will veer left post election. And then you get pi**ed if everyone won't join with you as you jump off a cliff every four years.

You're the moron. At least most, who hold their nose and vote, HOPE it will help the conservative cause, some how, some way. You're such a friggin moron you willingly admit you vote knowing they will screw you.