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

Skip to comments.

BUSH'S REAL OPPOSITION: REPUBLICAN CONSERVATIVES
news/op/ed ^ | 3/28/2002 | Richard Reeves

Posted on 03/29/2002 3:08:59 PM PST by TLBSHOW

BUSH'S REAL OPPOSITION: REPUBLICAN CONSERVATIVES

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.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: bush
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 761-780781-800801-820821-834 last
To: seamole
Why don't y'all just stay at the FAB and FRN forums and play there?

As you are well aware, if I was able to access the FAB forum, you wouldn't still be a member of FR. I have not accessed the FRN site, except for a glance in over half a month.

821 posted on 03/30/2002 8:48:58 PM PST by Lucius Cornelius Sulla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 813 | View Replies]

To: vbmoneyspender
And I stand by the GOVERNMENT TAX FORM of 1913 that says that there is no such rate as is quoted on two of your sources. So I suggest that we get to the bottom of this and find out what happened. Reagan isn't wrong. Obviously, there is something in the tax charts that says that there was a tax rate of 50% in 1986 too. So rather than go round and round, let's get a solution. How about coming up with the Economic Recovery Act LAW of 1982 itself??

Come on, it is common sense: if there was no tax cut until 1986, there would have been no recovery. Use your head---you know that isn't right. So there is some glitch on these forms that we aren't seeing.

822 posted on 03/31/2002 5:27:58 AM PST by LS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 816 | View Replies]

To: BeAChooser
So we agree. You are confused.
823 posted on 03/31/2002 5:28:48 AM PST by LS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 812 | View Replies]

To: LS
So we agree. You are confused.

What? Have I reduced you to making "one-liners" now? Is that all you have left in your arsenal?

824 posted on 03/31/2002 7:25:54 AM PST by BeAChooser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 823 | View Replies]

To: BeAChooser
My arsenal remains full. But wasting ammo on dead bodies is uesless.
825 posted on 03/31/2002 8:30:04 AM PST by LS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 824 | View Replies]

To: LS
My arsenal remains full.

Yes, of confused democRAT notions.

The notion that the Clinton administration and DNC committed all sorts of horrible crimes but we should just "move on". The notion that Republicans can gain long term political advantage by having Bush violate his oath of office and ignore credible evidence of serious crimes like election tampering, blackmail of politicians and murder ... thus empowering democRATS to further commit further crimes. The notion that the GOP can win by FEARING the media, the courts and even what democRAT voters might think. The notion that voters can decide what they want without knowing the facts.

826 posted on 03/31/2002 8:39:50 AM PST by BeAChooser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 825 | View Replies]

To: BeAChooser
Yep. Dang them stupid voters. Don't have sense enough to watch FOX. That must be why its share is increasing.
827 posted on 03/31/2002 11:57:05 AM PST by LS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 826 | View Replies]

To: Mo1
This Country meant something to our founding fathers .. obviously it doesn't mean the same to you that you would even consider splitting up the country

Indeed it did mean something to them. So much so that they were willing to fight for it.

Freedom isn't going to return to us by some process of osmosis. It has to be fought for. Sooner or later.

828 posted on 03/31/2002 1:27:07 PM PST by inquest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 725 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
Redemption time for President Bush. Make voter fraud as big an issue as campaign finance reform. I can't for the life of me understand why CFR was more important than voter fraud. A fraudulent vote cancels a legitimate vote. It is bad enough that American citizens are willing to sell their vote but intolerable that illegals can vote and neither group has reprecusions. Voter ID has got to be the law of the land. Throw conservatives a bone Mr. President---You will be the big beneficiary if the dead and other inelegibles are rousted from the election process.
829 posted on 03/31/2002 2:24:09 PM PST by mountainfolk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: My2Cents
Just out of curiousity, how much soft money do you contribute to political organizations during each election cycle?

Soft money isn't the beef, and if you've been following the threads about CFR you would know this. It's about the 60 day moritorium on ads placed by grass-roots organizations. While hard money can be used, third parties are silenced. So, money you send to the NRA or the Sierra Club to get out the message are useless. That's the unconstitutional portion, and I'm hoping/betting the SCOTUS rules it unconstitutional.

830 posted on 03/31/2002 4:03:34 PM PST by cidrasm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 411 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
"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 had not read anything by Reeves in a while but after looking at this one, it's reassuring to know that he is as big a jackass as always.
831 posted on 03/31/2002 6:08:43 PM PST by Chi-townChief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: inquest
Indeed it did mean something to them. So much so that they were willing to fight for it.
Freedom isn't going to return to us by some process of osmosis. It has to be fought for. Sooner or later

So what are you saying ... we should bare arms against fellow american?? .. we show start another civil war???

Oh yea .. that will just solve our problems ..

Great idea ... NOT!!!

832 posted on 03/31/2002 8:49:54 PM PST by Mo1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 828 | View Replies]

To: Mo1
I was hoping that my statement would be taken with a dose of common sense. Hopefully I wasn't hoping in vain.

(Hint: the right tools for the right job)

833 posted on 04/01/2002 5:11:55 AM PST by inquest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 832 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
I agree. We cannot give Democrats the options of chosing a leader. It is about not letting the Dems chose, not about chosing someone, unfortunately. I'd rather have someone on the right than on the left. Jurisdiction of the poor is plain terrorism.
834 posted on 04/01/2002 5:17:36 AM PST by lavaroise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 761-780781-800801-820821-834 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