Posted on 03/29/2002 3:08:59 PM PST by TLBSHOW
WASHINGTON --
It looks as if President Bush 's honeymoon is over. He's fine with the American people -- his personal approval rating is still in the 80 percent range -- but his own natives, Republican movement conservatives, are already restless.
Like Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan before him, Bush is already being branded as an appeaser of liberals and a sellout on a range of issues dear to the right-side hearts of many of his party's faithful. These are, it must be mentioned, impossible people who, more often than not, prefer to lose on principle than win through compromise.
They hate Washington and all it stands for, which is compromise and government of all the people. Unfortunately for them, presidents, even their own, have to work in this town -- and that means compromising, however reluctantly, with the opposition in Congress and the vast bureaucracies of governance and liberal constituencies.
Like baseball, it happens every spring. This year, even with overwhelming conservative (and liberal, too) support of the president in our officially undeclared war on terrorism, there are the right's gripes of the moment:
The president from Texas, lusting for Hispanic votes in his own state and in California, is too friendly with Mexico, pushing amnesty for illegal immigrants from south of the Rio Grande and San Diego.
He has sold out free-traders by imposing old-fashioned tariffs on the import of foreign steel -- or he is just chasing Democratic voters in Pennsylvania and West Virginia.
He may have been holding his nose when he did it, but he signed the campaign-finance reform bill pushed by Democratic senator Russell Feingold of Wisconsin and apostate Republican senator John McCain of Arizona.
As part of the war effort, he is advocating a 50 percent increase in the United States' minuscule foreign aid program. This one rebukes conservatives who were determined to set in stone the idea that there is no connection between poverty in the poor regions of the world and hatred and terrorism directed at the richest of nations, the United States.
He is pushing Israel to compromise in its endless war against the Palestinians in the occupied territories of Gaza and the West Bank.
He is pushing education policy and legislation that would increase federal influence in states, counties and towns across the country -- a big no-no to movement conservatives.
He is not pushing tax cuts the way he did during the campaign, partly because war and educational reform cost huge amounts of taxpayer revenues. Most of this was bound to happen, and any ideological president, Republican or Democrat, is eventually forced to betray campaign promises and core constituencies. The only difference this time is that because of continuing public support for military action (and its high costs), Bush is beginning to take more flak from his own kind than from the loyal opposition.
In the conservatives' favorite newspaper, The Washington Times, political columnist Donald Lambro began a news analysis last week by saying: "President Bush's about-face on trade tariffs, stricter campaign-finance regulations and other deviations from Republican doctrine is beginning to anger his conservative foot soldiers but does not seem to be cutting into his overall popularity -- yet."
John Berthoud, president of the National Taxpayers Union, puts it this way: "We're very disappointed about these new tariffs on steel and lumber. That's two new tax hikes on the American people. ... There's a concern among our members that in his effort to build and keep this coalition for the war, which is certainly needed, he's given Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle and the forces of big government a free pass."
Phyllis Schlafly, president of the Eagle Forum, added: "He's been getting a pass from us until now, but the amnesty bill is what tipped it over for us. I agree with Sen. Robert Byrd (a Democrat). This is 'sheer lunacy.' ... A lot of people thought Bush's education bill was terrible. But we didn't rant and rave about it because we wanted to support him on the war. That's changed. The amnesty bill is the hot issue out here. It's out of sync with what grassroots Americans want."
Finally, Stephen Moore, president of the conservative Club for Growth, said: "The danger for us is that Bush may begin to take the conservatives for granted, and you are seeing some signs of that happening with the steel tariff decision, foreign aid and other spending increases in the budget."
So it goes. There is nothing new about this. In the 1970s, William F. Buckley and other movement conservative leaders publicly "suspended" their support of President Richard Nixon because of what they considered his liberal moves toward welfare reform, tariffs and other issues considered part of the liberal domestic agenda -- to say nothing of his reaching out to communist China.
But in the end, Nixon kept them in line by pushing the war in Vietnam beyond reasonable limits. George Bush could accomplish the same political goal of uniting conservative support by continuing to push the war on terrorism into far nooks and crannies of the whole world.
IIRC, we have that other paragon of Conservative principles, Ronald Reagan to thank for that.
What's your point, oh gifted one?
