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.
Would you rather have [Gore, Clinton, Hillary]?
It's not so bad. They all do it.
We don't need principles. We need to win.
It's not W's job to decide what is Constitutional.
Did I get them all?
If CFR is a bad idea for whatever reason, fine, veto it. Just don't veto it because you think you know it is "unconstitutional."
Say, for example, "In my view, this bill shuts some people out of political debate and I think that's bad, so I'm vetoing this bill." That result may or may not be achieved constitutionally, but that doesn't matter in this example. It's just the president's opinion that it is a bad bill, that the bad it effects on the campaign system outweighs the good. So you disagree with Bush's view that the good in the bill outweighs the bad. Okay. But this is not abandoning the Constitution, especially when he knew the minute he signed it, the lawsuits would be filed to get the matter resolved by the judicial branch.
What makes you so sure the SC will rule against this bill??
I have taken your point of view for now and I see no action that is appropriate. Heck even trying to convince someone else that Bush sold us out isn't worth doing because, well, he already sold us. There is nothing left to redeem if he sold us.
So, upon adopting your view point there is no hope for any acceptable outcome therefore there is no point in a) worrying about voting b) worrying about how Bush takes care of any issues c) worrying about whether liberals continue to gain power.
Its all over. Lets just graciously hand over the Keyes (pun intened) to the Liberals, shut off the lights in CA, and go home.
The argument that the negative effects on my free speech don't offset the 'positive' improvements to campaigns is, in fact, his opinion on the bill.
If he knew the minute he signed it that the Supreme Court would strike down the 'bad' parts, he knew it was Unconstitutional. He took an oath to uphold the Constitution. That's what I pay him for.
No difference. But this is a political website and we are discussing politics, after all. Hence the term, political compromise.
It seems to me that CFR breached the boundaries (the Constitution)...
President Bush said he thought parts of CFR, were constitutionally questionable.
Have no fear, the USSC will overturn the issue ad bans, which are a direct infringement of our second amendment right to freedom of speech.
Good idea. They have no gov't, we can start fresh with a constitution that has a clause for automatic removal of a president if its ever found that he signed an unconstitutional bill.
Heck even trying to convince someone else that Bush sold us out isn't worth doing because, well, he already sold us. There is nothing left to redeem if he sold us.
Not a bad point.
Seems to me its much easier to slam my point of view than advance yours. So, then, what now?
Your leading, I'm following but I warn you I don't dance well.
Sorry, but that's just never going to work for me.
Nobody wants to respond to this, we are just told to move along and support the Party or thus engaged in reductio absurdum argument.
Its way past my bedtime but I will leave you with one piece of advise. Get your CPA to do your projections. He shouldn't miss that you run into ALT min tax. No telling what else you are missing.
Its still tax season and I need my beauty sleep.
I see him appointing big-time conservatives in recess appointments. I see us gaining back an edge in the judiciary which dictates the morale compass this country follows.
Unless he totally caves in this war then I'd not vote for anyone but him; because the alternative is too frightening. I think its ridiculous to hold someone in this war between the parties to such a high bar; there is a reason no TRUE PUBLIC conservative could be elected in the election.
You people need to chill for a few months and the re-evaluate the fallout.
Why leave now? I set up your soapbox for you. I think you know the same thing I do...neither side wins on this one.
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.