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

This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies.


Skip to comments.

Conservatives Question Dubya's Direction
INSIGHT magazine ^ | May 27, 2002 | Jamie Dettmer

Posted on 05/29/2002 10:02:01 AM PDT by Stand Watch Listen

Is George W. Bush becoming the president who just can't say no? Democrats like to paint him in dyed-in-the-wool conservative colors and portray him as even more of an ideological warrior than was Ronald Reagan.

Few would disagree that he is more conservative than was his father, but saying that leaves out a lot. In short, it lacks a recognition of President Bush's highly developed sense of pragmatism and his readiness to compromise —which is infuriating some conservative luminaries who argue his presidency so far is shaping up to be a disappointment when it comes to domestic policy.

Frustration was evident earlier in the year when the White House started backing moderate Republicans over conservatives in GOP primary races around the country. With spending on government programs set to increase by 22 percent from 1999 to 2003 in inflation-adjusted dollars, according to some analyses, grumbling about Bush is mounting within the Republican Party's conservative wing.

Spending on annually funded programs increased about 9 percent in the last two years of the Clinton administration. In the first two years of the Bush administration it is scheduled to grow nearly 15 percent.

Administration officials say they'll control spending once the current terrorist emergency has passed. But conservative critics say the boost in federal spending under Bush isn't just connected with Sept. 11, nor has there been a White House effort to offset additional dollars for defense and national security with reductions elsewhere.

The irate conservatives point to the president's May signing of the most expensive farm-subsidy package in U.S. history, despite objections even by some Republicans who called it a "protectionist boondoggle." Conservative critics say the measures will make U.S. farmers dependent on federal subsidies and that it represents a reversal in the congressional effort since the mid-1990s to curb a trend toward farm price supports. "We seem to have done a U-turn," said Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) when the bill was passed.

The chorus of conservative disapproval is most high-pitched when it comes to the president's failure so far to veto any legislation that has come his way from Congress, including the recent farm legislation. From libertarians at the Cato Institute to conservatives at the Progress and Freedom Foundation, concern is growing at Bush's reluctance to use his veto powers to curb the free-spending ways of Congress.

Conservatives, including some within his administration, fear Bush fails to appreciate that Congress will be brought to heel only when the White House fires off a veto or two. "Since the fall his aides have kept telling us that they will veto this bill and veto that bill but, when push comes to shove, nothing happens," says a prominent conservative leader.

So far, after nearly 16 months in office, Bush has not exercised a single veto. That contrasts with Reagan, who used to enjoy taunting the then Democrat-controlled Congress by urging Capitol Hill to "make my day" and approve bills he didn't like. Reagan vetoed 70 bills during his first term. Even the "kinder, gentler" George H.W. Bush was tougher than his son — he issued 44 vetoes.

The president's legislative-affairs director, Nick Calio, maintains that Bush often has been able to get his way just by calling attention to his veto power. He has cited a post-9/11 spending bill as an example of where Bush managed to secure some changes as a result of raising the specter of a veto.

But conservative critics are not persuaded. At a private strategy session in the winter, Bush tried to pre-empt complaints by assuring Republican senators that he wouldn't flinch from exercising his veto power. But he was careful not to provide any hostages to fortune by offering examples of what he would strike down.

One of the biggest conservative fears is that the president has bought into the notion that Sept. 11 prompted a sea change in the political outlook of ordinary Americans, causing them to be more willing to tolerate big government and increased government expenditures. Worse still, some argue, Bush is using the terrorism emergency to justify expenditures that have nothing to do with national security.

Cato senior fellow Tom Palmer recently bewailed Bush for justifying farm subsidies on defense grounds. "A national-security crisis provides countless opportunities to camouflage expansions of government power or spending as necessary for the common defense," Palmer cautioned in a Cato policy paper.

The Cato critic also cited the president's State of the Union address, in which Bush promised to increase the funding of police and fire departments, something previously considered to be the responsibility of local governments.

Bush supporters say the president simply is engaging in smart politics. Columnist Tony Blankley, who was the spokesman for former House speaker Newt Gingrich, argues that Bush and his political advisers have made the conscious decision not to get embroiled in a domestic-policy row with the Democrats this side of the congressional polls in November. The idea is to allow the White House to focus the election on national-security issues, which should benefit the GOP.

The downside, as far as conservatives are concerned, is that once the federal spending juggernaut starts picking up speed it can't easily be slowed.

