Posted on 03/16/2006 11:56:08 PM PST by EternalVigilance
President Bush's troubles with congressional Republicans, which erupted during the backlash to the Dubai seaport deal, are rooted in policy frustrations and personal resentments that GOP lawmakers say stretch back to the opening days of the administration.
For years, the Bush White House and its allies on Capitol Hill seemed like one of the most unified teams Washington had ever seen, passing most of Bush's agenda with little dissent. Privately, however, many lawmakers felt underappreciated, ignored and sometimes bullied by what they regarded as a White House intent on running government with little input from them.
Often it was to pass items -- an expanded federal role in education under the No Child Left Behind law and an expensive prescription drug benefit under Medicare -- that left conservatives deeply uneasy. What Bush is facing now, beyond just election-year jitters by legislators eyeing his depressed approval ratings, is a rebellion that has been brewing since the days when he looked invincible, say many lawmakers and strategists.
Newly unleashed grievances could signal even bigger problems for Bush's last two years in office, as he would be forced to abandon a governing strategy that until recently counted on solid support from congressional Republicans.
*snip*
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Why would he vote against John Bolton?
Not sure if they would put it in the Rapid City, SD it's kinda far from the Missouri river.
Put what?
just to make a point.
an Oil Refinery
?
Thune was upset at Bush for the base closings so he was going to retaliate by voting against John Bolton.
I was talking abut Ellsworth.
If you're gonna build a refinery, it's good to have something to refine.
You have to get pretty far west before you see a well in SD.
Most of 'em are further west in WY.
And there's enough coal methane under the Powder River Basin in SE MT to run this country for a hundred years....if the enviros and their bought and paid for judiciary would let us go get it.
Shallow wells whose only byproduct is mineral water. The cows love it!
Night y'all...
we have Oil but have limited refining capability, the Rapid City location doesn't make sense for that since they are so far away from the river. Probably would make more sense to build one along the great lakes or by one of the coasts.(If they had a base closing close)
The article has much more than the base-closing issue, so I hope this thread doesn't get bogged down in that. You have the prescription. Unfortunately, the President won't take the medicine. Why? Well, look at the facts and (perhaps) come to my conclusion.
Part D, CFR, no vetoes of irrational budgets, No Child Gets Ahead, all utopian monstrosities, combine with conservative stances in other areas. Leave aside whether a lot of that is posturing (Meirs, lip service to SS reform, lip service to a Marriage Amendment, etc.) and give him credit for a lot of conservative things.
There is a cognitive dissonance that can only be resolved by concluding that Mr. Bush has absolutely no philosophy at all (just like Klinton and voodoo economics GHW Bush). He does what he has to, but no more, to play to his base, but governs like a drunken liberal when he can get away with it, simply for votes. Those Utopian things aren't minor political point making; they are statist disasters.
We see more cognitive dissonance with the Ports deal. Sure, it was probably okay. But can anyone really expect the voters to not look askance at that after enduring the airport TSA fiascos of the last 5 years and after being ginned up for the WOT? What can the administration expect but a confusion on the part of the voters? It's inevitable.
As Vox continues to point out, an adjective modifying a noun changes the meaning of the noun. Thus, "compassionate conservatism" equals "NOT conservatism."
No way was it okay. It's the straw that broke the camel's back. It was totally jack shit, in my book.
You know Jack Shit?
Ahhh. [slaps his head and kicks his butt] lol. I put that sentence in so that I wouldn't get in an argument. Shouldn't have, evidently, because it backfired. For the record, it was stupid, just like the immigration fiasco. But I didn't want the argument to get sidetracked by the bots, as so often happens on here.
That pretty much sums it up, IMO. I think everyone who disillusioned with W has some event they can finger as the breaking point -- mine was Harriet Meirs. The whole affair might have been pandering to the base, but it was so clumsy and heavy-handed that it left me wondering if Mr. Bush has the slightest idea of who the base is, or what conservativism and judicial restraint is all about.
Your point on the ports deal is also well made, particularly as it followed so closely on the "cartoon" mayhem; the average joe may not pay too much attention to politics, but it seems the grass-roots reaction to the Dubai deal was something akin to "What the f___?"
Cognitive dissonance? Perhaps. Hubris may be a more accurate term -- or a combination of both.
You're right. I go for the combination: cognitive dissonance on the part of the voters, hubris on the part of the administration.
Bush is not a conservative in the traditional mold. He is looking for conservative outcomes, not conservative process. His objective is to give people more control over their lives and less control by government. If removing a program or reducing it's size will work, he is for doing that. If a new program or spending more money is how you accomplish an outcome, he will do that as well.
None of the things he has done should be any surprise to people who paid attention during the election. He is fulfilling campaign promises.
One other thing that is important to know. It is well known that Bush doesn't have any use for the Beltway media. What is less known but equally true is that he also isn't particularly interested in Beltway think tanks, lobbyists, pundits (even if they are conservative) or "power players." He considers them all part of the Washington culture that is all talk and no action, and is out of touch with the majority of the people. Given the behavior of some of the people in this category, I can see how he would hold that view.
Well, President Bush isn't running again, and continued attacks against him will probably not help get conservatives elected. I am not going to waste time defending him because I won't be able to convince people who are of the anti-Bush opinion. Get a candidate that you think will be more to your liking and support him in the primaries. Meanwhile, I will sit here and wonder why the Washington Post has suddenly become so credible.
Conservative process is precisely what produces conservative outcomes. Conservatism is defined by the means employed, not the ends produced. Rationalization is neither a process of conservatism, nor a logical by-product of a conservative outcome. It is the fuel, the fire, and the smoke of liberalism. Therefore, by inductive reasoning, one can only come to the conclusion that Bush is a progressive, big-government, multi-culturalist liberal.
(Walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and leaves little piles of duck-excrement in his wake.)
"Get a candidate that you think will be more to your liking and support him in the primaries."
Conservative candidates are being actively discouraged by the Beltway think tanks, MSM, and special-interest 'power-players' that you decry in your post. The fact that they are being gleefully aided-and-abetted by the RNC does not bode well for the Republican party in either the short or long terms.
If a conservative candidate is popular and electable, I doubt that the Beltway will have much say. It's up to the candidate to gain the grass-roots support and get himself nominated. Blaming the Beltway is a cop out.
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.