Bush team keeps conservative agenda in check

THE WASHINGTON TIMES ^ | August 27, 2004 | By Ralph Z. Hallow

[Veritas_est]

I am not a happy camper.

This reminds me too much of the time when I went up against the mighty Bush machine in 1988. They can be vicious if you cross them.

They may or may not win the national election, but they can't be beaten within the framework of the internal politics of the Republican Party.

There is virtually nothing they won't do to get their way within the Republican Party.

[asmith92008]

"Bush team keeps conservative agenda in check"

The answer to this is simple: "Conservative voters stay home, keep outgoing Bush administration in check."

[Jeff Chandler]

Trust W. He is NOT his father. The pubbies don't want to scare away the undecided voters.

Think long term. We don't need to have our egos massaged in this convention.

W is solid in the war on radical islam, and he will nominate Constitutionalists for the Supreme Court.

Now is not the time to insist on purity. We have socialists to defeat.

[Iberian]

I'll vote on game day. The silent vote, sorta like a stroke.

[Netizen]

The answer to this is simple: "Conservative voters stay home, keep outgoing Bush administration in check."

Could be. Then again, maybe the conservative voters will start voting for conservative candidates. Constitution Party?

[Joe Hadenuf]

Mrs. Schlafly also failed in her attempt to add language opposing Social Security benefits, driver's licenses, federal student loans and in-state college tuition for illegal aliens. Despite her efforts, the platform endorses Mr. Bush's "guest worker" proposal — which critics call an amnesty plan for illegals — while also declaring the GOP opposes amnesty.

Yikes.

[SolomoninSouthDakota]

Agreed. All presidents have to be politicians to some degree, (at least before their second term!). So W is a politician. I am not surprised or alarmed. I trust W to make the right decisions and that includes in the dirty business of politics as well.

[Netizen]

which critics call an amnesty plan for illegals — while also declaring the GOP opposes amnesty.

Hey, that almost sounds like a flip flop, or is it a waffle?

[Joe Hadenuf]

Check this.

"Conservatives were badly outflanked by the Bush operation," Mr. Lessner said.

[asmith92008]

Thanks to Bush, in the long term we have the biggest Medicare entitlement program since LBJ, an increased flow of illegal aliens since the announcement of his amnesty proposal, negotiations to give Social Security to Mexicans, an even more bloated education bureaucracy, campaign finance reform, threats to sue out of existence everyone that "reform" did not get, a TSA that refuses to profile potential threats and no support to folks like Senator Rick Santorum when his citing of Bowers v Hardwick offends gays.

And we're supposed to put up for all this for the promise that his judicial appointments will not be more Souters?

[asmith92008]

Bush opposed it after he voted for it?

[Joe Hadenuf]

I am still trying to figure that one out.

[Jeff Chandler]

>>And we're supposed to put up for all this for the promise that his judicial appointments will not be more Souters?<<

No, you could vote for Kerry and then you'd know exactly what you'd get.

[Mr. Mojo]

Mrs. Schlafly also failed in her attempt to add language opposing Social Security benefits, driver's licenses, federal student loans and in-state college tuition for illegal aliens.

I guess the party leadership doesn't want to scare away the illegal alien vote.

[SolomoninSouthDakota]

What CRITICS of the plan call it and what the backers of the plan call it are naturally going to be two different things. Here we do not have the same entitiy calling it two different things which would be necessary to qualify the statements as a flip-flop or waffle.

[Agrarian]

I do basically trust W. He is as conservative a man as this country is capable of electing these days. He is, in fact, far better than we deserve, and we need to get him elected. I took the tack in 1992 that no-one could be worse than GHWB, and 8 years of Clinton and a near-miss in 2000 proved otherwise to me.

What I am far more concerned about than the 2004 GOP platform is the long-term future of conservative policies, and more importantly, conservative candidates in the GOP.

It was the grace of God that GWHB's eldest son was both electable and far more conservative than his father. Who is being groomed for 2008 who is both conservative and electable? If we were to pick the electable (on the face of things) ones for 2008, not one social conservative shows up on people's lists. That's worrisome. And no, it is not to early to be thinking about this -- exploration committees and early quiet fundraising for 2008 will be happening before we know it.

[CyberAnt]

What a bunch of whiners!

As a conservative, Evangelical, Fundamentalist Christian, voting for President Bush .. I am stunned to see all these conservative groups now saying .. EITHER DO IT OUR WAY OR IT'S THE HIGHWAY. This is just whining to get their way.

Are we really that ignorant ..?? Are we really willing to allow a person like JOHN KERRY to become president because of our own little petty issues. Yes, they are petty .. because there is MORE AT STAKE THAN THEIR LITTLE PETTY ISSUES.

According to the Bush campaign internal polls, 80-90% of the republican BASE supports the President. If you were the Bush campaign, would you be spending all your political capital on the base ..?? I think that would be a stupid misuse of time and money.

And .. as far as the Republican platform is concerned .. since when has a platform ever become LAW OR AFFECTED POLICIES NOW OR IN THE FUTURE.

I think this is all an uproar over NOTHING! If a conservative cannot see the idiocy of allowing John Kerry to get into the WH, then they have already forgotten the 8 HORRIBLE years of Bill Clinton, and they have FORGOTTEN 9/11.

NOTHING MATTERS BUT NATIONAL SECURITY .. NOTHING!! Without national security the entire rest of the issues are just not even in play. Without national security - nothing is even that important. Without national security - a person's petty little issue is a moot point.

[Joe Hadenuf]

Like a chainsaw in the face, that's painfully clear.

[Tamzee]

Now is not the time to insist on purity. We have socialists to defeat.

Half the country comprised of socialists and a stronger hard-left than this country has ever seen..... plus a poisonous and spreading hate-America socialism across the globe, plus millions of Muslim extremists who think Allah intends them to rule the world in his name.

Insisting on purity right now would be winning the battle that loses us the war. We need Bush in the White House for another 4 years.

[ETERNAL WARMING]

President Bush's strategists outmaneuvered conservatives at every turn in Republican platform proceedings here

No as. VOTE..Will Conservatives outmaneuver Bush strategists in the voting booth? This one will.