Posted on 03/26/2002 3:28:09 PM PST by TLBSHOW
I'm reading a Time magazine Reporters' Notebook column and I tell you, I could have written this piece. Is this not amazing? The Boston Globe also has a column on Bush going along with so much of the Democrat agenda, suggesting it's for 2004, not 2002 as is the conventional wisdom. George Will has a column on this same topic, asking why Bush is giving in. Bill Bennett and Charles Krauthammer are also going the same way.
So I think some of you who have been telling me to shut up about my criticism of Bush have a lot of other people to write and tell to shut up. You might want to call or write and ask them to be quiet, because there seems to be a growing chorus of criticism. Yeah, I know, I started it. Is that right? Oh, I'm the one that paved the way? Yeah, yeah, it's my fault. I gave everybody the "go" sign. I made it okay for everybody to ask why the president has stopped pushing his agenda during the war, when, say, FDR pushed the New Deal through during WWII.
It's always going to fall back to me. I'm going to be the one responsible for it all happening since I'm the point man. I led off. But is Time magazine taking cues from me? I mean, they've written the same story that I've been doing since the stimulus package days, and it's quite illustrative of things. There are quite a few of these stories out there that are examining the political strategery of the Bush White House on the domestic agenda side versus the war side, and examining how they're doing and what they're doing and what it's all aimed at.
I just want to prepare you for it, because I know a lot of you think that there's been too much criticism here. We even read that the Democrats are emboldened, and will ask for even more money to buy votes. They know the president won't spend his political capital! This is frustrating, because you hear people saying Bush can do no wrong, so he should do what's right!
I know Bush is trying to get a workable majority in Congress, but this acting defensively to take issues away from the Democrats is not the way to do it. Even those "normal people" on the Jerry Springer Show, an e-mailer tells me, cheer Bush during the show. That's probably scripted, but there it is. They know it!
I wonder if he changes his mind and runs if the, "He's lost my vote", crowd will scream, "Buchanan lied to me...he's lost my vote for good"?
I agree. Rush needs to give Bush a good kick for abandoning his conservative base.
The future does not look bright for Conservatism.
I mean, when we all had a really big event to witness at the same time, September 11, I will bet you couldn't find two people on this whole forum who had the exact same opinion, never mind the EXACT same phrases.
But now, amazingly, on a CFR bill which was virtually ignored by the general public, there is almost a unanimous version of criticism, and the same few phrases are used over and over again.
Are some of the posters being manipulated, or are they willingly reading from talking points?
The only acceptable alternative to Bush
However, after only four days in office FreeRepublic is in an uproar and the perfect conservative has lost his entire base. When asked why, the 3rd party coalition that elected him says it broke apart when their perfect conservative contradicted himself and could not seem to make up his mind on which base was the real base.
But the blizzard of propaganda from the Rats aided and abetted by the media will be like January in Calgary. Bush will need to be resolute and stand tall! AND, he'll need patriotic folks like us to stand WITH him!
Really, name the concessions.
Bush clearly believes that the war is dead serious, that very possibly the survival of both western civilization and our nation depend on it. So he is devoting about 90% of his energy to the war and 10% to domestic policy. He obviously doesn't believe Rush's line that he has so much political capital that he can conduct the war on terror with one hand, and have total domestic war with the Democrats and the media with the other. The Bush-bashers won't of course give him any credit for anything but venal motives, but it is just possible that he knows more than Rush does about what the war on terrorism is going to require.
I don't think that all Bush's decisions have been good. I do wish he would veto CFR. I think it's good for him to hear from the base on these issues. But I hope he won't listen to voices on the Right which seem to assume that the war on terrorism is an easy, inconsequential matter that could safely be put second to domestic politics (shades of Clinton!).
Those who think the war on terrorism is no big deal should ponder Jeffrey Goldberg's New Yorker article, The Great Terror and contemplate the prospect of Saddam with another five or ten years to develop his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction.
So until I see the Democrat I would trust with the conduct of this war, my criticisms of Bush will be muted. And the only Democrat since Harry Truman I would have trusted with the war is Scoop Jackson, and he's dead and his Democratic Party died years before he did. If that makes me a Bushbot, so be it.
