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

[WIMom]

I wouldn't vote for Mccain if he was my senator. If there was a candidate in my state who was playing those games, I would fight at the local level to not have him elected, and I wouldn't vote for that person. I do fight to have our two bozo's, Kohl and Feingold, removed from office. Kohl has bought his seat (he only had 2-3 thousand dollars in campaign contributions, the rest was self funded) and Feingold hangs on by a thread. We have some very conservative candidates with the R after their name, fighting in each election. We just can't let the dems take control and turn the US into a more socialist state.

[palo verde]

very perceptive post TJ
that is how Jesse Ventura was elected in Minnesota
it was people who never voted before, who came out to vote for him
if libertarian ideas start to catch on like wildfire, citizens may choose to vote for them
Love, Palo

[serinde]

Bushs' accomplishments in his first 16 months as POTUS:

Someone already discussed each of the listed items, so I won't repeat all that. There are some others points I would like to make, though.

Only a few of the verbs used in this passage point to actual, conclusive activities. Others are just talk. Yes, it could be said that voicing and supporting ideas is an accomplishment, and he is faced with political opposition in getting things done. And he has been able to get a few things accomplished, despite this opposition.

However, as freeeee stated,

Actions speak louder than words. Nearly every action elected conservatives take makes government bigger, more intrusive and more expensive.

Much that Bush has accomplished has created bigger govt. - to the tune of approx. 7 whole, new agencies (I lost count after #5). This is directly opposite of his campaign promise to limit govt.

He also supports the 2nd Amendment with words, but again his actions don't follow through, such as with arming pilots. And trust the true militia - the average citizen - to be armed and help guard against terrorists? Not a chance.

Then there are all his speeches praising the freedoms and liberties enjoyed by Americans - followed by signing the Patriot Act, CFR, etc. that in reality reduce those very freedoms.

I am very glad that Bush is president. Having a moral, respectable person in the White House is wonderful. But until his actions match his words, I will continue to be disappointed in him. And criticize him, politics and compromise notwithstanding.

[palo verde]

attacking rebounds on those doin' the attacking
since the Dems are locked into it, I figure they're finished
George Bush brilliantly led his Party away from that
he talks about education which is what the soccer moms want to hear
(it was the soccer moms who swung the election to clinton, and then swung it to Bush)
they are big block of independent voters
gun owners might choose libertarian candidate if they believed he had chance to win
Love, Palo

[WIMom]

I've researched Rich/Riady/Warburg-Pinkus and I have a feeling there is a connection, but I couldn't find conclusive evidence. As you know, Rich has connections around the world, China, Indonesia (hmm-riady's stomping grounds), Russia, the ME, Europe, and Arkansas. It just might be that there was a terrorist connection that was dug up, who knows? All the signs suggest it.

[WIMom]

What else is interesting, is I copied and saved every link to the sites I researched. A couple weeks after 9-11, I went to check on the terrorist connection. And guess what? Either they will not allow me access or the site is not there anymore.

[AdA$tra]

Who do I think will win the GOP Primary?

Man, at this point it is anybody's guess. I am not even sure if I could list them all. I prefer Shallenberger's politics, but have a hard time with his personality. I like the fact that Knight is pro-life and anti-westar yet at the same time is pro "real" business. If I had to vote today: Shallenberger would be my choice.

Whomever we elect had better not veto every pro-life/fiscally responsible/pro second amendment bill that come across his/her desk. Of course that is what Graves has done for eight years. I hope the primary (and the lack thereof on the dem side) doesn't split our party to the point that we cannot win in November.

[browardchad]

· promoted increases for off shore oil drilling
· has strongly advocated drilling in ANWR
· campaigned to reduce our dependency on oil imports

Could you explain how this is consistent with $235 million in federal funds used by the President today to shelter Florida's Everglades and beaches from oil and gas drilling? The settlement buys out nine oil and gas leases to prevent drilling in Gulf of Mexico areas closest to Pensacola, and does not require legislation and will proceed without Congressional approval. Could it possibly be because the President’s brother is Governor of Florida, up for re-election, or is this yet another “secret” and politically-savvy plan that we as conservatives are just too dense to figure out , and in some yet-undiscovered and inscrutable way, it really does reduce dependency on oil imports?

