Posted on 01/24/2005 9:54:59 AM PST by M 91 u2 K
WASHINGTON -- As happy conservatives gathered in Washington last week to celebrate the presidential re-election of one of their own, haunting questions were raised for some of them. Now that George W. Bush never will have to face the electorate again, is he sidestepping toward the middle? Is he looking more like his father and less like Ronald Reagan?
The inaugural address, which evoked lavish praise from many Republicans attending the ceremonies, sounded less conservative than neo-conservative in advocating a global crusade for democracy. But it was not the speech that generated unease among some of President Bush's staunchest supporters. A re-elected president's speech at his inauguration is not supposed to be an ideological manifesto.
Instead, concern about Bush's second-term course is derived from a variety of signals, small and large, coming from the White House. None of them separately signifies a president abandoning the principles upon which he was elected. But taken together, they generate doubt and more than a little unease on the right.
-- In pre-inaugural comments, Bush sounded defeatist about prospects for a constitutional amendment to bar same-sex marriage. After campaigning on the issue last year, he appeared resigned to failure in the Senate this year.
-- The second-term nominations abound with officials who are comfortable personally with George W. Bush, but do not necessarily follow an ideological course. The first round of nominations contained names provoking outrage on the left: John Ashcroft, Ted Olson, Gale Norton, Linda Chavez (whose nomination was withdrawn) and John Bolton. The second round is less combative.
-- The State Department appears likely to be dominated by careerists under Condoleezza Rice more than it was under Colin Powell. There seems to be no place for Bolton, the conservative bulwark at State as under secretary for arms control since 2001.
-- The new co-chairman of the Republican National Committee, Jo Ann Davidson, has been a member of the abortion rights group Republicans for Choice since its founding 15 years ago. While handpicked at the White House for the party post, she has opposed the president's position on abortion.
The selection of Davidson incurred the wrath of conservative Christian leaders in her home state of Ohio, but it was perhaps the least troubling of the inaugural week indicators. An old party war-horse and the first woman speaker of the Ohio House of Representatives, Davidson did yeoman service in carrying her pivotal state for Bush last year while Republican Gov. Bob Taft was no help at all. She has promised conservatives not to address any pro-choice Republican groups while serving as party co-chairman and pledged support for every part of the president's program.
The new State Department team is more worrisome. Nick Burns, a foreign service officer named to the department's third-ranking post as under secretary for political affairs, is close to the John Kerry foreign policy team and probably would have had the same position if Bush had lost. There is no Bolton-type conservative stalwart in the second-term lineup.
The biggest inaugural week concern for the conservative movement was Bush's Jan. 16 interview with the Washington Post, when he was asked whether he would expend his political capital to push the anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment. Bush replied: "The point is that senators have made it clear that so long as DOMA [Defense of Marriage Act, barring gay marriages] is deemed constitutional, nothing will happen. I'd take their admonition seriously."
On NBC's "Meet the Press" that day, presidential counselor Dan Bartlett said Bush "will spend political capital" to pass the constitutional amendment. In his acceptance speech Wednesday as the new chairman of the Republican National Committee, Ken Mehlman hailed the "promotion of marriage." None of that satisfied social conservatives, who note that Bush has not sounded defeatist on Social Security reform just because the odds are against him.
It cannot be disputed that George W. Bush's tone has changed since the election. The 22nd Amendment, prohibiting a third presidential term, is a two-way street. I reported last month that even loyal Republican lawmakers feel less constrained to follow a term-limited president. But that same president is under far less pressure to obey the demands of his political base
In the primaries in 2008 I intend to support whoever is the most viable Conservative candidate. Which so far looks like Governor Mark Sanford. Im realistic that a candidate such as Gary Bauer who 100% conservative has no chance in hell of winning. Which why I intend to support Governor Mark Sanford for now unless a more viable conservative candidate emerges such as Tom Delay.
I intend to work hard to make sure that no RINOS such as Giuliani win the GOP nomination or come close to even winning one primary or caucus. If Giuliani were to somehow tragically become the GOP nominee with changing "Flip Flopping" on positions. I would not vote for GOP ticket. But you see that is the point the fact that Giuliani is even considered a contender for the nomination of the GOP for POTUS shows you why it is important for Conservatives to stand up and have a voice. We are not NUTS like the Liberal LEft who start riots and scream like Babies.
Having Conservative Congressmen such as Duncan Hunter who have been elected and proven viable be the voice of conservatives does not hurt the GOP or our cause but help it. Right now RINOS want to take over the party and need to be fought carefully with precision and with full force. By the way it are RINOS that are the screaming cry babies who walk away when their candidate does not win the nomination. Remember the McCainiacs from 2000? In NJ when Brett Schundler a Real viable Conservative won the GOP nod for Governor all the arrogant RINOS cut off support and went into a fit. Conservatives dont need to be told to fall in line it is those RINOS that need a lecture.
---Bush is following the advice of Richard Nixon---"run as far to the right as you have to to get elected, then govern as far to the left as you can"--
---Bush is following the advice of Richard Nixon---"run as far to the right as you have to to get elected, then govern as far to the left as you can"--
I hope Duncan Hunter runs for President in 2008. He's become one of my faves. He'd be a very strong candidate and someone to bring Republicans back to their core values. His bio doesn't hurt either.
I just do not see the global crusade in Bush's speech. But other than that, Novak makes some good points.
I disagree. Excluding Reagan, Bush is by far the most conservative president we have had in a long long long time.
I have to question whether he was ever a conservative. His 'left' leaning actions give cause for concern.
I may not like it but Ron Paul, for example, doesn't exactly get his program through Congress unchanged--
"Bush is by far the most conservative president we have had in a long long long time."
I don't know about you but if Bush gets any more conservative, I'll be financially broke </sarcasm>
Sorry to hear that, I am doing quite well.
In exactly what way is he a conservative?
He tells the UN where to shove their treaties. His court appointments are fairly conservative. He is anti-abortion and acted upon it. He has cut taxes. He is pro-military. Just to spout a few.
I never thought he was extremely conservative in the first place so I am not sure he has "drifted" anywhere.
He does not hold all of my conservative values, but he's better than Kerry any day.
I do hope a more conservative candidate will be able to win in 08. We had more conservative choices in 2000. I voted for one of them, but they don't seem to be able to win the nominations.
As long as people recognize that Conservativism means bigger government, more welfare, more spending. Of course, many of my professors (about 40 years ago) did believe that this was the definition of Conoservatism. Kolko's book "The Triumph of Conservatism" takes this view. Of course, I've rarely know a Conservative that didn't want to make the government bigger; they wanted to police different activities than Liberals did, but not make the overall system smaller.
SANFORD IN 2008 PING!
Is that possible?
Mark Sanford!!!
The interesting thing about Sanford is that his ACU ratings in the House (high 80s) were lower than some we call RINO's (McCain, Liddy Dole are both in the 90 range) but I think that has more to do with his "anti-beltway" maverick streak than a lack of conservatism. Look at his record in South Carolina. This man needs to be our next President!
I find Bush's tone to be more philosophical and grander in scope since his re-election. He's now building a legacy and the Inaugural Speech laid down the framework for the Bush Doctrine, which could long outlive his presidency. Similarly, the State of the Union will probably give a domestic agenda that re-structures post-FDR American government.
Well since the Gipper then. Actually we've only had two fairly conservative presidents since I started voting. The first was DDE. I agree with Novak, as I've stated in other posts in the past, GWB has a free reign the next four years. It's going to be up to any conservative Representative on the hill to keep him in line with why we fought so hard to get him re-elected. May God help us all!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.