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."
Conservatives question the sanity of those who spend all their time whining at their own side. Wonder why so many supposed Reagan Fans forget his 11th Commandment.
Hey, it's what they do; they consider is their contribution. *Rolling my eyes*
""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.""
Which makes it particularly irritating to hear President Bush called right wing.
I don't question it anymore. He's not reeeeally a genuine political conservative. He's a genuine Christian (though misguided here and there), but his politics is an odd mix of ideologies. He has the "nice guy" philosophy, which can be dangerous. I hope we never again choose a guy without a firm foundation in conservative principles AND philosophy. Bush means well, but he just doesn't always get the big picture.
Sounds kind of whiney to me, the public won't elect someone who is far more conservative and the Democrats certainly aren't going to be putting forth anyone who is even close to where Bush is on the political spectrum.
The Republican party does not cater to right wing extremists the way the Democratic party caters to left wing extremists. That's why R is a majority.
"their contribution."
To what? The DNC? Moveon.org? Act up?
ping
ping
Oh, you know very well their intention is to do one of two things: 1) take back the party and run their "kind" of candidate, or 2) sit home and "teach the GOP a lesson" so, in our bewilderment, we'll run begging to the right wing and beg them to come back.
The usual blackmail.
I focused on the same paragraph and since I have it copied already, I'm going to post again
"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."
The truth of this is inescapable!
The President can only afford to be as conservative as the Congress will allow him to be. He cannot veto the Republican Congress to bring them into line. Too many Republicans might lose their seats as a result.
On the whole, the President is doing a decent job. Congress, however, is doing a bang up job of screwing up. If it isn't the Democrats making things worse with their incessant rhetoric that continually inflames the rest of the world at the United States, it is the lack of true conservative leadership in the Congress. Too few Republican congressmen are willing to forego pork barrel spending or give the President a line item veto on the budget.
Some say that the President should take the whip to the Republican Congress and make them confine their spending to the limits he proposes. If the President had line item powers, he probably could. Since he doesn't, he's stuck accepting to declining any budget passed by his Congress, which means Congress has the President over the barrel when it comes to domestic issues.
The President is not a lame duck. In regards to his foreign policy, he has had the Congress by the bridle since 9/11. His domestic agenda however is another story. The biggest problem are the polls. His low poll numbers may not influence him very much, but Congress is another matter. Our representatives believe they live and die by the polls. Liberal push polling has influenced many Republican representatives to move to the center or even the Left when it comes to domestic spending.
I don't think this is going to result in a backlash in this coming election, but in 2008, if our representatives don't get some real conservative work done, there will be a backlash against the Republican Congress. The Presidency will probably stay with the Republican Party just because the President's foreign policy and the nature of our enemies will necessitate the perception that our country needs a steadfast leader who will deploy American forces against any threat to our country. The Democrats won't be able to reinvent any of their party leadership to fit the strong leader persona they'd need to win the Presidency in 2008. Congress, of course, would be another matter entirely.
Pence, Keene and Bozell-- three phonies who NEVER did a damn thing for the conservative movement!!!
/sarc
Yeah right. Like these "true conservatives" are going to sit home and let Hillary Clinton and the Dims be elected ^^; There's no reason for the GOP to move right at this stage ideologically. They do need to focus and force through the conservative policies they stand for though such as meaningful spending cuts to go along with the tax cuts.
ping
Conservatives at CPAC seem to prefer junk-yard dogs like Ann Coulter, who uses the racial epithet of "raghead" to describe Muslims.
Lots of people on this board carry drool cups with them when a Coulter thread is posted, but she gives a definite jihadi tinge to everything she touches.
The problem with judging a President for all things is that we all know a President has many pressures, from the political parties, to family, to the press, to world politics. Bush has certainly kept his head. I disagree with all Presidents about many things as I even do with Bush, but at least Bush isn’t running around like a jackass as did Clinton.
I'd simply settle for one who put the best interests of the American People first.
I'm fed up with these globalist puppets.
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.