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.

---

[JohnHuang2]

Friday, February 13, 2004

Quote of the Day by Beck_isright

[SAJ]

The very minute that anyone, he, she, or it, requires ''bolder, more inspirational ideas'' from government marks the very minute that said anyone has either been lobotomised or else died.

[The American Man]

It’s a double bind! I have been lambasted for criticizing Bush policies(read: you are only helping the “rats”)... policies, that are not only far removed from the traditional conservative position; but also removed from our basic American traditions. Yet, I like Bush and -- more to the point -- can’t stomach the idea of the DemocRats taking the white house. It’s a quandary... what CAN we -- as conservatives -- do?

[nopardons]

Any Conservative, who would allow,through any means (by staying home, voting fringe, or even voting Dem, in order to " teach XXX[fill in the blank ] a lesson " ) a Dem presidential win come November, is not only NOT a Conservative, but doesn't understand politics and has no regard for this nation.

Principles are just fine and dandy things to have...it just also matters what those vaunted " principles " ares and what good it does anyone to cut off one's nose, to spite one's face.

[Fledermaus]

I think we conservatives can do exactly what we are doing right now...complain, write, call, express our disapproval.

The problem for the GOP (and others) is that they don't understand most conservatives, like people who just don't vote or pay attention, know life pretty much goes on no matter what.

The difference is they are usually content to just not vote. Dont' forget, many of them weren't voters to begin with! They were brought out by the Goldwater campaign, Reagan presidency and the 1994 takeover of Congress. But they are just as happy to go back and ignore it all when it doesn't make a difference either way.

Now the debate is about terrorism according to the GOP leaders. Really? Look at the polls. The sheep have gone back to sleep and think jobs and healthcare (which means insurance and paying the costs since everyone has healthcare - it's the law!) and the economy are the #1 issue.

Conservatives and some GOP know it's not. But many in the GOP are just as bad on national security as any Democrat.

So, for us, it comes down to knowing Bush will fight terrorist (well, after this election - nothing will be done before regardless of the threat) and Kerry will not.

But for the majority of people that don't vote it's all about Janet Jackson's boobs. And for the vast majority that do vote, it's their own petty issues and many of them don't see much difference between the parties.

I say we start a Common Sense Party and educate the non-voters and get them voting. Give me 20% of the non-voters and I could be elected God. And as I pointed out to someone last night, Ross Perot got 19% of the vote in 1992 just because he used PIE CHARTS on Larry King.

So don't tell me the "issues" are too complicated for people to understand. I can make anyone understand many of the issues when I don't paint them as a party position but just lay out the simple facts. They'll nod their heads and agree until you tell them it's GOP proposal or a Dem proposal. For fun at parties, I used to like to take Republican issues like welfare reform and tell people it was Clinton's idea...the Dems would, of course, praise the idea to the hilt until I told them - oops - I meant a GOP idea.

The same was true if I told them a Clinton idea was a GOP idea - they'd hate it right off the bat until - oops - I meant Clinton proposed it.

We need to get the voters off the margins and start taking this country back starting with our own cities, counties, and states. We are blowing into the wind concentrating on federal issues when the states are just as bad regardless of the party in charge. Spend, spend, spend, spend, tax, tax, tax, tax.

And the books are NEVER in balance. No one is EVER held accountable for the numbers. They can't be audited they are so bad. But they just keep spending and no one stops them. All because some BIMBO on local TV reports "funds are being cut to protect one-armed six year olds from starving to death...and they want to kill their pet dog!"

All the cowards then whine and vote for more money! I'm at the point where I say, "screw the kid and he can find another dog".

[Dane]

Reagan expanded the GOP by stating and standing for conservative principles...What can we do? The only thing possible. Vote Libertarian....But mark this well: as long as the GOP thinks it has us cornered, it can neglect u

Reagan expanded the GOP by being optimistic and pragmatic and Bush is trying to follow his leads.

Huh how come you aren't asking for Reagan's head for raising taxes or putting tariffs on motorcycles, since you are a Libertarian.

You Moby followers are becoming more transparent with each day.

[Texasforever]

Reagan expanded the GOP by stating and standing for conservative principles. The rest of the GOP leadership refused to pay attention and went back to the clubhouse with their Democrat pals.

Bush is more conservative than Reagan.

[Consort]

It’s a quandary... what CAN we -- as conservatives -- do?

If you see problems, don't compound them. Think about solutions and discuss them after the election. If enough of your associates think you may be "helping the Rats," then maybe you are. Don't overcomplicate things for yourself or for others. Don't enable the Liberals. If Bush loses, you will not like his replacement.

[nopardons]

Go back to your Libertarian website and take all the rest of the Libertarians and those who want Kerry or Edwards, or whoever is left standing come Nov., in the Dem Party, to be president, with you.

I don't care what kind of a Libertarian you claim to be, the Libertarian Party is for OPEN BORDERS,ABORTION,LEGALIZED PROSTITUTION, LEGALIZED NARCOTICS AND SIMILAR SUBSTANCES,AND AGAINST THE WAR ON TERROR, for starters. And don't tell me that I'm " afraid of freedom ", because I'm not!

Oh, and just in case you've managed to miss it,the facts are, that a Kerry presidency WOULD do a very great deal of harm to this nation, as would any of the Dems now in the primaries; far more than President Bush would ever do.

[nopardons]

Oh, and another thing, you don't know much about Reagan. He believed, whole heartedly, in compromising with the Dems And did so, on quite a number of things.

[Neets]

Don't waste your time...the professor signed up last month just to promote his 3rd party losertarian candidate.

[Dane]

Expanding the federal government's grip on education must make Bush more conservative, I'm sure

Huh the liberals hate Bush's education plan, since it has standards.

Maybe you should rely on the reality of what the liberals are saying about Bush's education plan rather than Ayn Rand platitudes.

[Fledermaus]

Don't waste your time on Libertarians!

They couldn't even get more votes than Pat Buchanan, after he went crazy, in 2000 with Harry Browne.

And don't forget, they used to be the party of Lyndon LaRouche! The credit card fruad freak and moron.

And you hit the nail on the head...freedom to them is nothing but hookers and pot. Their policies would have the Chinese commies taking us over in no time. Heck, their ideas would have the Russians thinking about becoming the Soviet Union again.

Just ask any libertarian where they stood 20 years ago, 30 years ago. The answer? No where. They even hated Reagan.

[nopardons]

That he is. Too bad that so many, who laud Reagan ( and he deserves to be lauded! ) don't know the facts about either or both of Reagan's terms as president. It's the myth, they made up for themselves, that they believe.

[Texasforever]

Has Bush raised taxes? no Reagan did

Has Bush signed an anti gun bill? No Reagan did

Has Bush signed a law outlawing a class of abortion? Yes Reagan did not

Has Bush increased FICA withholding? No Reagan did

Has Bush pulled troops out of harms way when casualties were taken? No Reagan did

Has Bush defied the UN Yes Reagan did not

Did Bush lobby for the Brady Bill? No Reagan did

Did Bush vote for FDR 4 times? No Reagan did

Does Bush consider FDR his model for the presidency? No Reagan did

Did Bush leave his state with record deficits when governor? NO Reagan did.<p. Now you tell me who has the most conservative record.

[Fledermaus]

Arguing about conservatism with a libertarian is like arguing about ugly with an ape...or Hillary.

[nopardons]

Yes, I know.I can find fault with nothing you've said. :-)

I just don't want them to think that they can get away with posting such drivel, with impunity, here.

[Texasforever]

LOL. I know.