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

Skip to comments.

George F. Will:President Bush has turned conservatism on its head, infuriating many supporters
The Union Leader, Manchester, NH ^ | July 24, 2003 | George F. Will

Posted on 07/24/2003 4:00:40 AM PDT by RJCogburn

Edited on 07/24/2003 4:39:12 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]

THIS IS THE is the summer of conservatives? discontent. Conservatism has been disoriented by events in the last several weeks. Cumulatively, foreign and domestic developments constitute an identity crisis of conservatism, which is being recast ? and perhaps rendered incoherent.

George W. Bush may be the most conservative person to serve as President since Calvin Coolidge. Yet his Presidency is coinciding with, and is in some instances initiating or ratifying, developments disconcerting to four factions within conservatism. The faction that focuses on foreign policy has four core principles: Preserve U.S. sovereignty and freedom of action by marginalizing the United Nations. Reserve military interventions for reasons of U.S. national security, not altruism. Avoid peacekeeping operations that compromise the military?s war-fighting proficiencies. Beware of the political hubris inherent in the intensely unconservative project of ?nation-building.?


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: bushdoctrine; conservatism; georgefwill
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 341-348 next last
To: VRWC_minion
Takes time to starve a beast.

How do you starve the beast by raising non-defense discretionary outlays by 18 percent and vetoing zero spending bills?

141 posted on 07/24/2003 7:59:56 AM PDT by MrLeRoy (The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. - Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

Comment #142 Removed by Moderator

To: RJCogburn
I don't want Big Stupid Government, especially one that's getting bigger and dumber.

So why would I even consider voting for someone who is creating a bigger, dumber government? If those were my only choices, I wouldn't vote.

Fortunately, democRats and Republicrats aren't the only choices.

143 posted on 07/24/2003 8:00:26 AM PDT by Hank Rearden (Dick Gephardt. Before he dicks you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
So is the White House. Where's that veto stamp?

Stamped right across your forehead, for you vetoing any smeblance of rationality on how to negotiate the mine field called modern American politics.

144 posted on 07/24/2003 8:01:10 AM PDT by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: hoi-polloi
That I just sit down, shut up, and take it?

The Bushbots would prefer that you bend over, grab your ankles, and take it.

145 posted on 07/24/2003 8:02:07 AM PDT by MrLeRoy (The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. - Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

Comment #146 Removed by Moderator

To: Dane
So is the White House. Where's that veto stamp?

Stamped right across your forehead, for you vetoing any smeblance of rationality on how to negotiate the mine field called modern American politics.

Reagan had the guts to veto 22 bills in his first three years. Remember how he did in his re-election bid?

147 posted on 07/24/2003 8:03:39 AM PDT by MrLeRoy (The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. - Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: _Jim
Why doesn't Bush at least start the dialogue for small government? He has the power of the presidency to create a national debate.
148 posted on 07/24/2003 8:03:52 AM PDT by Stew Padasso (pro-rock.com - bsnn.net - libertyteeth.com - BFD - Puff Puff Ping)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
The Bushbots would prefer that you bend over, grab your ankles, and take it.

Well your the expert in that dept. seeing how you like to take it from demos who you help elect in your quioxtic search of political purity.

149 posted on 07/24/2003 8:04:43 AM PDT by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
The onllway to bring spending down is to starve the beast. Frankly, I'd rather see the elderly get health care than use the money for the favorite pork of the day.

122 posted on 07/24/2003 7:50 AM PDT by VRWC_minion (Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and most are right)

------------------------

Here's a novel idea long since lost on this site. GIVE IT BACK TO THE PEOPLE THAT IT WAS TAKEN FROM.

This redistribution of the wealth Via Medicare Drug Coverage is plain sick.

You take it under duress from the poorest generation alive and hand it to the Richest.

And you call yourself a conservative? Really...

HOw about instead of playing socialism lite, we do what we should do. Call the Politicians we put in office to do the right thing, NOT WHAT IS POPULAR. That was the whole point of having a Representative Republic.

We were NOT founded on Mob Rule. That whole doing what is popular, would have put Albore in office.

