Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Trouble on the Right? Bush and His Conservative Base
Toogood Reports ^ | July 14, 2003 | W. James Antle III

Posted on 07/14/2003 9:41:09 AM PDT by Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS

President Bush has been having more than his share of troubles lately. The economy is not quite where it should be, with unemployment offices reporting that jobless claims are at a 20-year high. Criticism of his administration's intelligence handling prior to going to war with Iraq, and even the veracity of its WMD claims, is mounting. The public is growing understandably anxious about the rising number of American casualties in Iraq, where our postwar occupation policies at times seem aimless and uncertain.

All of this is well known and frequently commented upon. One group where the president is thought to enjoy rock-solid support is among his conservative base. Yet even here, there are signs of trouble brewing.

Polls show that the president's approval ratings, still respectably high among the public at large, are quite simply stratospheric among self-described Republicans. Such staples of conservative opinion as talk radio, FreeRepublic.com and the major non-paleo right-of-center periodicals buzz with an enthusiasm for Bush unmatched in conservative circles since the heady days of Ronald Reagan. Talking with people I am acquainted with who belong to quintessential Republican constituent groups - military servicemen, white-collar male professionals, born-again Christians - I find the president to still be held in high regard.

Yet there are signs of trouble in paradise. First there is the anecdotal evidence. When I wrote critically about candidate Bush during the 2000 election, my inbox would flood with missives chiding me for being unfair in my characterizations of his conservative credentials and unrealistic in my political expectations. Just as frequently, there would be impassioned defenses of the man and his policies. In fact, one column where I was particularly hard on Bush elicited the most hostile response I have ever gotten from a conservative reader, who actually sent me an e-mail challenging me to a fight.

Nowadays, my generally milder criticisms of Bush don't seem to provoke much of a backlash and often invite agreement. More surprisingly, when I write favorably about some Bush policy - such as his tax cuts or his support for incremental abortion restrictions - I often get e-mails suggesting that I should be criticizing him for not going far enough. The only time readers were still leaping to Bush's defense would be when I'd express misgivings about the Iraq war, something I generally refrained from after the shooting started. (I wonder if even this would still be the case now.)

Less anecdotally, professional conservatives, the very people who have generally been most reluctant to criticize the Bush administration, are beginning to gripe about some of the president's policies. Conservative think tanks are openly opposing the administration's passivity on health care, for example. Perhaps more representative of grassroots sentiment is some of the grumbling now being heard on the predominantly conservative blogosphere.

Eugene Volokh's co-blogger Phillipe de Croy has called for a Republican primary challenge to President Bush. Paul Cella, blogging on the topic of the impending prescription drug benefit disaster, wrote "This must be why I voted for a 'conservative' presidential candidate: so I can reap the glorious benefits of socialized medicine, and an expansion in the size of the federal government unlike anything since Lyndon Baines Johnson." He notes that Bush faces a lack of pressure from the organized right, which has seemed content to function as "a set of court intellectuals for a ruling party," "the handmaidens of servitude," and "the functionaries of the Servile State." Steve Sailer has been all over Bush's response to the Supreme Court's awful affirmative action ruling in the University of Michigan case. Bush can forget about libertarian bloggers; even many who normally vote Republican are so fed up with his lack of interest in limited government that they are musing about voting for the unspeakable Howard Dean.

Why this outpouring of criticism of the man many conservatives breathlessly predict will usher in an enduring national Republican majority? As a sequel to dropping serious conservative education reform in favor of giving Ted Kennedy the big-government education bill he wanted, Bush is dropping serious conservative Medicare reform in favor of giving Kennedy the big-government Medicare bill he wants. (The latter promising to be a massive boondoggle that will impose staggering costs on future generations to come.) To follow up on his decision to cave on the free speech-strangling McCain-Feingold campaign finance travesty, he is caving on Second Amendment rights by backing a renewal of the assault weapons ban. He has apparently decided that as long as the Sandra Day O'Connor pays lip service to color-blindness 25 years from now, ruling in favor of a more surreptitious regime of racial preferences is A-OK. He's willing to spend federal money on constitutionally dubious "marriage promotion" initiatives but has yet to take any proactive steps to curb the growing judicial threat to traditional marriage.

Then of course there is the steel and lumber tariffs, the PATRIOT Act, the decision to sign ridiculously bloated farm and transportation bills and the refusal to veto wasteful federal spending. Rather than address porous borders and an immigration policy that lends itself more to balkanization than Americanization, the administration treats us to Karl Rove's schemes for illegal alien amnesties. The list goes on.

Yes, every single Democrat vying to replace Bush is far worse. No, I'm not saying we necessarily need to find a Pat Buchanan II to draw first blood against President Bush II. Bush's record is not without accomplishment and, in fact, he has been considerably exceeded my dismally low expectations of him from the 2000 campaign. I voted for him even then and unless there emerges some evidence that even his more hysterical critics are right, I will do so again. It is not my intention to be one of those right-wingers who would rather criticize Bush than the left.

