Will Bush survive attacks from the right?

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Friday, February 13, 2004 | William Rusher

[JohnHuang2]

Will Bush survive attacks from the right?

---

Posted: February 12, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2004 Newspaper Enterprise Assn.

The disgruntled mutterings about President Bush in conservative circles are getting too loud to ignore. From National Review to The Heritage Foundation, not to mention such libertarian redoubts as The Cato Institute, the grumbling is reaching impressive levels. It doesn't (yet) amount to outright rebellion. The protesters are still on board for November; few of them are seriously threatening to stay home on Election Day and let John Kerry waltz into the White House. But it is fair to say that, in the opinion of many serious people, the integrity of the conservative movement as we've known it is at stake.

Just how far has President Bush strayed from the conservative mainstream? Last September in the National Review, Ramesh Ponnuru counted the ways:

"Bush has increased the federal role in education, imposed tariffs on steel and lumber, increased farm subsidies, OK'd federal regulations on campaign finance and corporate accounting and expanded the national-service program President Clinton began. Since Sept. 11, he has also raised defense spending, given new powers to law enforcement, federalized airport security and created a new Cabinet department for homeland security. No federal programs have been eliminated, nor has Bush sought any such thing. More people are working for the federal government than at any point since the end of the Cold War."

And that was even before Bush pushed through Congress a Medicare reform law that is the greatest new entitlement in several decades.

Bush's defenders have just about given up pretending that he is implementing traditional conservative principles. Instead, some of them, like Daniel Casse in the February issue of Commentary, have begun arguing that Bush has offered "a very bold, and very ambitious, reordering of conservative priorities." He cites Michael Barone's contention that Bush has replaced "the conservative touchstones of small government and spending cuts with the bolder, more inspirational ideas of choice and accountability" – to which Casse would add support "not for big government but for strong government."

All this may well be true, and it is only fair to add that many of Bush's steps in the direction of bigger government (notably the Medicare and education bills) include reforms that, if they can be built upon, should greatly improve the performance of those programs. In addition, the federal deficit at the end of 2003, though dollar-wise the largest in history, represented only 4.2 percent of GDP – by no means a record.

Still, a widely circulated Office of Management and Budget chart showing the percentage increases in discretionary domestic spending reveals just how far President Bush has wandered from fiscal discipline:

– Lyndon Johnson, 1965-69, 4.3 percent

– Richard Nixon, 1970-75, 6.8 percent

– Gerald Ford, 1976-77, 8.0 percent

– Jimmy Carter, 1978-81, 2.0 percent

– Ronald Reagan, 1982-89, 1.3 percent

– George Bush, Sr., 1990-93, 4.0 percent

– Bill Clinton, 1994-2001, 2.5 percent

– George W. Bush, 2002-04, 8.2 percent

Historically, one of the chief things the Republican party and the conservative movement have had going for them is the public belief that they are financially more responsible than their opponents and less inclined to expand government. If Bush squanders those assets in pursuit of "bolder, more inspirational ideas," he will bear a heavy responsibility for the future fates of the party and the movement.

No wonder many conservatives are ill at ease. There is probably still time – though just barely – for Bush to make policy corrections that will signal his continued allegiance to the basic principles of traditional conservatism. Unless he does, he may win the next election at the price of presiding over the political destruction of the conservative movement.

---

[Burkeman1]

National Review still has a spark of life from time to time. But just the mere fact that they employ a man as an associate editor with the hubris to title his book "An end to Evil" is not a good sign.

[Swanks]

An interesting variable is: Will Hitlery sit on the sidelines much longer, as the Rats smell blood in the water? What IF the economy continues (what...3.5 years now) to stall, the base gets pi**ed, and a Rat win seems plausable?

If it gets too tight, she runs the risk of a Kerry presidency for 8 years. What-to-do, what-to-do....

[nopardons]

You simply adored the Clinton years, didn't you ? Your supposed " principles " kept this nation and you so safe,your pockets unpicked by an unConsritutional retroactive tax raise,our secrets from being given to the ChiComs,and terrorists from flying planes into the WTC... didn't they ? (/sarcasm)

[billbears]

Instead of a democracy, which we are not,

Never said we were. I said we are closer to a democracy than we have ever been in the history of this nation of states. The very fact that you would rather have us vote by mob instead of what is in the heart of an individual is one attestation to that fact. However the fact that the Senate is now elected by popular vote and the electoral college is mandatorily affected by the popular vote of each state also attests that we daily move further from the Founders' vision of a Republic and closer to a democracy

let's allow the nation to go straight to totalitarianism, hand over our sovereignty to the UN, and have done with it. Right ?

Oh, you mean like Bush Says 'Yes' to UNESCO? Or did you mean some other way. Interesting as much as you and others try to call Bush more conservative than Reagan he was the one that pushed to get this nation of states out of UNESCO

Well, the rest of us don't want to do that. We want ton get this nation back on the right path and know that that is going to take decades. We're willing to take the needed baby steps and support the reelection of this president.