Jamie Dettmer is a senior editor for Insight magazine.

email the author


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 181-182 next last
To: Stand Watch Listen
Look, conservatives are complaining that Bush "can't say no", and that he is violating conservative principles. Has anyone considered the idea that these are not part of Bush's principles? He hasn't violated any of his own principles at all - he was a free spender in Texas and he is a free spender now. Nothing has changed. Republicans just didn't bother to look at his record, and now are astonished when he does the same thing.

Please understand that I think President Bush is an honorable, faithful, and just man. I am delighted that he is leading our war effort. I just don't always agree with him.

41 posted on 05/29/2002 12:56:05 PM PDT by Zack Nguyen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WIMom
Looks like the DemocRATS are employing a new strategy to split Republican votes and some folks on here seem to be falling for it hook, line, and sinker. Cannot believe they cannot see what is happening! Doesn't take a genius to figure it out!

Thanks for the ping! Count me in on these articles and ping me anytime for support!

42 posted on 05/29/2002 12:56:06 PM PDT by PhiKapMom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Captainpaintball
Should the criticism be justified? Is it possible that the debate over "criticizing" Dubya is not about whether he can or should be criticized, but rather about whether the criticism leveled at him in any particular instance is justified?

It seems like everytime someone disagrees with a criticism of the president, someone else interprets that as disagreeing with the conclusion that the president should be criticized when criticism is appropriate.

Are there really people who think that millions of us freeper-types would stick by Dubya is he, say, killed someone or had sex with an intern in the Oval Office? Just because someone concludes that a particular criticism of Dubya is not well-founded does not mean that person is a blindly loyal idiot.

43 posted on 05/29/2002 12:56:09 PM PDT by fightinJAG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
How long does it take to order the borders of this country sealed to protect US citizens. I think 16 months is long enough.
44 posted on 05/29/2002 12:57:24 PM PDT by gunshy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: WIMom
With conservatives like GWB, who needs Liberals for enemies? You will likely not face the facts until its way too late...and even then, you may try to deny the obvious.

We are being betrayed on almost every core principal, because it will always be more expedient politically. My gut feel is that if we had a truly conservative Senate (and with 6 RINOS we are a long way from that) GWB would be chastising it. A truly conservative Senate would have shot down his education bill, the farm bill, the insane unilateral nuclear disarmament treaty with Russia, would be calling for proscecutions of the Clintons & McAulliff et al., not just moving on, and for discipline or removal of Norman ('No Armed Pilots') Maneta, etc.

45 posted on 05/29/2002 1:02:53 PM PDT by Paul Ross
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: antidisestablishment
To say this man has no backbone is like saying Hillary has no greed.

If Dubya had no backbone, you'd be hunkered down in your basement right now, cleaning your gasmask and taking your anti-anthrax pills, after having snuck out to bury your dead from the latest terrorist attack.

Sorry. You may find things to criticize Bush over, but lack of moral courage is not one of them. He does what he believes is right. You, apparently, just disagree with him on what is "right" is a given situation. Leave it at that.

46 posted on 05/29/2002 1:03:26 PM PDT by fightinJAG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: billva
If you listen to the anti-Bush pundits in the liberal media and the political misfits and malcontents hanging around FreeRepublic, some folks could conclude that Bushes Presidency has been a total failure. Nothing could be further from the truth.

This is certainly true if you are a liberal democrat. Bush is nothing more than an FDR and LBJ rerun. Use the war as cover to implement a liberal agenda.

47 posted on 05/29/2002 1:04:17 PM PDT by gunshy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: weikel
I think it's good to remember that Bush took office with virtually no mandate.

Considering he lost the popular vote, and was pilloried in the media as a moron, and took office with millions of people in this country convinced (wrongly of course) that he STOLE the election... and that a "repub" senator took the unprecedented step of defecting to give the Senate away to the dems... Bushie's done pretty damn fine for himself.

Politics is the art of the possible, not Fantasy World. With the unprecedentedly crappy hand Dubya was dealt, I believe he played it about as perfect as anyone ever could have.

Don't forget that Reagan had a 10 point mandate in '80, and a mega-landslide win in '84. Even Bush #41 had a solid 8 point victory in '88.

If we get back the Senate and keep the House, watch how skillfully Bush will push the Conservative agenda.