But I do confess to a certain irritation with conservatives who don't seem to think anything is more important than having a president or other elected official with an "R" next to their name when they appear on C-SPAN. The problem isn't really Bush. It is that conservatives don't really expect anything of Republican leaders. Enough liberals were willing to risk losing the presidency in 2000 to rebuke the New Democrats by voting for Ralph Nader over Al Gore. Many are willing to risk losing it again for a principled Democratic presidential candidate in 2004.

What will conservatives be willing to risk in order to contain the growth of government, to preserve the traditional understanding of marriage, to uphold the American national identity? It often looks like not much, but there are some signs this might be changing.

President Bush still has ample time to right some of these wrongs and secure his base for the 2004 elections. Conservatives still have time to exert pressure on a president they have some influence on to further their values. If the latter does not occur, we should not blame the president. We only get the leaders we deserve.


TOPICS: Extended News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 3rdpartyequalsenemy; 3rdpartyisnotthebase; apesforstupidity; bush43; bushdoctrine; conservativebase; dontletthedoorhitya; gwb2004; returningbannee; scotus; sogoalready; winwithoutyou
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 1,241-1,252 next last
To: Dane
It is a concerted effort...the same talking points every time.
61 posted on 07/14/2003 11:03:39 AM PDT by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson
If they don't think the Democrats will try every slick trick in the book to disrupt and divide the Republican vote then they're stupid. And that would include infiltrating conservative groups and doing everything possible to demonize the President and discourage voters...to whip up third party fevor

That's a tired and true demo strategy, divide and conquer, 1992 being the most prominent example.

62 posted on 07/14/2003 11:04:08 AM PDT by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: onyx
Who made the appointment of Justice O'Connor? The supposed conservative swing vote in the SCOTUS.
63 posted on 07/14/2003 11:04:30 AM PDT by CyberCowboy777 (They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Zack Nguyen
"I have many of the same concerns about Bush that you do, but let's be fair. It's been almost two years since 9/11, and not one terrorist attack has taken place on American soil. That in and of itself shows me that Bush has done an exemplary job at dismantling terrorism worldwide."

That, PBA (has he signed it into law yet?), the dinky tax cuts (that are phased in sometime before I will die) and a couple other things are on one side of the ledger.

I can't put 'standing up to the UN' in there, because I believe Bush should have never given them the opportunity to have credibility. And going there STILL backfired and got us nothing.

All the rest is on the other side of the ledger - and it's piling up. So, if conservatives won't say 'hold on!', who will?
64 posted on 07/14/2003 11:04:39 AM PDT by ApesForEvolution ("The only way evil triumphs is if good men do nothing" E. Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: AD from SpringBay
Blacks are to the Democratic Party as Conservative Christians are to:

A) Church B) Bake Sales C) The Republican Party D) Synagogue

That is incorrect. Run a pro-abortion Republican for office, or put a pro-abortion running mate on the slate in 2008 and watch what happens to those dependable Christians conservatives. They fled Bob Dole in droves.

One little secret not often discussed is that a lot fewer voted for Bush in 2000 than the campaign expected.

65 posted on 07/14/2003 11:05:53 AM PDT by Zack Nguyen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: ApesForEvolution
"So, if conservatives won't say 'hold on!', who will?"

I'm sure the Democratic candidate you're campaigning for.

66 posted on 07/14/2003 11:06:28 AM PDT by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: CyberCowboy777
Who made the appointment of Justice O'Connor? The supposed conservative swing vote in the SCOTUS

Ronald Reagan did. Also Reagan appointed Kennedy, after Oldmobile Ted sank Bork's nomination.

There was a thread on FR about Bork and a few replies indirectly giving praise to Oldsmobile Ted for borking Bork.

67 posted on 07/14/2003 11:08:08 AM PDT by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Dane; All
I mirror Dane's comments. If we conservatives start to abandon our President (imperfect though he may be), we are basically ensuring that the next president will be Kerry, Edwards, Dean, or Lieberman. Flee the Party (vs. working within it to persuade individuals to be like minded) and vote for a third party. We saw in 18% that even though Perot won approx. 18% of the vote, he did not win a single electoral vote. The same thing would be true if we vote for a Howard Philips, Harry Browne, Pat Buchanan, etc. They are unelectable as they will not be able to appeal to the soccer moms, "working families", of middle America. The base flees and the Ds win as they can find a lot more bums to lure in with cigarettes to vote, welfare participants, illegal immigrants, seniors, dead, mentally challenged to convince that the mean, wicked Republicans will kill their children, starve the poor and sick, cut off their retirement benefits, jack up the prices of pescription drugs, poison their rivers, streams, air, etc. Fear is a very strong weapon. Hussein kept his population under control through mass murders, Idi Aman, Pol Pot, Hilter, Stalin, all kept their "supporters" in line by threating, intimidating, instilling and fostering fear. The Ds do an exceptional job with this tool too. "Support us Ds and we will be there for you..."working families"...we will protecte the environment from those evil corporations (ok, they provide you jobs...but the pollute)...support us and we will continue your welfare, medicaid, WIC, social security, whatever checks.... You deserve it because you are a victim.

