Posted on 05/05/2005 9:13:01 AM PDT by metalmanx2j
A lot of thoughtful conservatives are having serious second thoughts about George W. Bush. His failure to act upon core values of fiscal conservatism and sovereignty is a growing concern.
Donations to conservative organizations and think tanks are in sharp decline. A lot of conservatives have decided to stop giving financial support because they are losing faith in the ability of these groups to have any effect on administration policies.
Bush has an engaging personality, but he’s not running for office anymore. He is already a very lame duck.
In concert with Republican party leaders in Congress, the White House has been unable to get its judicial appointments approved and the fight over John Bolton’s appointment as UN ambassador suggests the party lacks unity on Capitol Hill. Bolton has been confirmed four times for previous positions. Unless the GOP can unite to overcome the obstructionism of the Democrats, it bodes ill for the party.
If conservatives stay home for the 2006 elections, power can shift to the Democrats.
People are increasingly worried about the huge budget deficit created by a President and a Congress that have been on a spending binge. The national debt has increased by $2.16 billion every day since September 30, 2004. It is now a cliché that Bush has not vetoed a single spending bill while in office. New “entitlements” added to Medicare for prescriptions will add still more to the rising tide of national debt. It is not “if” the economy will reach a tipping point this accumulated debt cannot be paid, but when.
Compounding fears is the appearance of an increasingly shaky economy that includes rising inflation and major corporations like General Motors in trouble. Wall Street is experiencing early tremors that forecast a bear market.
An issue reaching critical mass are the illegal immigrants flowing across our southern border. The assertion that they are necessary to do the work that Americans will not is nonsense. With the exception of the agricultural sector that has always depended on migrant workers, there are many jobs American workers would take if they weren’t already being given to undocumented workers paid in cash. Illegal workers sent $20 billion dollars home to Mexico last year!
History will record that George W. Bush secured the liberation of the Iraqi people from one of the worst tyrants of modern times. Let us give him credit for that and for driving the Taliban out of Afghanistan. What rankles was the way the war was sold as an eminent threat of Weapons of Mass Destruction. I cannot think of a time this nation went to war on such poor intelligence. One gets the feeling, however, that the Bush administration has little faith in the intelligence of the American people.
Yet another distinctly un-conservative aspect of the Bush administration has been its approach to education. The “Leave No Child Behind” program has thrown billions at an already failed educational system. It is so awful that whole states are considering withdrawing from it. And the Bush administration is pushing for programs that would require all students to undergo mental health evaluations, thus opening the door to still more millions of them being required to take mind-altering drugs.
Many conservatives fear that homeland security is an excuse for circumscribing fundamental constitutional protections. Most certainly, the Patriot Act needs revision, but the administration does not support that. There is talk of installing chips in passports that will carry all kinds of personal information about you. More insidious is the effort to require Americans to carry a national ID card. This is more consistent with a police state than with conservative values.
As Americans confront rising gasoline prices, they are wondering if we have an energy policy. There’s scant evidence. It’s nice to know Alaska’s ANWR may be opened up to oil extraction, but this nation hasn’t seen a new refinery built since the 1970’s, down from 321 refineries in 1981 to 146 now. Current refineries are running at 95% capacity and, thanks to the Environmental Protection Agency, they have to produce 45 “regional blends” of gasoline. It will be years before any oil starts to flow from ANWR. Meanwhile, other reserves of oil and coal are ruled off-limits to extraction and use.
Finally, under the Bush administration, the federal government remains hell bent on acquiring more and more of the nation’s landmass. It’s in cahoots with environmental organizations, offering them millions in federal funds, to assist in this travesty. There’s even an “Invasive Species” bill floating around that would put the EPA in control of your front lawn. Why isn’t the Bush administration out front on killing this monstrosity?
Does any of this sound like conservative policy to you? Does it worry you that the threat of terrorism is the sole reason given for almost any policy put forth by the White House since 9-11? If the Democrats ever get their act together, you and I are going to be talking about President Clinton, but referring to Hillary.
Does this make Kerry a strong candidate?
They effectively got out the Christian Right vote. Christian talk radio is usually very aggressive against anyone who isn't stridently pro-life, pro traditional sexuality. The Presidnet has been modestly pro life and modestly pro tradional sexuality. While he defends pro life, he mostly marginalizes that effort with words to the effect of "the country isn't ready for a total abortion ban" and suggested that states recognize domestic partnerships but was against outright gay marriage. To most of the Christian Right, those moderate positions would doom most candidates. He even supported CFT which is a Christian Right third rail. But still in the election, they spoke of him as "one of us" in thought and deed and in other glowing terms. Getting out that segment of the vote took tremendous co-ordiantion and effort between leaders of the Christian Right and Team Bush.