It started when a "new" member posted a thread building a list of people to send to Bush saying he had lost their vote because of the "amnesty bill". That new "member" who I have good reason to believe is just old "Arator" doing his thang and has not been heard from since. They were shilling for some outfit called "Border patrol" and they got about 100 names. From there it snowballed into the CFR issue which is also a coordinated effort by MANY 2 week wonders that just "happened" on to the site.
Ah yes the poster that tries so hard to prove its conservative credentials. “Anti democrat commie“. People that try that hard and post their "I will NOT vote for Bush" opus on every thread and then post their own little vanity saying the same darn thing is either a transparent liberal OR a frustrated groupie looking for a group.
This businessman was concerned that Nixon had been SAYING that he was cooling to the idea of an opening to Red China to quell the uprising within the then very much more America-First rank and file Republican Party.
As reported years later, Nixon told the businessman
“DON’T LISTEN TO WHAT WE SAY: WATCH WHAT WE DO!"
AS YOU READ THIS, IT APPEARS THAT BUSH, DASCHLE AND OTHERS ARE WELL DOWN THE ROAD TO USING THIS PAGE FROM THE NIXON PLAYBOOK!
IT APPEARS THAT DUBYA -- LIKE NIXON (and numerous others) BEFORE HIM --IS NOW “DOING” US (IN MORE WAYS THAN ONE).
Look, America – the IDEA not the PLACE – can only continue to exist if we heed the advice of the founding fathers (paraphrased here in the current vernacular for residents of Rio Linda), to wit:
“The Founding Fathers have determined that failure to WATCH politicians – ALL POLITICIANS (even those you may worship!) – is dangerous to the security of this nation and to the freedoms we paid such a heavy price to TRY to leave you and your children.”
“Yes, we did produce a near-perfect republic. But will they keep it? Or will they, in the enjoyment of plenty, lose the memory of freedom? Material abundance without character is the path to destruction.”
That from the radical right-wing, tinfoil hat wearing wacko, Thomas Jefferson.
Let's try just one scenario (this is not the only one, but a possibility):
For the sake of argument, I will concede that in a perfect world this bill should be vetoed, but is not being vetoed for other reasons. What other reason would cause a man to do this?
What if the war on terror is bigger than we thought? What if not only do we have to worry about Islamacists, but an alliance of the enviro-wackos, the anarchists, and the Chinese? What if they have evidence that there are nuclear devices already here, but they can't locate them?
In such a situation, we would maybe need to have unity in the Congress and the confidence of the people behind their leadership. That would trump any CFR bill, because a fight would cause division in the country, and don't think the democrats wouldn't use this issue, big time. Maybe he thinks he is going to need McCain's vote to go into Iraq.
At any rate, that is only one possible reason. Things are a bit more complicated when you are the person in charge in real life.
I agree with your points. I like what he is doing in the War on Terror but the domestic side of his Administration has problems, IMO.
The President would have taken some flak from the mediaRATs over a veto, but he would have had an enthusiastic defense from Rush, FR, and most of the GOP.
As has been demonstrated many times over, such a combination can win. Too bad his domestic advisors don't have the same clarity his military advisors have.
Regards.
I've been looking and I can't find that clause. Do you have a link?
History of the Veto
Tracing the veto back to the Roman Republic, Spitzer states that the veto was used by tribunes to protect plebeian interests from those of the patricians. And, as a result of their conquests, the concept of the veto was spread throughout Europe, eventually coming to be one of the last vestiges of power the British monarchs had over the law-making process.
From there the veto made its way to America. But due to the experiences the colonies had had with the veto, they initially made it unavailable to those in power. However, by the time the founders met in Philadelphia, the question was not whether or not to include the veto – or as it was known at the time, the negative – in the Constitution, but whether it should be absolute or qualified.
It should be noted, though, that the founders intended the veto not just as a block to bad legislation, but as a revisionary tool whereby the president and Congress could come to an agreement on a proposed bill.
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.