Sorry...I am ready to vomit. Conservatives...wake up and smell the coffee...Enough of you defect and support the third parties and we will be paying Sweden-style taxes, the Consitution will be toilet paper in the White House's Lincoln Bedroom.

68 posted on 07/14/2003 11:08:29 AM PDT by Abram
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Dane
The DU constantly lurks here and of course I always visit the chat rooms because I like to know what the enemy is thinking. But this kind of anti-bush stuff makes them verrry happy!
69 posted on 07/14/2003 11:08:35 AM PDT by areafiftyone (The U.N. needs a good Flush!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: CyberCowboy777
Who made the appointment of Justice O'Connor? The supposed conservative swing vote in the SCOTUS.

Yep... Bush can't change what is wrong with this country. Only a series of sweeping constitutional ammendments can change our country now. We have strolled a long ways down the path of government by a non-elected oligarchy.

Congress has to take it's power back.

70 posted on 07/14/2003 11:09:15 AM PDT by kjam22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: ApesForEvolution
You know you really should change your tag line to: Paid for by the Democratic National Committee; taking back America one vote at a time.
71 posted on 07/14/2003 11:09:26 AM PDT by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS
Very insightful and educational.

If indeed it's too late, (which I don't believe), the I'll be out at the lake if you need me.

If indeed it's too early, (and I believed a vote for Bush would slow America's slide - not fix but slow it; I viewed compassionate conservativism as a bridge to keep us moving towards a restored Constitutional Republic), then why is Bush moving hard left without even a tittle from so called conservatives?

Is embracing leftist ideals (like a new, big, fat drug entitlement versus a Medicare overhaul?) the bridge we want?
72 posted on 07/14/2003 11:10:10 AM PDT by ApesForEvolution ("The only way evil triumphs is if good men do nothing" E. Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson
You're the one pretending to be a conservative around here Mr. McCain.
73 posted on 07/14/2003 11:10:52 AM PDT by ApesForEvolution ("The only way evil triumphs is if good men do nothing" E. Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Abram
"Sorry...I am ready to vomit. Conservatives...wake up and smell the coffee...Enough of you defect and support the third parties and we will be paying Sweden-style taxes, the Consitution will be toilet paper in the White House's Lincoln Bedroom."

If conservatives would be objective about Bush, not stand for his leftist leanings and call him to the mat when he is wrong, versus blind pavlovian indifference to what is happening, then change within the GOP would occur. When the response to Bush's shenanigans is deafening in its silence from so called conservatives, they get fed up and don't vote GOP. As we all know.
74 posted on 07/14/2003 11:13:43 AM PDT by ApesForEvolution ("The only way evil triumphs is if good men do nothing" E. Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: CyberCowboy777
Ronald Wilson Reagan. I suppose you think RWR was a RINO.
75 posted on 07/14/2003 11:13:49 AM PDT by onyx (Name an honest democrat? I can't either!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: ApesForEvolution
Funny, you make even McCain seem rationale.
76 posted on 07/14/2003 11:15:21 AM PDT by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: All
THIS THREAD BROUGHT TO YOUR BY THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE AND THE ELECT HILLARY CLINTON CAMPAIGN. For information on contributing to Ms. Clinton's campaign, just ask the ape.
77 posted on 07/14/2003 11:17:06 AM PDT by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson
Slander and libel. It's all you have.

You can't defend Bush because his record is clearly defined and you HAVE no defense for it.

And, you gladly accept it; chew it up and swallow it. Instead of being part of the solution, you defend the problem.

In fact, it appears at times that you aren't capable of independent thought.
78 posted on 07/14/2003 11:17:13 AM PDT by ApesForEvolution ("The only way evil triumphs is if good men do nothing" E. Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Dane
The SCOTUS is a perfect example of RINO and CINO progression down the Liberal path.

Bush agreed with O'Connor and O'Connor is a liberal appointed by a Republican. He disagreed with Thomas and Scalia, two of the great conservative minds of our time.

So does it really matter if Bush appoints the next Justice? It does; if you care to get to hell at a more leisurely pace.

BTW - I will likely bite my lip and vote Bush in '04.
79 posted on 07/14/2003 11:17:38 AM PDT by CyberCowboy777 (They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

Comment #80 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 1,241-1,252 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson