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.
"I George Walker Bush, do solemnly swear, that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States. And will to the best of my abilities, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. So help me God."
"He cannot possibly KNOW it's unconstitutional"
"When people lose faith in their institutions they trust to enforce the law, justice is no longer possible."
John Ashcroft - Source
"Were of the people and by the people and for the people. Thats the motto of our campaign"
George W. Bush - Source: Remarks in Eau Claire, Wisconsin Oct 18, 2000
"Ill put competent judges on the bench, people who will strictly interpret the Constitution and will not use the bench to write social policy. I believe that the judges ought not to take the place of the legislative branch of government, that theyre appointed for life and that they ought to look at the Constitution as sacred. I dont believe in liberal, activist judges. I believe in strict constructionists. And those are the kind of judges I will appoint."
George W. Bush - Source: Presidential debate, Boston MA Oct 3, 2000
"Im the only one on the stage whos appointed judges. And my judges strictly interpret the Constitution. And thats what I hope all of us would do."
George W. Bush - Source: Republican Debate in Durham, NH Jan 6, 2000
"I believe in freedom of speech"
George W. Bush - Source: GOP debate in Los Angeles Mar 2, 2000.
Push Polls Help Bush Craft Anti-Gore Message
"This is a man who will say anything to get elected,"
George W. Bush - March 12, 2000 news conference in Plant City, Fla. - Source
"Should President Bush Sign the Campaign Finance Reform Bill Into Law?":
Day 6, 05:44 PM EST (Results are delayed 15 minutes)
Total Votes: 34,201
|
Texas GOP U.S. Senate Candidate Opposes Unconstitutional Campaign Finance Bill
"The current bill being considered to change the campaign election laws is patently unconstitutional, says Douglas Deffenbaugh, GOP candidate for United States Senate.
Mr. Deffenbaugh goes on to say, "This is a direct frontal assault by our government on our freedom of speech rights; it is the most egregious grab for power and attempt to silence citizens in the history of this country. A United States Senator needs to be a statesman and stand up to defend the Constitution in circumstances like these."
Bush signs Campaign Reform, NRA Sues
Bush Signs Campaign Finance Law, Collects Funds
Bush signs campaign finance bill
Statement by the President: "... I will sign (CFR) into law."
Bush Says Will Sign Campaign Finance Bill
LIAR - President Bush Outlines CFR Principles
"A Betrayal" - Some advice for Bush on campaign-finance reform legislation
RUSH SAYS BUSH IS BLOWING IT, THIS IS A CONSTITUTION ISSUE
President Bush Jokes About Signing Unconstitutional CFR Bill
A DAY IN THE LIFE OF GEORGE W. BUSH
Statement by the President
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
March 20, 2002
Statement by the President
Like many Republicans and Democrats in the Congress, I support common-sense reforms to end abuses in our campaign finance system. The reforms passed today, while flawed in some areas, still improve the current system overall, and I will sign them into law.
The legislation makes some important progress on the timeliness of disclosure, individual contribution limits, and banning soft money from corporations and labor unions, but it does present some legitimate constitutional questions. I continue to believe the best reform is full and timely disclosure of campaign contributions.
Return to this article at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020320-21.html
The George W. Bush Lie
ABC News's This Week on January 23, 2000:
GEORGE F. WILL: I want to see if you agree with those who say it would be bad for the First Amendment? I know you're not a lawyer, you say that with some pride, but do you think a president, and we've got a lot of non-lawyer presidents, has a duty to make an independent judgment of what is and is not constitutional, and veto bills that, in his judgment, he thinks are unconstitutional?
GOV. BUSH: I do.
GEORGE WILL: In which case, would you veto the McCain-Feingold bill, or the Shays-Meehan bill?
GOV. BUSH: That's an interesting question. I - I - yes I would.
Source
Phony campaign finance reform: Joseph Farah urges citizens to fight further government control
I know he's conservative, I know he's conservative,
I know he's conservative, I know he's conservative,
I know he's conservative, I know he's conservative,
I know he's conservative, I know he's conservative,
I know he's conservative, I know he's conservative
What does he need to do -- appear at the Democratic convention?
I see him appointing big-time conservatives in recess appointments.
Not a chance.
I see us gaining back an edge in the judiciary which dictates the morale compass this country follows.
Meanwhile the parties move closer to each other and the country moves closer to Socialism. And we circle jerk on this forum over moral relativism. Sounds good to me. 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.
And so you will be moving to what country shortly? You need to realize Bush IS president, whether you like it or not, he's who we have, and nothing you can type in a box on the internet is going to change that. So I say you should just opt out, stop thinking about politics, and let the rest of us keep the world free while you sit on your duff and whine.
You're going to be mightly miserable the next three years.
And we were doing so good and you had to go and spoil everything.
I'll leave you with this thought.
Politics has been part of American history, since the days of the Founding Fathers and even before. People forget, the Founders were politicians at heart. How do you think they reached a final draft on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights? They negotiated and they compromised. The Founders appreciated politics and knew how to play political hardball with the best of them.
President Bush hasn't compromised away the Constitution. Get real!!! Such rhetoric is way outta line.
I'm a reluctant Party member anyway and feel govt is a necessary evil. All of my picks are the better of evils.
Bush is doing a great job with the war and that is his one primary achievement. Any bill that is an obvious limitation on free speech is a HUGE negative to overcome.
Having said that politicians have to earn my vote and I'm open minded to them. Parties, that Ive worked hard for and contributed mightily to - lose my confidence and registration very quickly.
All I am saying is, think about it, bottom line, do you really want presidents (remember the Bubba) killing a bill because they think (or spin) that it is unconstitutional? Should the people have their day in court or not? If so, when and under what circumstances?
This isn't to say there isn't reason to be p.o.'d about CFR. I'm just harping on the fact that, whatever people want to blame Bush for, you can't blame him for not doing the Supreme Court's job. Be mad that, in your view, he signed a really bad bill, but don't add your reasoned voice to the hyperventilated rhetoric about Bush "abandoning" the Constitution.
The knee-jerk reaction of everyone here to label push as a traitor to the country is dispicable.
Funny you should say that...I'm working on that, as my wife has an EU passport. I'd have to go with Ireland.
You need to realize Bush IS president, whether you like it or not, he's who we have, and nothing you can type in a box on the internet is going to change that.
No argument.
So I say you should just opt out, stop thinking about politics, and let the rest of us keep the world free while you sit on your duff and whine.
Yes, you do that. With people like you protecting the Constitution I'll have nothing to worry about. And, of course, anyone who insists that principle and the Constitution trump politics is whining.
Hey Beavis she said dolt uh hu uh huhunuhuhu
Then act like one and critique your Pres. back to the right
SLAM, BAM, THANK YOU MA'AM... er, I mean Howlin.
Yes. Yes I do. That's the way it was intended to work.
you can't blame him for not doing the Supreme Court's job.
I think you have it backwards. The Supreme Court is doing his job. And Congress'.
Yep, that's me. I thought I was just a whiner. Oh, wait, that is a DU member.
The knee-jerk reaction of everyone here to label push as a traitor to the country is dispicable.
Who's PUSH? If you mean Bush, I didn't say he was a traitor. I said he was a pu--y.
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.