150 posted on 07/24/2003 8:04:56 AM PDT by Area51
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

Comment #151 Removed by Moderator

To: RJCogburn
*
152 posted on 07/24/2003 8:07:15 AM PDT by BunnySlippers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dane
demos who you help elect

I never voted in an election where a Dem won by a single vote.

153 posted on 07/24/2003 8:07:26 AM PDT by MrLeRoy (The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. - Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
How do you starve the beast by raising non-defense discretionary outlays by 18 percent and vetoing zero spending bills?

The politico's will always spend their income plus whatever they can deficit spend. That's a time honored given.

The strategy then is to lower the income figure and funnel the spending. In the case of education spending, the No child left behind bill was a Trojan Horse which will change the way schools work.

I agree, their is a problem with folks who want instant gratification and who cannot project results beyond lunch today. They haven't got a clue about long term strategy.

154 posted on 07/24/2003 8:08:01 AM PDT by VRWC_minion (Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and most are right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
Reagan had the guts to veto 22 bills in his first three years. Remember how he did in his re-election bid?

Yep, he still had big deficts and won re-election against a weak opponent, Walter Mondale. He also put tariffs on mortorcycles and steel in 84.

When are we going to see the JPEG and Gif from you with Reagan in tar and feathers, for his "political impurity".

155 posted on 07/24/2003 8:08:14 AM PDT by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: Consort
I am in Awe.

Don't you mean "shock and awe"? Oh, and you failed to answer the question. OK, I'll answer it for you: It's Bush and the GOP until something better comes along. Don't whine.


139 posted on 07/24/2003 7:59 AM PDT by Consort




I won't. I'LL VOTE.

Ask Papa Bush how that attitude worked out for his reelection bid. You piss on the Right they WILL send you packing.

Someone better tell Rove to zip up his pants. Or someone is gonna come along LONG before you or Dubya think.
156 posted on 07/24/2003 8:10:47 AM PDT by Area51
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
the No child left behind bill was a Trojan Horse which will change the way schools work.

How? More federal control?

long term strategy.

Let the me-too Republicans conduct their alleged "long term strategy" with their own money.

157 posted on 07/24/2003 8:11:20 AM PDT by MrLeRoy (The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. - Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: hoi-polloi
Thanks for proving my point that you are advocating for expansion of the federal government at any means.

That's a non sequitur.

So, are you suggesting I don't write them? That I don't make contact with them?.

I didn't say that.

That I just sit down, shut up, and take it?

For Democrats: You the right to remain silent. For Republicans: Silence is golden. That is directed to whiners.

And some on this board question whether or not I understand how the process works?

It doesn't matter to me.

158 posted on 07/24/2003 8:11:27 AM PDT by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
I never voted in an election where a Dem won by a single vote.

Hey the dem still won, such as in 92 when Perot took away votes.

Sure he got 19%, but the Clintons got the real prize, the Presidency. The power to put Janet Reno as Attorney General, Madeline Albright letting North Korea get nuclear weapons, etc. etc.

159 posted on 07/24/2003 8:11:45 AM PDT by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: 4ConservativeJustices
The President is rightly reluctant to endorse a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a heterosexual institution: constitutionalizing social policy is generally unwise. But the administration’s principal objective may be to avoid fights about cultural questions. Two weeks ago the administration reaffirmed the irrational and unfair implementation standards of the Title IX ban on sex discrimination in college athletics. Those standards are now immortal, having received a conservative administration’s approval.

Here is the problem: if the Bush Administration were truly advancing a bold conservative agenda principally sound but politically risky, I and many others would be willing to accept large government spending, or giving in here and there. I would understand that it is the price of doing something truly extraordinary.

The problem is, Bush isn't advancing anywhere except the war on terror. And he doesn't have to give the Democrats squat for that! The war has been fabulously popular and will likely remain so. Bush isn't doing anything especially risky in the pro-life area, he doesn't seem to care about the traditional family, he won't cut government, he doesn't care about affirmative action, he won't stand for vouchers, etc., etc.

That is what makes the liberal tendencies so hard to take. It doesn't seem to be toward any larger conservative purpose. Bush just isn't uncomfortable with moderate and left-of-center tendencies.

160 posted on 07/24/2003 8:12:16 AM PDT by Zack Nguyen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 341-348 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