In my book, negotiation is part of the compromise process. Political compromise is the settlement of differences reached by mutual concessions and blending qualities of two different things. A person that is not open to any type of tax cuts, isn't open to compromise either. Example. Bush wanted a $1.6 trillion tax cut and the Democrats wanted a $900 billion tax cut. The two sides compromised and decided on a $1.35 trillion tax cut.
If we have come to a point in history where the president can actually sign a bill that he knows won't be held constitutional just for political gain then we have come to a threshold point where the country has given up all that you and I hold dear. So whats the point of continuing this charade. Lets just give up and let the worst of the culprits take over.
And again....I don't understand your reference to him as "KING GEORGE" illustrative tho that may be....I liken that to X42's self-absorbed impression of himself...
I find it interesting that most of the FReepers who aren't happy with the President regarding CFR are men, men who don't or can't understand his STRATEGERY...but most of the FReeper women can and do.
I just don't like the way Democrats think. Bill Clinton and his friends don't see anything wrong with tax increases, Hollywood, and corruption.
I also don't like the way some Republicans expect PERFECTION from Pres. Bush even though, they themselves, lead lives of compromise with their employers and families.
I especially don't like Hillary, in fact, DESPISE might be a better word. Because of her and her Democrat husband, little children learned about oral sex and lost their innocence.
I like Pres. Bush and Rumsfeld a lot. Bush isn't perfect. Who is? We will never have a perfectly conservative president that can get elected. I intend to give Bush a chance with all the challenges that face him, and in the end, vote for him.
For crying out loud. Negotiation is by definition compromise. If an item is no-negotiable no compromise is possible.
Come to think of it, that's what they use the (Un-Constitutional) Executive Order for anyway.
Yes, again, of course Bubba, as any president, could have an opinion on the matter and he could consult with legions of lawyers and scholars (or not). But (setting aside your argument re FDR) in our system of government it is the judiciary that interprets the Constitution in binding decisions. Opponents would be screaming--and rightly, I think---that Bubba should send the law up the judicial pipeline, not give some bogus, extra-constitutional humma-humma about how he thinks---HE THINKS---the bill is unconstitutional.
The protection for us little people, as I have already pointed out, is that, especially if the law is grossly, flagrantly violative of constitutional guarantees, a judge will stay its operation. If it's not a close question---IOW, if even the courts find it a difficult case to analyze---then what would that say about a president's unwillingness to make the constitutional call? Do you want to accord every president, even the Bubbas, the prescience to divine what the Supreme Court would say in every case?
I stand by my view that Bush's signing CFR hardly constitutes "abandonment" of the Constitution. And again, if CFR is as bad as many here think, it's unlikely it will EVER go into effect. It'll be stayed all the way through appeals and then killed.
P.S. I had a "Bush/Quayle" sticker on my rattletrap you-know-how-many years ago and some little nitwit at the Honda place took it upon himself to remove it "for" me when I took the car in for service.
That's telling'em OneidaM! =^)
Political compromise is the settlement of differences reached by mutual concessions and blending qualities of two different things.
Again, I'm forced to use my business experience. In any deal I've ever negotiated I've expected to compromise, but there were boundaries...in this case civil law, and there was the minimum I would accept.
It seems to me that CFR breached the boundaries (the Constitution), but must have given W the minimum he would accept. While I can't imagine what this was, I'll agree to it.
The idea of negotiating myself into a position that favors the other side in return for future concessions is something I've never done. Agreeing to something that is against the law is also something I couldn't do.
Hey I have pretty eyes too. But the fact that it is a non issue to most voters is also a great reason not to sign it also, is it not?
Now to me, freedom of speech is more than an issue, it is my RIGHT.
Based on the crimes that have been reported here since Wednesday I'd say we have a huge problem on our hands. Maybe we can get the SC to reconsider the Florida thingee.
If you're saying that I (personally) would support trampling the Constitution in return for advancement of my own ideology, you're wrong. Part of the core of my ideology is that we don't trample the Constitution.
Bush/Quayle huh?
Don't you think by having the SCOTUS rule this unconstitutional and taking it off the table for RINO's like McCain, and Dems is not a good thing?? Can you see the strategery in that move???
And regarding your right to free speech...I am engaging you in debate...or can't you see that??? Where do you get the notion I am trying to stiffle your right???
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.