48 posted on 05/29/2002 1:05:21 PM PDT by berned
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: berned
Yeah but the thing was he was a lot more conservative when he had "no mandate"( It only matters that you win IMHO. By how much and by what means fair or foul matters little after the fact). He tilted leftward after his approval rating has been high.
49 posted on 05/29/2002 1:08:14 PM PDT by weikel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: ThomasJefferson
Well, some of us patients have figured it out. The question is, are we enough and is there still time, or is the body terminal? We will surely find out. Politics is, at best, a perverse game of compromise, guile, and dirty dealings. Doesn't leave a whole lot of room for concepts like justice, service, and honor. Not, at least, with our current crop of politicians -- I cannot grace them with the term "statesmen", because, they're not. I see Democrats and Republicans as all too often just different sides of the same counterfeit coin.

As other posters have noted here, though, if the Repubs can gain back the Senate majority, we may see the conservative agenda rise from the ashes. No one would be happier to see that than myself. I don't know how well it will counter the damage already done, though, with police-state crap like the "PATRIOT" act, CFR, etc. already enacted.


50 posted on 05/29/2002 1:11:13 PM PDT by Joe Brower
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: antidisestablishment
Bump. Totally devastating analysis to the Bush-Bots. Their delusions are clearly destroyed, but yet are too stubborn to face the facts which you cogently detailed. Particularly galling to all conservatives was GWB's inaction on the Clinton EO's , and then this character had the gall to claim credit for having gotten rid of a bunch. This is the kind of thing that Karl Rove is infamous for: Claiming Conservative Credit for something which (a) Was Never Actually Done, and/or (b) Was Never conservative.
51 posted on 05/29/2002 1:14:43 PM PDT by Paul Ross
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower
I don't know how well it will counter the damage already done, though, with police-state crap like the "PATRIOT" act, CFR, etc. already enacted.

It should be noted that those terrible laws were enacted with Republicans as confederates of the Democrats. It's not like the Dems did it under the cover of darkness. If people are waiting for a majority in congress and the White House to "save" them from all this BS, they will be waiting a long time.

52 posted on 05/29/2002 1:15:40 PM PDT by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: arkfreepdom
More and more demowits post on this sight daily. Wonder if they think we are stupid enough to think they are for real?

I for one am no demowit, and have left the big R party for the I party.

Some of us have taken our heads out of the sand.

And just who do you think is going to pay for the 50% increase in foreign aid promised by "W"??? Nice we got a tax cut eh?? I suppose this money for 3rd world countries will just magically appear.. (newly printed probably). Hopefully the color won't rub off on the next batch. Maybe more money to put a new hollogram on it too... gheesh!! wake up pal!

DL

53 posted on 05/29/2002 1:16:45 PM PDT by Pee_Oui
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: fightinJAG
Oh he has a backbone all right. A bipartisan LIBERAL backbone is what we are beginning to see. And absolutely no regard for the opinions of those who know more than he does about our nuclear defenses and rightfully regard his treasonous treaty with the Russians as the last straw.
54 posted on 05/29/2002 1:18:48 PM PDT by Paul Ross
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom
Thanks Mom, you too. What are mom's for?
55 posted on 05/29/2002 1:28:45 PM PDT by WIMom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: arkfreepdom
More and more demowits post on this sight daily. Wonder if they think we are stupid enough to think they are for real?

WTF do you know about anything? Obviously not much if you think all of the pissed off conservatives I know very well on this site and in real life are all just playing some kind of strange game.

It couldn't POSSIBLY be that many conservatives take huge exception to a spendthrift, big government loving RINO who doesn't mind signing unconstitutional legislation for political points.

If you want to talk about stupid, look in the effen mirror. Your comment is about the f***ing stupidest I've seen in over 4 years here.

56 posted on 05/29/2002 1:30:21 PM PDT by AAABEST
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross
So you are willing to let the Democrats take control? Do you want to see us being ruled by Queen Hillary, King Joe or any one of their cronies? Listen, I'm not a fanatic Bush supporter, but I see reality. The liberals have to be taken out. Any third party candidate will put control right back into the hands of the democrats. The chance for any conservate agenda will be lost. Is that what you want? It's a reality and it will happen.
57 posted on 05/29/2002 1:33:25 PM PDT by WIMom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Pee_Oui
Good luck and I hope the dims send you a thank you later.
58 posted on 05/29/2002 1:34:31 PM PDT by arkfreepdom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: AAABEST
Take exceptions to the RINO's, but comparing Bush to some demowit is the stupidest thing I've read on these pages. You idiots are duped by anarchists and demo's. BTW...you're use of the English language is truly masterful.
59 posted on 05/29/2002 1:40:52 PM PDT by arkfreepdom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: arkfreepdom
later=letter
60 posted on 05/29/2002 1:41:25 PM PDT by arkfreepdom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 181-182 next 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