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."
Also, it is not uncommon to lose seats after a tsunami of a victory. Such a tsunami brings in weak candidates who ride the wave to victory but have trouble standing on their own once they have to face re-election. I think many bigwigs in the GOP freaked out over the natural and predictable loss of seats in 1996.
"Why not? She chooses to roll in the gutter with her street talk."
Ah-ha-ha. Sinky, I wouldnt lecture people on rolling in the gutter with street talk, when back on 10/21/2005 5:46:10 PM when you said you wanted to bash in the heads of Anti Miers folk (dont make me re-post it).
Flashbunny remembers it as well.
BTW, sinky don't ping me anymore. You're not worth my time.
Bush wants a guest-worker plan, thinking that illegals are meekly going to return back to their native homelands once their work term expires. That's not merit, that's stupidity.
Precisely.
"Clinton & Perot were a team"
NO doubt about that!
Who will play perot this time and get Hitlery elected?
My guess is John McLame, when he gets trounced in the primaries.
Sure. Got yourself convinced of that. Okay. It doesn't matter because nothing is going to be done about the immigration issue in the next three years. Nothing serious anyway. At least Reagan made a serious effort to control illegal immigration long term. The IRCA of 1986 did offer temporary to permanent resident status for illegals. But its not Reagan's fault there are 10-15 million illegals in America today. That fault lies with Bush41, Clinton and Bush43. Today, PresBush supports open borders and the cheap labor it brings to his bigwig GOP donor pals. Yeah boy. LOL Pandering to the Hispanic voters is another reason Bush isn't serious about solving the immigration issue.
How many times do people have to repeat the same failed experiments before they finally begin to recognize that what we've been doing has not been working?
Bush is little more than a born again RINO who takes terrorism seriously.
We haven't had a real conservative since Reagan. But the tide is turning, I feel a conservative upswell in the making that will dash the liberals against the rocks of socialism.
But bin Laden is still alive. Terrorism has gotten worse. Bush hasn't the faintest. This problem, among a few others, will be left on the next President's doorstep. He is a big government RINO.
Until the entire population of "Undesirables" in Mexico moves North, and Americans are made Third Class Citizens in a stealth Invasion.
Coming in the next 5 years.
Because the 12th Commandment excluded, "RINO's and 'ball-less compassionate conservatives' who betray conservatism."
President Reagan is one of my favorite people but President Reagan was not a perfect man. He brought abortion to California. He showed weakness in Lebanon. And he never attempted to move Social Security toward privatization. Despite those three things that come to mind President Reagan is still one of my favorite people. His book Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation sits right on my desk.
The point is simple, no man is perfect. The best men are up front about who they are and where they are headed. Both President Reagan and President Bush fit that bill.
I would vote for Bush again tomorrow if I could secure in the knowledge that he will do what he says and say what he means.
I can't help it if the truth upsets you. I didn't say one single word about you. You came on this thread, engaging in a cheap ad hominem attack on my screen name. Cheap shots seem to be your style. Have at it, kiddo.
Hear, hear!
I want the borders sealed, but your post is right on!
****
That is a great get together.
One thing, if you should attend and run into MRC's Mr. Bozell, it's Brent Bozell.
I too would vote for Bush again tomorrow...
if the alternative was Gore, Kerry, Clinton or any other socialist baby killer.
You little twit, you are bringing your fights from thread to thread.
Knock if off. Howlin did nothing more than you did and you did it first.
Actually, what that needs is a clarification.
You evidently copied from Reagan Man's #295:
Why?
Question:“Why did you vote against the recent border security bill, H.R. 4437? Do you support amnesty for illegal immigrants?”
Boehner: H.R. 4437 has a number of strong provisions aimed at stemming the tide of illegal immigration, all of which I support.
I opposed one section of the bill that places a massive unfunded mandate on small businesses. I for one don’t think we stop illegal immigration by strangling the small businesses that are the backbone of our economy. Nor do I believe it is right to turn small business owners into felons for failing to do the federal government’s job of protecting the borders. Had it not been for this one section, I would have supported the bill.
I worked with colleagues of mine to address these concerns, but we were not allowed to offer an amendment. And my committee, which has jurisdiction over these employer issues, was only given twenty-four hours to review the bill. That’s not enough time to fully review a massive piece of legislation and offer substantive changes.
The only way to make my voice heard was to cast a risky vote. I did so, and I have no regrets.
As for the second question: no. I do not support giving amnesty to illegal immigrants. I never have and I never will. Illegal immigrants are just that -- illegal. Their first act upon entering our country was to break our laws and they need to be held accountable.
Now, Reagan Man, can you stop salivating long enough to explain to the class when YOUR post #295 why
You made a post on a public forum using words that weren't yours and containing no link to give credit to the actual writer. That is plagiarism. Those are the facts. You don't want to be held to the same standards as everyone else. You screwed up and you don't have the decency to apologize to the forum.
or why
(You are not) a plagiarist. Just like liberals Jason Blair, Doris Kearns Goodwin, Steven Ambrose, Ward Churchill, Al Gore, Kitty Kelly and good old Joe Biden.????
Can you explain that, huh, can you?
Because you did the SAME DAMN THING I DID on this very thread, only you did it FIRST!!!!!!
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.