You just don't get it do you? You say you understand politics but you miss the very point that the parties have switched numerous times over the years. Republicans were not always the conservatives, and Democrats the liberals. Conservatism and the love of the Constitution is not tied to a party. It is a movement in and of itself. It is a value that is held above party affiliation. Sure, some parties adhere to the belief for short periods of time, 50-80 years, but over time the party changes.

This is what's happening right now. The Republican party has accepted the first part of Tyler's statement and are running with it. They realize, that to remain in power, they don't have to actually adhere to conservative values, they just have to give the people what they want. Entitlements. Something for nothing. Well, at least nothing to the people today. But boy, our descendants are really going to thank us for this latest boondoggle of healthcare...

You can CCP cherry picked sentences/phrases from the FFs, or whatever, till Hell freezes over..........that is going to do nothing at all to help the situation

Dear, it's not cherrypicking. I very much doubt you could twist any of the words of the Founders to approve of what this nation of states is slowly becoming. The elected realize this nation is split right down the middle. Keep the masses arguing amongst themselves over the issues and keep centralizing the power in one place. What's worse is that you, who are so ardent for the Republicans, and your counterparts in the Democratic Party, who mirror your absolute 'spirit' for party over all, are the ones who the elected are most happy with and the ones most easily led..

[billbears]

associate editor with the hubris to title his book "An end to Evil" is not a good sign.

Well you've got a point there...And I hope you know I was being somewhat sarcastic. Don't think I could stand reading NRO

[Burkeman1]

I knew it- Just as you knew I was earlier.

[Fledermaus]

No my friend, you are the misinformed one. And to prove I'm right, just provide your proof.

You can't. You can't print one paragraph from the Patriot Act that bolsters your argument.

Nice try but, like most people with low IQ's, you fall short.

[Fledermaus]

Boy, you like to distort. The TIA plan as originally proposed was for fellow citizens to report anything suspicious they noticed in the homes of other citizens. This process leads inevitiably to the gaulieter and the block captain. The idea is not compatible with a free society that presumes the innocence of the suspect.

Distort? You are on the verge of total stupidity! Here's a clue for your limited brain cell count...I can report anything I see suspicious in the homes of my fellow citizens anytime I want and have had that right my entire life. And it doesn't lead to the gaulieter and the block captain, it leads to the police officer and his captain.

Are you even capable of thinking?

When I arrive to fly my name isn't just checked against a list doofus, it's checked against the SALE OF A TICKET to be sure I'M THE ONE THAT BOUGHT IT! I guess you complained about having to actually buy paper airline tickets once since you were forced to carry "your papers"! And they asked the same questions they did decades ago...who are you, prove it and are you the guy on the ticket? Like I said, don't like it? Take a bus. Drive. Airplanes are different in that they can be used to KILL US. Remember all the hijackings in the 1960's (probably not, your brain can't deal with actual memories...too small)? That's when metal detectors and terminals were created. So your utopia of "bought your ticket and took your seat" has been dead for 40 friggin' years! Nice try!

DUI checkpoints are valid because you don't have a RIGHT to drive. It's a priviledge and a LICENSE that allows the government to set conditions. Even you should be able to comprehend that simplicity.

And as to Jose Padilla...he is the ONE AND ONLY person being held under this so-called devasting policy you say will force ALL OF US to Gitmo soon! And even he's getting his due process. As I pointed out (which you think you are clever by not mentioning and thus prove you ignore any point you know bursts your bubble), Lindh got legal treatment as a citizen even though he and Padilla just be tried for treason and, if convicted, killed.

But go ahead. Live in your Art Bell and Oliver Stone world and have fun. Your frequency is hereby cancelled Kenneth.

[Consort]

There's no hope that the majority population, the non-voters, will ever act to correct the wrongs the two parties are doing to them.

Kerry and the GOP represent the two parties the last time I checked. So, what does it matter to you whether or not a Kerry victory wakes up the GOP? It's a foolish and destructive idea with several Supreme Court vacancies on the horizon, as one issue, if that matters to you. Yes, you were kidding. What party did you say you were supporting?

[Fledermaus]

You have just demonstrated that you are too ignorant to make further discussion worth while. Go bother someone else.

Yes, you have. So please go make a fool of yourself with others that know you are clueless and can't provide one single amount of evidence to prove any point you think you make.

You've been discredited with fact and you can only run away! Typical from the weak minded. I welcome the fact you will now stop wasting so much cyberspace with your lies and distortions and paranoid fantasies.

[jpsb]

[Okay, let's all just vote a straight Dem ticket, or stay home;shall we?]

I am not staying at home, I am going to vote to unelect everyone I can. All elected officals can count on me voting for the most likely to defeat them. I plan on doing that for the next few elections, no third party for me.

And this deserves repeating

Can the right survive attacks from Bush