The Conservative Revolt: There are six reasons why conservatives have turned on Bush.

The Weekly Standard ^ | October 20, 2005 | Fred Barnes

[quidnunc]

Why have so many conservatives suddenly revolted against President Bush, nearly five years into his presidency? I think their split with Bush is ill advised, counterproductive, and in some ways childish. But there's no doubt it's happening and it's serious. And there's more to it than disappointment with his nomination of Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court. So why exactly has this revolt broken out now? I've come up with six reasons, and there may be more.

One, a revolt was inevitable, sooner or later, simply because Bush is not a conventional conservative. He deviates on the role of the federal government, on domestic spending, on education, on the Medicare prescription-drug benefit, and on immigration. Given this kindling, it took only the spark of the Miers nomination to ignite a conservative backlash.

Bush, of course, is a conservative, but a different kind of conservative. His tax cuts, support for social issues, hawkish position on national security and terrorism, and rejection of the Kyoto protocols make him so. He's also killed the ABM and Comprehensive Test Ban treaties, kept the United States out of the international criminal court, defied the United Nations, and advocated a shift in power from Washington to individuals through an "ownership society." On some issues — partial privatization of Social Security is the best example — he is a bolder conservative than Ronald Reagan, the epitome of a conventional conservative.

Two, Bush has not courted leaders of the conservative movement. He's left that to his adviser Karl Rove, who did an excellent job until he was distracted by the investigation of the CIA leak case. Movement conservatives feel Bush doesn't respect them. They may be right.

-snip-

[Travis McGee]

[Enterprise]

I would not yet say that conservatives have turned on President Bush. The alternative party is deadly and dangerous.

[SerpentDove]

>>I think their split with Bush is ill advised, counterproductive, and in some ways childish.<<

Shades of Peter Jennings saying Ameica threw a "temper tantrum."

A wee bit pompous for my tastes.

[nonliberal]

I think their split with Bush is ill advised, counterproductive, and in some ways childish.

I think listening to the Neocons who write for the Weak-Lie Standard is ill advised, counterproductive and in some ways childish.

[Pelham]

Bush is the best President Mexico will ever have.

[Bombard]

I as a conservative have no respect for the so called movement conservatives. They have shown themselves to be just as bad as their liberal counterparts. An elite who feels they know what is best for the masses.

[Kryptonite]

Turncoat conservatives are setting themselves up for opposition party success, of that I am certain.

[Sola Veritas]

I have read there are rumors floating that VP Cheney will step down and SecState Rice will replace him. Thus, setting up a showdown between two women (Rice - Clinton) for the 2008 election.

President Bush needs to do several things to secure a solid legacy for his presidency:

(1) Ensure the SCOTUS is set up with originalists, and ones that will overturn the stupidity that was ROE. Return this issue to states to decide.

(2) Ditto regardling the SCOTUS and stopping the homosexual agenda.

(3) Make Americans start thinking of the WOT as a real war and not some police action. That will shut up the Sheehans in America. He needs to be super proactive on this issue.

(4) Stop trying to befriend Mexico and get serious about closing the border to illegals.

(5) Ensure that a true social conservative and hawk succeeds him as president.

[Bombard]

I as a conservative have no respect for the so called movement conservatives. They have shown themselves to be just as bad as their liberal counterparts. An elite who feels they know what is best for the masses.

[308MBR]

Well, Bush has sort of turned on conservatives. This runaway spending is my real problem with the GOP in general and GWB in particular. How about a line item veto?

[Kryptonite]

Very well put.

There's nothing attractive about their conduct. Nothing.

[decal]

"Bush is the best President Mexico will ever have."

You could say the same thing about ANY US President considering the competition from the Presidents of Mexico (what's Spanish for "corrupt weasel", anyway?).

[roses of sharon]

Maybe Conservatives should.........get elected.

What a novel idea!

[indianrightwinger]

The nonsense about the Ownership Society is irritating. He folded his entire agenda of ownership society at the first Dumbocrat scream.

Tax cuts, which have not yet been made permanent, and War on Terror are two of his biggest successes. No small feat. But, not nearly enough.

[Prime Choice]

I think their split with Bush is ill advised, counterproductive, and in some ways childish.

Principles like defending this nation from foreign invaders and keeping spending under control are never "ill advised," "counterproductive" or "childish."

[DTogo]

One, a revolt was inevitable, sooner or later, simply because Bush is not a conventional conservative. He deviates on 1. the role of the federal government, on 2. domestic spending, on 3. education, on the 4. Medicare prescription-drug benefit, and on 5. immigration. Given this kindling, it took only the spark of the 6. Miers nomination to ignite a conservative backlash.

That's it Fred. The rest of your article is rubbish. Although I'd combine 2 & 4 and add that Conservatives want a more aggressive leadership/pursuit of the GWOT.

[edweena]

For myself, I'm beginning to wonder if it isn't President Bush who has suddenly, openly revolted against the conservatives. I've had problems with his lack of interest in controlling the borders, and his refusal to replace the failure Rumsfeld in Iraq. I think Harriet Miers is a bridge too far. It was a moment to choose a conservative with impeccable credentials as a judge. Instead we got a crony with no judicial experience, and weak performance as a writer about legal matters. A solid conservative judge would have been confirmed as easily as Roberts. Instead we're going to get an ugly battle so that President Bush can get a personal friend on the Supreme Court. Why?

I'm beginning to think President Bush doesn't really respect many of his supporters.

[nopardons]

bttt

[decal]

President Bush has never pretended to be anything other than a "compassionate conservative."

That phrase alone should have told the Unappeasables something.

So they don't like what he does. Considering the alternatives we were given in 2000 and 2004 (and will be given in 2008), just what do they propose to do?

Kill off the Dems first, THEN the conservative and moderate branches can split off. Try it beforehand and we'll just have to get out the pitchforks and torches yet again.