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.
What do you say to my bottom line question, posted above?
I used the example I did precisely because it was Bush's opinion of the bill. I'm saying it seems to me you disagree with him vehemently on the conclusion that the good in the bill outweighs the bad. Cato, I feel your pain and I am not being sarcastic. I, too, am passionate about our rights and freedoms as Americans. But I just can't agree that we can or should expect a president to determine a bill's constitutionality. He can determine its value---and in this, in your view, he apparently failed and big-time---but constitutionality? No.
Thanks for the civil discussion, anyway.
I appreciate your point of view, but I disagree. The branches of government have been out of whack for years, but that's not the point. The President wasn't meant to be Congress' rubber stamp. If that were the case, we wouldn't need a President.
People like me who actually take what other people SAY and BELIEVE and THINK into consideration?
People like me who don't think that anybody who disagrees with me is a traitor, or wants to shred the Constitution, or doesn't understand plain English, or isn't a real conservative?
I can see how people like myself bug the crap out of you. And I am SO GLAD I don't know anybody in my real life like you; you're so strident life around you must be miserable. God help anybody who isn't perfect or disagrees with you.
Looks like some are slow learners. You never let one branch of government get by with subverting the Constitution much less two of them then on the chance a yet third branch {who's record is at best poor on such matters of the Constitution} stop tyranny. Didn't the Impeachment of Clinton teach anyone anything?
The bill as written should have never left congress. I'll go further it should have died in comittee. Yet it made it not only past two houses but POTUS as well. We have been in a Constitutional crisis for nearly 4 years now with two of three branches out to lunch on upholding their oath to defend the Constitution.
I do have to wonder if this law was written to kill every first born male child if the people would be willing to wait on the USSC? Or better yet kill their first born male as it has become law until USSC decides if it will even hear the case at all and overturn it as being UnConstitutional? This was dangerous precedent on the part of congress and POTUS. People it seems forget a trial or challange of this law in no way means the USSC will even bother to hear it at all.
No were not talking about first born males. But we are talking about the 1st ammendment as we know it to be. We are gambling away our childrens future in hopes the USSC will bail out bad judgement {in the very least} on the part of two branches of governmnet who swear an oath to do better than that.
But to make my point very clear we indeed daily kill our first born males with the blessing of the USSC. We call it abortion. Yet the right to LIFE/ Liberty, and persuit of happiness is the declaration foundation of our nation. How much further do we lower the standard? Better yet is there a standard left to lower in our government?
Good.
And us gurls find no pleasure in debating Master de'baters either....now play nice..before I break out that can o' B*&*^ Slap.....I may be "little"..but i pack a powerful punch....
Notice that they have now moved on to THIS ridiculous argument. "What would it take for you to hate him?"
I'm beginning to think the one thing Bush could do that would send me over the edge is to agree with THEM.
I'm not here to sway you. I'm here to beat the political crap outta you. =^)
Seriously. I don't deal in hypothetical questions. Besides, I'm not running for office. Yet.
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.