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."
Are you seriously telling me that Reagan should not have put troops on the border in the 80's because nobody asked him to??
On the issue of immigration reform, America is a different place today, then it was back in 1981-1989. There are 10-15 million, or more illegals in the US today. In the 1980`s there was 2-3 million. The US was fighting the Cold War in the 80`s. Today we're fighting the war on terror.
As for Reagan's farewell address. I will cut Reagan some slack for his idealistic legacy talk about a 'city that has doors in its walls'. Reagan was a master of political rhetoric and what better time to speak such high minded talk, then at your own retirement party.
You're not a student of history. I've tried to inform you about some history involving the Reagan years. But you dont seem to grasp the concept. Reagan employed bold leadership and revived the American economy from the worst economic times since the Great Depression. Reagan employed bold leadership and won the Cold War. If Reagan was POTUS today, he would be employing bold leadership in the WOT. And I believe, Reagan would be employing bold leadership in securing our borders and not advancing "backdoor amnesty", under the guise of a guest worker program.
This will be my last post to you, as you can't seem to comprehend the "nuance" between Reagan's term and Bush's. I will be ignoring any and all future responses from you.
This is quite boring.
Let me make it real simple:
1. There was no terrorist attack on American soil in which 3,000 American lives were lost during Reagan's term, and NO ONE took it seriously until 9/11.
2. Since 9/11, the borders are STILL wide open and just as we've predicted-- terrorists are coming across (the stories below prove this)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1519110/posts
"Congresswoman: Three Al Qaeda Caught in U.S. After Crossing Border with Mexico"
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1539796/posts
"51 Terrorist Suspects Crossed Border Illegally"
"And I believe, Reagan would be employing bold leadership in securing our borders and not advancing "backdoor amnesty", under the guise of a guest worker program."
That makes two of us :)
It gives me no pleasure at all to admit that Reagan had a genuine amnesty plan that ended up legalizing about 3 times the estimate it first intended.
Reagan was more vocally cultural conservative than Bush but in actions about the same.
But in Reagan's defense, we had no idea at that time how entrenched and determined the cultural Left was.
We know now and there is no excuse.
The above question remains unanswered by Stellar.
Ja, Stella der Landesverräter und Dummkopf.
Once again you revert to bold face lies and historic revisionism. Once again, I'll set the record straight.
The US Marines were part of a multinational peackeeping force, that was thrown into the middle of a civil war in Beruit Lebanon. After the Marine barracks was car bombed, US intelligence was unable to determine for certain, who committed the action. Some experts in the US govt believed the responsibile party was Hezbollah, with help from either Syria or Iran. Islamic Jihad actually took credit for the bombing, but no one took that claim seriosuly. No final determination was ever reached by our government on this matter.
The Reagan administration did hatch a plan to knock off a military barracks of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Defense Secretary Cap Weinberger opposed such action. Weinberger told Reagan, any attack without positive proof of who committed the Beirut action would lead to an expanded civil war, dragging the US further into the conflict and undermining Reagan's efforts to win the Cold War.
Until this day, Weinberger insists the responsible party is unknown. Reagan did order air bombing and shelling from the USS New Jersey. Soon afterwards, the Marines were pulled out for good. All in all, a smart move. Reagan knew that Beirut and all of Lebanon was an untenable situation. Besides, Reagan had bigger fish to fry.
It's easy to look back with 20/20 hindsight and say Reagan was negligent for his lack of action. Fact is, if Reagan was given proof positive who committed the killing of the Marines, he would have taken stronger military action then he did.
It's all in the primaries where you put in the lead the person who shares your values not someone who will appeal to a broader range of people. It is that trap, the one of compromise, that gets you a president who stabs you in the back. We must show strong support for a real conservative in the primaries and not waver in that support.
bin Laden always mentions the Marine barracks FIRST when listing his reasons for believing that the US was impotent and why he felt he could bring down the WTC with no consequences.
"No response" was interpreted as weakness, like it or not.
Are you that dense?!
PUTTING TROOPS ON THE BORDER WASN'T AN ISSUE IN THE 1980`S. ITS AN ISSUE TODAY!
You've heard the expression that if you're not part of the solution then you are part of the problem?
You Reagan Man are part of the problem. You have a right to advocate turning a blind eye to the killing of 243 Marines. As it turns out, you and your fellow advocates were wrong, are wrong and will forever be wrong.
You exhibit the same level of understanding the islamofascists as the left. Which is to say, none. I only hope that you never have any influence on US foreign policy.
That's essentially my argument and as you can tell it was purposefully ignored. That is why I am ignoring all posts from that individual, and you should too...it isnt worth your time :)
LOL I don't ever remember hearing that Osama mentioned the 1983 Beirut Marine barracks bombing as a reason he thought he could bring down the WTC. Besides, its way after the fact. Looks like Osama can say anything he wants and you'll believe him. LOL At that time, Osama was in Afghanistan fighting the Soviets. What a crock of crap.
>>>>"No response" was interpreted as weakness, like it or not.
Not if you don't know who committed the act. If we went out and killed the nearest group of Muslims just for revenge, all hell would have broke loose. Stop rewriting history.
"We have strong circumstantial evidence that the attack on the Marines was directed by terrorists who used the same method to destroy our Embassy in Beirut. Those who directed this atrocity must be dealt justice, and they will be. The obvious purpose behind the sniping and, now, this attack was to weaken American will and force the withdrawal of U.S. and French forces from Lebanon. The clear intent of the terrorists was to eliminate our support of the Lebanese Government and to destroy the ability of the Lebanese people to determine their own destiny."
The terrorists achieved their purpose. They won, 241 Marines died and nobody paid the bill. The rest is, as they say, history.
I'm not turning a blind eye to anything and I'm not part of any problem. You want to revise history to match your perception of reality. I prefer sticking with the factual truth of history.
>>>>You exhibit the same level of understanding the islamofascists as the left. Which is to say, none. I only hope that you never have any influence on US foreign policy.
What does my correcting the record, on the actual events of the 1983 Beirut bombing, have to do with you comparing me to the left. Just shows how badly you've lost the argument. I've supported every decision that PresBush and the military have made in Afghanistan and Iraq. You want me to capitulate to your demands, that I accept your perception of events and ignore the real historic record. Ain't gonna happen!
So what! We all know why the bombing took p-lace. What we don't know is what terrorist organization committed the act. Reagan mentions "terrorists". Terrorists covers a lot of possibilities. The question that's never been answered. Who committed the Beirut bombing? No one knows.
Your support of no retaliation for the killing of 241 Marines belies your claim. And you do that retrospectively with many more bombings, many more dead Americans and terrorism strengthened through the years by American weakness. I don't give a crap whether you capitulate or not, I just don't want you anywhere near American foreign policy. So just tell me that you have no influence in that sphere and I'll sleep better tonight.
This isn't something new I'm arguing, I've been arguing it for 26 years and your history lessons are less than worthless to somebody who was an adult during those 26 years.
Carter paid bounty to the Shia terrorists and President Reagan let them get away with killing 241 Marines. And like I said, the rest is history.
:-} Surely you jest. President Reagan is making the point that he can't give in to the terrorists demands. And then he gives in to the terrorist demands.
That's what. Wake up, President Reagan was a damn fine man but he made mistakes. Learn from them.
That is a bold face lie! I never said that. So don't be putting words in my mouth. I said Reagan and our military never confirmed who committed the Beirut bombing. Till this day we dont know who was responsible. How many times do I have to tell you the same thing over and over. Get informed.
Now you're off on some stupid diatribe. You offer NO facts, NO evidence to support any of your contentions. So, don't take your anger out on me, bucko.
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.