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."
ROTFLMAO! Don't give away too much info...
I'm just a "psuedo-conservative" what can I say? ;^)
LOL :)
You [FreeReign] are wrong.
I have the facts to disprove that. Since you stated that, show us all where you got your facts. You made a comment that was not based on facts.
Bush has outspent Reagan no matter how you look at it, including as a % of GDP.
You really ought to support your comments with facts when you make a comment like that. I suggest you go to the official OMB historical tables and do some studies since you obviously lack that factual knowledge.
That "popularity" is paper thin in some cases. There are no options for conservatives.
You [FreeReign] are wrong.
No, you Dont_Tread_On_Me_With_A_Big_Screen_Name are wrong.
I've been through this exercise with you and others numerous times.
Looks like I'll have to do it again....later after I dig a few people out from the snow.
If by "far more conservative" you mean someone more "conservative" than Reagan, then you may be right. I don't know if there is such a thing as more conservative than Reagan. He was a "conservative". It's like being pregnant. You either are or you aren't, so I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "far more conservative." Jesse Helms??
Bush II is not conservative. He has conservative positions on most of his policies, but not all of them, and therefore his governing philosophy is not "conservatism" but a mish-mosh. Reagan did not have that problem; his core beliefs were solid. He was willing to compromise when he had to, but that did not mean he had abandoned his views, only that his tactics in achieving his ends. When Bush II acts on his more liberal instincts, you don't get the sense that it is only tactical. Hence, immigration policy, a bloated budget, "No Child Left Behind", continuation of liberal policies initiated by Clintooon, such as "Don't ask, don't tell", etc.
So, if you are relying on your qualifier "far", then you are suggesting that someone more conservative than Reagan would not fare well in today's world. Well, that's because conservatives might not like him, either. A conservative in the mold of Reagan, which is all we want, would do fine.
We TRUE conservatives base our comments on FACTS.
FACT: You are wrong.
The Superfunction "Human Resources" is the bulk of the US Budget's spending and excludes Defense.
Following percentages are % of spending on HR as a percent of GDP:
Reagan Budget #1, 1982......12.0%, Bush Budget #1, 2002...... 12.7%.
Bush exceeded Reagan in spending as a % of GDP in Budget #1. You are wrong.
Reagan Budget #2, 1983......12.4%, Bush Budget #2, 2003 ......13.1%.
Bush exceeded Reagan in spending as a % of GDP in Budget #2. You are wrong.
Reagan Budget #3, 1984......11.3%, Bush Budget #3, 2004 ......12.9%.
Bush exceeded Reagan in spending as a % of GDP in Budget #3. You are wrong.
Reagan Budget #4, 1985......11.4%, Bush Budget #4, 2005 ......13.0%.
Bush exceeded Reagan in spending as a % of GDP in Budget #4. You are wrong.
Reagan Budget #5, 1986......10.9%, Bush Budget #5, 2006 ......13.0%.
Bush exceedes Reagan in estimated spending as a % of GDP in Budget #5. You are wrong.
Reagan Budget #6, 1987......10.8%, Bush Budget #6, 2007 ......12.9%.
Bush exceedes Reagan in estimated spending as a % of GDP in Budget #6. You are wrong.
Reagan Budget #7, 1988......10.6%, Bush Budget #7, 2008 ......12.9%.
Bush exceedes Reagan in estimated spending as a % of GDP in Budget #7. You are wrong.
Reagan Budget #8, 1989......10.5%, Bush Budget #8, 2009 ......12.8%.
Bush exceedes Reagan in estimated spending as a % of GDP in Budget #8. You are wrong.
FACT: You are wrong.
FACT: Bush has exceeded Reagan in non-Defense spending as a % of GDP.
SOURCE: The Office of Management and Budget Historical Tables
Clintoon gets a huge boost when a bunch of Perot people stubbornly decided not to go back to Bush I. Clintooon was talking like a moderate, and the cold war was over, so what the hell. It's safe to vote for a Democrat for the first time since Jimmy Carter. But then, Bush I starts gaining on Clintoon, as his BS starts to get exposed, so what happens? In August, Perot returns to the game, dragging Bush I down again, just enough to give Clintoon the win, with 43 percent of the vote. Perot gets 19, and Bush I 36.
Without Perot coming back in, it's probably Bush 52, Clintoon 48. Had there never been a Perot challenge in the first place, it would have been more like 55-45. Clintoon would have been a Dukakis type challenge, and no problem. That was the sitution Bush gamed for, and he was simply not prepared for a 3 man race, with the challenge from the populist element of the center-right. Perot's first challenge changed the mind-set of voters, and once Bush lost people, they didn't all come back.
43 percent of the vote is enough to win 100 percent of the executive branch, but you didn't hear the press mention anything about needing to work with the minority in Congress, or appointing judges who were acceptable to the GOP or any of that nonsense, like they did when Bush II got 49.5 percent in 2000. Hillary, another 43 percent candidate, has well learned the lesson of a split GOP, and I believe we will see an effort to re-run that playbook in 2008. McCain may be the vehicle, but if he won't go along with Hillary's plan, then they will find someone. The question is, will people fall for it .... again.
Had Reagan been given a GOP congress, he would never have agreed to expand government the way Bush II has. Never. He would have brought them in line if they even hinted they wanted to continue their pork barrel spending.
So those figures on domestic spending that you cite for Reagan are much higher than they would have been had Reagan had his druthers. And they are still lower than Bush II.
The SOURCE data in post #228 can be found in the OMB's 2006 Historical Tables, Table 3.1, Outlays by Superfunction and Function, 1940--2010.
ping to #229 and #230
Right you are. Reagan had a RAT House the entire time and a RAT Senate a good part of the time and Reagan had to rebuild the military and he STILL spent less than Bush has, since Reagan did not dole out the global welfare and domestic welfare the way Bush has.
I meant #228 and #229, sorry
100% correctamundo!
...since Reagan did not dole out the global welfare and domestic welfare the way Bush has.
-----
Beyond imagination. Bush is A GLOBAL ELITIST -- hence why we have no borders. And the tax dollars just keep flowing like from a drunken sailor....all for the global agenda and certainly not to protect OUR SOVERIGNTY.
With the exception of the SCOTUS appointments, Bush has failed us domestically, deliberately, all for the GLOBAL AGENDA of the Washington elite.
Bush's fault!!! You should be in media.
The least the government has grown in the past 20 years was under a Republican controlled Congress and a Democratic Executive branch. It's called gridlock. The two branches can't agree on anything so they basically shut down government and blame each other. Makes for good television and doesn't cost the citizens of the respective states as much. It's a historical fact that it's worked before.
In time, you will find that as well will probably not be an exception.
You can guarantee he ain't coming back to life to say otherwise, but you can't give one example by deed or word that supports your assertion. I think you have an inflated opinion of how much weight your "guarantee" holds among readers who have read your other posts.
I've spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don't know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind-swept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace, a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity, and if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.Reagan's farwell address
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.