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."
Problem. There is nowhere for traditional conservatives to go. 2008 will be an historic year for the GOP. If they choose the wrong candidate to run for Prez, they'll find mainstream conservatives like you and me, bolting the GOP for better conservative opportunties. Frankly, I'd say the GOP conservative base is closer to 50%. Maybe higher. With about 20% coming from religious conservatives.
Yeah, here's the difference, We were staring down a super power not a bunch of jihadis, we head congress in the hands of the opposition party who were not friendly to the president. Welfare had not been reformed, and we suffered a recession in the early eighties that was one of our worst ever. What's Bush's excuse? Both houses are controlled by us, we have a booming economy, and our defense spending as a percentage of GDP is much less. Dose the president know the term "Veto" or "No" ?!?
You offer every exuse in the book for Reagan yet you don't do the same for Bush.
Sure Reagan out-DOD spent the Soviets. Bush has had to increase Homeland defense-type spending across all of his departments. If you add up Reagan's DOD spending and Bush's DOD + homeland security-type spending, they come out roughly equal relative to GDP.
Bush had a major recession plus an overvalued stock market to contend with.
The senate still isn't friendly to conservatives. Do you actually think that it is? You don't think that there's a major RINO problem in senate?
Under the circumstances, 243 dead Marines is not a sign of weakness. If we don't know who killed the Marines, what did you expect Reagan to do? Lash out and kill the nearest Muslims. LOL Come on. Again, if Reagan had proof positive who bombed the Marine barracks, he would have taken the appropriate military actions.
The Bush "Non-defense discretionary programs" that you list above includes Homeland Defense type spending.
Your statistics are misleading.
You may well be right about that. I stick with that 30%+ number because it seems to be the conventional wisdom, i.e., the number usually cited. I have wondered whether it might not be higher.
Terrorism has not gotten worse.
It's doubtful he'd fall for another amnesty either. As they say, fool me once...
>>>>Millions of illegals were given citizenship amnesty by Reagan. They didn't have to wait on the quota line to get their green cards. What part of that don't you understand?
That's why many of us who oppose illegal immigration, call the Bush proposal, backdoor amnesty. First you get your foot in the door, then down the road, you get achance at US citizenship.
>>>>There were no troops on the border during Reagan's 8 years. There are no troops on the border now. Almost anybody could cross the border then -- almost anybody can cross now. You seem to be denial.
I agree, so what. One more time. 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 for two reasons. First, Bush wants a continued flow of cheap labor into the US, keeping his bigwig GOP donor pals happy. Second. For five years Bush has been pandering to the Hispanic community, in an attempt to secure more votes for GOP candidates. Those are the facts. You can ignore the facts all you want.
Not true. You've offered no evidence that my data is bogus. It comes from OMB.gov, the historical tables. I used simple math to figure out what was spent. Straightforward computations. Homeland Security spending is a drop in the bucket. About $30-billion/year. It doesn't change the results. Besides, there was also spending by Reagan on homeland secutiry in his budgets. They just didn't have a HSD back then. OMB breaks those figures out in their spreadsheets going back to 1940. Check it out.
Flashbunny remembers it as well.
You're a damned liar.
i've got the timestamp right there, "deacon". proof enough?
You ruled out the worst very well, give up the names sitting on this deep bench that have some sort of national name recognition cause Im drawing a blank here.
No. You'll have to do better than that. The whole quote, please.
RINO is as RINO posts.
There's something really sick about a poster who collects other people's posts to use them against them later.
You're petty as hell with all your baiting.
If you're an example of a "real, true conservative," most of us are probably thrilled not to be considered like you.
As you can see the usual rino gang is out in full force.
I guess violent threats towards FReepers is no big deal.
Petty, indeed.
National Government Health Care anyone?
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.