Conservatives Question Dubya's Direction

INSIGHT magazine ^ | May 27, 2002 | Jamie Dettmer

[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

[PhiKapMom]

You can say that again -- this feels like back during the primaries on here! And then the general election! Seems like we have been doing this for a long time -- Defending Pres Bush and before that when he was Governor Bush!

[WIMom]

It's not even so much as defending Bush, but defending conservatives in general. I'm amazed at the 'so called' conservatives here willing to give control to the dems. It will be impossible to advance conservative ideals through a dem controlled government.

[RickyJ]

Fine and dandy...conservatives do not like big government but this conservative is willing to give Bush a pass - a lengthy one - because there are much larger issues right now in case the CATO Institute hasn't noticed! Like trying to prevent a third world war from igniting!

Please tell me how welfare for farmers is going to prevent a third world war?

[RickyJ]

It will be impossible to advance conservative ideals through a dem controlled government.

Right now it's impossible to advance conservative ideals with a republican controlled government.

[AAABEST]

It will be impossible to advance conservative ideals through a dem controlled government.

Will be? It's NOW impossible to advance conservative ideals with the current boat of pandering, self serving RINOS.

They could all kiss my ass at this point. As hard as I worked to help put this ungrateful slob into office, is as hard as I'll work to put him out of office.

He better hope his war ratings stay high, because he has literally sh*t on a lot of us who were very passionate about getting him elected.

[eleni121]

Please tell me how welfare for farmers is going to prevent a third world war?

I'm surprised you cannot make the connection yourself. Stable, steady, fairly cheap supplies of food lead to strong bodies and a strong nation. We are already way too dependent on rogue nations for oil. Let's not add food to that list!

[RickyJ]

Doesn't take a genius to figure it out!

You're right, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that George Bush is passing the democrats agenda.

Gee, I thought I was voting for a republican.

[WIMom]

The senate is not republican controlled.

[MissAmericanPie]

Given both parties desire for the Independent vote, it seems a perfect time for a new third "Independent Party", common sense, balance, mixed with compassion, and die hard Patriotism for the Constitution.

[WIMom]

No one said it would be easy. I'm not giving up the fight to rid our government of democrats.

[RickyJ]

Stable, steady, fairly cheap supplies of food lead to strong bodies and a strong nation. We are already way too dependent on rogue nations for oil. Let's not add food to that list!

I know there is no sense in asking you this, considering your last response, but just how is welfare for farmers going to lower food prices?

You do know they are being paid to not grow crops, don't you?

[Harrison Bergeron]

"I'm amazed at the 'so called' conservatives here willing to give control to the dems. "

Huh? We have a republican president who has already done that for us. I guess if power matters more than principle, it doesn't matter what he does, as long as he keeps that "R" after his name.

[WIMom]

It's not whether or not a person has an R after their name. It's working together to get rid of the D's.

[PhiKapMom]

The Senate is controlled by the RATS or hadn't you noticed? Why do you think so many conservative bills and conservative judicial nominations are stalled? It sure isn't because the GOP is in charge of the Senate! I stand on what I said -- it doesn't take a genius to figure it out.

Just think if the RATS controlled the Senate when clinton was in office and had the House too -- his bills he passed would have been totally big Government, more taxes, and as liberal as they come. Face reality!

[RickyJ]

Face reality!

I have, why don't you?

[Uncle Bill]

"My concern about the role of the federal government is that an intrusive government, a government that says, ‘Don’t worry, we will solve your problems’ is a government that tends to crowd compassion out of the marketplace, that too often in the past people said: ‘Somebody else will take care of the problem in my area. Don’t worry. The government is here.’ "
George W. Bush - Source: Remarks at Cityteam Ministries, San Jose, CA Oct 31, 2000

"Not over my dead body will they raise your taxes,"
George W. Bush - SOURCE

---

Compassionate Conservatism Means Big Government

No To 'Compassionate Conservatism'
"Marvin Olasky, the former Marxist journalism professor who coined the term. But he and George W. Bush are barking up the wrong tree if they think "compassionate conservatism" is going to rally popular support necessary to effect the real change needed to turn this country around."

