He is wrong on immigration, no one is perfect.
Protect our borders and coastlines from all foreign invaders!
Support our Minutemen Patriots!
Be Ever Vigilant!
Posted on 02/11/2006 12:49:16 PM PST by Reagan Man
Hardline conservatives, among President Bush's staunchest supporters, question whether he is conservative enough when it comes to government spending and growth, leaders of the movement say.
"What conservatives have realized during the last five years is that we have not elected a conservative president," said Bill Lauderback, executive vice president of the American Conservative Union. "Nor do we have a conservative majority in either the House or Senate."
Conservatives gathered at a Washington hotel this weekend for the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, where they assess the status of their movement and what they think of government policies. President Reagan remains the champion of low-tax, small-government supporters even after Bush's re-election and the dominance of GOP lawmakers.
They are quite unhappy with Bush administration initiatives - for example, the multibillion-dollar prescription drug program and the No Child Left Behind education law - and special spending projects from Congress that have ballooned the cost and scope of the federal government.
"We are in danger of becoming the party of big government," said Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana, chairman of the conservative Republican Study Committee.
Pence said he and his allies in Congress plan to make sure that trend is reversed.
"The era of big Republican government is over," Pence said, adding the word "Republican" to the memorable phrase used by President Clinton in his 1996 State of the Union address.
Many conference participants feel that limited government overrides all other issues such as gun rights, pro-life policies and conservative judges. Yet, despite their unhappiness, Bush remains popular with this group, especially for his court appointments and handling of terrorism.
"They like Bush," said David Keene, chairman of the ACU, which runs the conference. "But they are frustrated and disappointed with some things the administration has done. And the frustration is deep because government spending and growth of government are at the core of beliefs of many people here."
Keene said conservatives are starting to look ahead at future leaders, accepting that they've gotten some of what they want from Bush.
Some at the conservatives' conference measure the success of the Bush administration purely on their own specific issues. As National Rifle Association President Sandra Froman put it, "At the NRA, we're at the height of our power right now."
The campaign against terror has become the glue that binds the conservative movement, said Brent Bozell, founder and president of the Media Research Center, a conservative media watchdog group.
"If the fight against terror weren't part of the political equation, the focus would be on economic policy and if the focus were on economic policy, there would be an upheaval," Bozell said.
"We're ready for a candidate to assume the Reagan mantle," he said. "Bush has done an extraordinary job on the war on terror. But on economic policy, he fiddles while Rome burns."
Your statement is pretty misleading. Descretionary spending as a percentage of GDP was higher for Reagan than it is for Bush.
The starting point for any "descretionary spending" is zero. It's irrelevant what the level of discrestionary spending was previous to both Reagan's or Bush's descresionary budgets.
Hey the 1994 elections were great. But the 96 and 98 elections pretty much corrected what was the true picture. We currently have a 15 seat majority.
I love Rick Santorium. I guess most here would classify him as pretty big conservative. Right now he is in the fight of his life against a moderate Dem Pro lifer. It will be interesting to see the results of that election e. I suspect the "true conservatives" will all chalk it up to corruption in Philly if he loses.
He is wrong on immigration, no one is perfect.
Protect our borders and coastlines from all foreign invaders!
Support our Minutemen Patriots!
Be Ever Vigilant!
I don't care what Reagan "said" about immigration. It's what a president does. Bush has also said similar things.
Reagan did sign into law the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. It specified prosecution and punishment for employers who hired illegals. If that law was enforced, the IRCA of 1986 would have turned out to be what it was meant to be, a one time amnesty deal.
Reagan's amnesty was a citizenship amnesty. Bush's is not.
I really do feel for Santorum.
He would have been the underdog in any case, but his relentless campaigning for Arlen "Not Proven" Specter was really an unforced error in what was already shaping up to be an extremely difficult race.
Talk about biting the hand that feeds you.
This immigration issue is going to backfire on us if we dont handle it properly. I want something to be done also. I also see some merit with what Bush is proposing. I would suggest people on this think about some sort of compromise that forwards all our goals.