Christian Right talk radio is beginning to sabre rattle a little more, but they are still cautious in their outright being upset with the President. However, if these were actions by Clinton, Gore or Kerry, Christian Right talk radio would be on them like flies on stink. They are still a tad shy about breaking rank or being critcial, but again the sabres are starting to rattle.
"If conservatives stay home for the 2006 elections, power can shift to the Democrats"
Wishful thinking againg .. [..sigh..]
And the closeness of the election tightened. It would be like me running for office and getting 50 votes but my opponent only got 5 votes 4 years ago. This year I got 100 votes, but my oppenent got 99 votes and then claiming I was a strong candidate. Frankly, I came closer to being turned out with 100 votes than I did with only 50 votes.
Reagan won in a landslide. Bush won with with a bare plurality.
Right? While there are some fine '04 FReepers, I have had some of the rudest (and unprovoked) comments made to me by Class of 2004 FReepers. The arrogance of some of these people is mind-boggling.
As for this article...much ado about nothing. Just a bunch of Bush-bashing hand-wringing.
"Let's show them by allowing DEMOCRATS to regain power once again."
Thanks to Faltering Frist the Frivolous and willing accomplices, the RINOs, the RATs ARE contolling the Senate.
Agreed. Too many states are now in Republican governors hands which allow for the congressional districts to be carved out to their benefit. Senators are in a different boat, but since they aren't all up for election at the same time, it is more difficult to get a big swing. the seneate is more incremental.
Um...yes, Kerry was a strong candidate. That's the great thing about elections--at the end you can count up and see how things went, both against your opponent and the historical record. If in 2000 Gore had done as well as Kerry we wouldn't have President Bush to kick around. You want a weak Presidential candidate think Walter Mondale or George McGovern or Barry Goldwater.
Remember the Maine.
That is it.
Oh, it's true that the country was narrowly divided. If the Democrats had only nominated a candidate who promised to raise taxes (like Mondale did in 1984), Bush would have probably gotten a higher percentage. Frankly, given the Clinton recession, the economic hit from 9/11, leadership shown in taking out Saddam which alienated some natural political allies, the rabid opposition by the international elites, the MSM, as well as an energized Democratic left (and a few carping conservatives), the President's increase in both absolute and percentage terms over the 2000 result was impressive.
OK...the two candidates who got the most votes in history and on a percentage basis of voters higher than in many decades, were weak. You are confusing your attitudes with reality. Maybe you can suggest who would have been stronger candidates than Bush or Kerry. By which I mean, someone who whould have received either more votes or a significantly higher percentage.
As I said earlier, what ifs and hypotheticals are useless.
But maybe you can tell me what the #1 source of support for John Kerry was if it was not the lefts hate filled ABB.
Seriously, outside of "not being Bush", what about John Kerry garnered him the support he got?
When you get more than 59 million votes, there is probably a whole spectrum of reasons why. There was a very vocal far left in the campaign that argued ABB. They spoke mostly to themselves and to FReepers slumming at DU. I know from going door to door in my community that it was much more complicated than that. Sure, very few people actually "knew" John Kerry, or George Bush, for that matter. Nevertheless, these individuals embodied the hopes and wishes of large constituencies. The campaigns they headed turned out huge numbers of voters on both an absolute and historic percentage basis. This is the very definition of a strong candidate.
Frankly, it would have been a lot higher is the President didn't single handedly blow life back into Kerry during the 1st debate. The Swifty's had dealt Kerry a death blow. Bush played Jesus to Kerry's Lazarus and brought him back to life.
Please, I never said the election was a blow out. I never said he had a mandate. I said Bush and Kerry were strong candidates as judged by the only metric that matters, votes. In hindsight, could they been stronger. Sure. But we don't get to run elections over because we've perfected our debating points.
On the democratic side, what about Zell or for that matter what about Nunn? John Breux?
REVIEW:
Democrats are whineing about deficit spending and too much government control -AND- Republicans are increasing the government footprint in our lives and increasing the government BUDGET...
Did I just walk into the WRONG MOVIE.. or what.?.
Carl Rove is evidently NOT a genius.. unless hes an EVIL genius..
Did Micheal Moore produce this movie or WHAT.?.
Did I take my meds, No I don't need Meds, maybe I do.?..
WHATs GOING ON HERE.?...
( Jack Booted usher removes me from the movie ranting uncontrollably)
I dont' know, but based on Freeper support, maybe Tom Delay should have run in the primary?
Good point -- so why should we refrain from criticizing those Bush policies that are liberal and could have been offered by Ted Kennedy or John Kerry?
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.