---

Slouching Toward Servitude

Why Democrats Should Draft George W.(FDR) Bush In 2004

George W. Bush - The New FDR

RUSH LIMBAUGH: BUSH "NO CONSERVATIVE"

Why Rush Is Disgruntled - (Bush Is Advancing The Democrats Most Liberal Agenda)

Bush Spending Bill Largest Ever

George W. Bush's Big Government Adventure

2001 Laws Cost Taxpayers 733 Billion

Bush Blows Billions and Billions On Education Who Do Their Books Like Arthur Andersen

Meanwhile, Back On The Farm

Bush Urges Congress To Deliver On Prescription Drugs For Medicare

Bush Wants Food Stamps For Illegal Aliens

The surest way to bust this economy is to increase the role and the size of the federal government."
George W. Bush - Source: Presidential debate, Boston MA Oct 3, 2000.

Gore offers an old and tired approach. He offers a new federal spending program to nearly every voting bloc. He expands entitlements, without reforms to sustain them. 285 new or expanded programs, and $2 trillion more in new spending. Spending without discipline, spending without priorities, and spending without an end. Al Gore’s massive spending would mean slower growth and higher taxes. And it could mean an end to this nation’s prosperity."
George W. Bush Source: Speech in Minneapolis, Minnesota Nov 1, 2000.

"People need more money in their pocket, as far as I’m concerned."
George W. Bush - The Tampa (FL) Tribune Oct 26, 2000.

I was deeply concerned about the drift toward a more powerful federal government. I was particularly outraged by two pieces of legislation, the Natural Gas Policy Act and the Fuel Use Act. It seemed to me that elite central planners were determining the course of our nation. Allowing the government to dictate the price of natural gas was a move toward European-style socialism. If the federal government was going to take over the natural gas business, what would it set its sights on next?"
George W. Bush - Source: “A Charge to Keep”, p.172-173 Dec 9, 1999

3,400,000,000,000(Trillion) Of Taxpayers Money Is Missing

The War On Waste - Rumsfeld Says 2.3 Trillion Dollars Missing

Bush Challenges Pentagon on Spending

Bush Demands More Defense Spending

Bush Signs Record Military Spending Bill

GROW SPINE, GOP, INVESTIGATE CLINTON (NOW says Rush Limbaugh)

Smoke Out The Clinton's

LET'S ROLL

Bush Says He Wants to Let Clinton 'Move On'
"Listen, here's my view: I think it's time to get all of this business behind us. I think it's time ... to allow the president to finish his term, and let him move on and enjoy life and become an active participant in the American system. And I think we've had enough focus on the past. It's time to move forward." - George W. Bush.

Bush Won't Dwell On Clinton Affair, "We're Moving Forward"
"B/S, Mr Bush. Clinton is a criminal and a traitor. We demand a thorough investigation and prosecution. Our Republic is dead and our liberty is at stake if the next administration does not clean up this mess for now and forever more. Corrupt politicians must pay the price for subverting our Constitution and using their offices for personal gain."
4 Posted on 01/20/2000 14:17:56 PST by Jim Robinson

"I Believe In Free Speech"

Un El día En El la vida de Jorge W. La arbusto

"OPEN BORDERS"

And Because Asa Shut Down The Largest Drug Trafficking Investigation In The History Of The Republic, I Will Appoint Him Director Of The DEA

ARAFAT - Proven Terrorist

Bush Won't Label Arafat A Terrorist

George W. Bush's Terrorist Buddy

Islam Is Peace

Bush Appoints Four More Homosexuals

Clinton raped Juanita Broaddrick, not once, but twice

Bill Clinton - Rapist

"That’s why I’m for instant background checks at gun shows. I’m for trigger locks."
George W. Bush - Source: St. Louis debate Oct 17, 2000.

GEORGE W. BUSH: CLINTON'S THIRD TERM ©

[Harrison Bergeron]

Very good. Now what's your solution for D's who joinn the R party just to get elected. Support them to your dying breath?

[antidisestablishment]

I stated he has no backbone because he hasn't fought for any of his own issues. Show me one instance he has fought on principle and I'll be happy to "leave it at that."

I don't hate Bush, but I don't worship him or try to make him out to be a conservative icon either. You are welcome to try, but you end up fighting against W himself.

[BeAChooser]

It's not whether or not a person has an R after their name. It's working together to get rid of the D's.

Explain why nothing has been done about the Riady non-refund? Until that matter is investigated, along with a few others, I won't believe R's are really interested in getting rid of the D's. Instead what I see are R's acting more and more like D's, even on this forum. And if R's are going to act like D's, especially when it comes to upholding laws, I think I'd rather they NOT control all three government branches. They need to EARN that degree of trust.

[Harrison Bergeron]

"...I don't worship him or try to make him out to be a conservative icon either. You are welcome to try, but you end up fighting against W himself."

That's the clincher. Any die hard "R" defender who hangs in long enough to argue point by point ends up making the point against the home team.