I am jst sick and tired of being basically told I cannot disagree with the POTUS on anything or else I am somehow disloyal or not patriotic. I voted for the man. Twice. In a race between him and Hitlery I might not even stay home, and go ahead and vote for him again unless he has amnestied all the G.D. illegals by that time.
And who says you can't.
I think what you are sick and tired of is being proved that you are basically a whining hack, when facts are presented to you.
I understand why we campaigned for him. In fact in some ways I respect Santorium for doing that because in many ways it was the right thing to do. For the record I am no Spector fan. I mean if the conservatives punish him for that then thats crazy. I just really want a win there. I was disappointed after all the trips to PENN we couldnt take it in 2004. If Santorioum doesnt win there I am starting to fear the long term prospects of the party in that huge State as to State wide races
Look bot, I wasn't addressing you. When I want an illegal snuck over the border, I'll give ya a ping.
Big surprise, huh?
Hmm, well I guess you are going to throw in the towel about Lynn Swann also.
If there is one thing about you doom and gloom whiners is that you are consistent in the ways you can be played like a violun by the MSM.
Aww, let's have a pity party for the knee jerk whiner.
Yep, ironically he was overtaking Clinton when Perot dropped out because "Republicans messed up his daughter's wedding" or some nonsense. Clinton & Perot were a team. Rumor has it that they met in Texarkana, AR in late 1991 to defeat Bush I.
I recently did a short analysis of data posted at the Bush administrations website for the Office of Management & Budget, omb.gov. The data compares the Bush 2005 budget that just closed, versus the Reagan 1985 budget adn account for each President's 4th year final budgetary spending figures. While this is data from only one year, its indicative of Reagan's entire eight years in office. A truthful representation.
Human Reources: aka. social welfare & entitlements: Bush spent 64% of the annual budget, Reagan spent 49.9%.
Defense: Reagan spent 26.7%, Bush spent 18.6%.
Non-defense discretionary programs: Bush spent 20.2%, Reagan spent 17.1%.
Social Security: Bush spent 20.9%, Reagan spent 19.8%.
Medicare: Bush spent 11.8%, Reagan spent 6.8%.
Education: Bush spent 2.8%, Reagan spent 1.6%.
Clearly this data shows that Bush far outspent Reagan in the area of social welfare & entitlements. Highlighted by Bush`s out of control spending on Medicare. While Reagan's budget had considerably more spending in the area of national defense then did Bush`s budget.
Its time the GOP got back to its conservative roots.
If there were a way to put a rating on Bush's Constitutionalist/Conservatism, I'd give Bush 2.3 stars out of a possible 5.
Better than the negative rating I assign to each Rat that has run for the Presidency, but still far from what America really needs to remain viable into the foreseeable future.
And from the looks of the next potential Republican nominee, it's going to get MUCH worse, not any better.
The "Bushbots" got exactly what they wanted and appear to be extremely satisfied. By my definiton of "Bushbot", most if not the vast overwhelmingly majority are NOT Conservatives nor Constitutionalists.
Clinton and the MSM demonized the GOP (which, IMO, began the birth of RINOism among Congressional Republicans) Congress in those two Congressional elections, and as a result, the GOP lost some seats.
My point was that his support for Specter-like the support rendered by the White House-was completely superfluous, and that anything that will dampen conservative ardor for Santorum's re-election-keep in mind, this is his base-should be avoided at all costs.
There was no logical reason for him to go out of his way to support Specter, other than some lingering guilt from the 1994 campaign, when Specter helped Santorum to win his seat.
However, I don't think Snarlin' Arlen will shed a tear when and if his colleague loses this November.
The Senate is filled with egotistical, self-involved megalomaniacs, and to expect reciprocity in a place like that is the height of naivete.
I suppose you could make an argument that Santorum "owed" him, but there is no rational explanation for Bush's uncritical support of a senator who is-at best-only supportive of half of the White House's agenda, and is certainly no conservative.
"Compassionate Conservative" = Liberal Moderate
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.