[Uncle Bill]

Bush Supports Clinton Land Grab

Bush anted up $235 million in federal funds Wednesday to shelter Florida's Everglades and beaches from oil and gas drilling

Jeb Bush to Bush administration: No new drilling in Gulf off Florida

Bush Scales Back Plans to Drill in Gulf of Mexico

Bush trims Gulf drilling to save his brother
"But the Republican Representative David Vitter of Louisiana denounced the compromise.

"By caving in to Nimbyism in Florida, the Bush administration has decimated its own energy plan," he said.

"I think this really shuts down the opportunity to do anything productive to reduce our dependence on foreign oil."

[eleni121]

If anybody deserves a little support from the Feds (that's us the people) it's the farmers!

Now to your dilemma.

Sensible regulation (and price supports) is not always bad. One year there is lots of corn - price drops - you are happy but farmers go bankrupt - next year no corn - import it from??? One year lots of wheat- next year - drought - farmers go under. One year lots of baby calves - next year hoof and mouth or Oprah gets tough on beef eaters - price goes down then following year beef is sky high. And on and on. Supplies of food are too important to be left to the vagaries of Mother Nature or Mother Oprah or sometimes just plain old chance. <P Get the picture?

[Lady In Blue]

I used to read your posts on "lucianne.com" and back then you were a real supporter of the President.Now,unfortunately,I see that you've gone over to the dark side.That's too bad.I wish people would just remember that the democrats are in charge of the senate before they start criticizing GWB.And one last thing,I'd like to see how good they'd do before criticizing the President.Some on this thread sound like self righteous hypocrites.IMHO.

[RAT Patrol]

I am curious about your comments on Shallenburger's personality? Care to explain?

I always thought of Knight as a moderate. I like him alright but I like Shallenburger better.

I live in Stilwell but have lived in Wichita most of my 41 years of life and that is home if home is where your heart is anyway. Shallenburger better pay attention to the rest of Kansas if he wants to have a chance.

I will not be crushed if Knight wins but I won't be excited either.

On Westar, I side with Wichita, but I do think the issue is not as black and white as Wichitans tend to think it is.

Graves might as well be a Democrat.

I am pro-life but abortion is legal and there isn't much chance of that changing any time soon. Wouldn't it be nice if we saw the return of a moderate view on that issue? At least we would win on something once in awhile. For all the griping about money in politics the left does they never say a peep about the huge abortion industry's financial influence on politics.

[ricer1]

Anybody who bothered to look at his record in Texas would have seen a budget that grew by leaps and bounds. His performance in office is no surprise. Compassionate Conservatism is simply Rockefeller Republicanism in a new coat of paint. Under Bush, government will grow dramatically. The taxes that are needed to pay for it will eventually follow.

So true... just look at the bloating of Texas Government. It's no surprise to me (and as a Texas conservative, I voted for Howard Phillips).

[MagnusMat]

Thanks ReaganMan for posting this. Conservatives,sometimes, only look at what they don't have and not count their blessings. Bush has done an excellent job given the circumstances.

[Ragin1]

The last tactic of the lost argument.

The ol typical how would you like Hillary as president tactic.

[Ragin1]

Liberterian ideas' will never spread like wildfire. Things like the man, with 3 children and a wife at home, spends his paycheck on crack from the 7-11 come to mind.

[Ragin1]

"Supplies of food are too important to be left to the vagaries of Mother Nature or Mother Oprah or sometimes just plain old chance.

Ooh yeah, now I get it. Socialism is the way, eh?

[rmlew]

Conservatives disapprove of the job he's doing, liberals disapprove of the job he's doing but 76% of the American people approve of the job he's doing.

The problem is these polls are poor predictors.
Think about it. Few conservatives who oppose Bush's liberal policies would say so in a generic poll. Teh reason is that the poll question is "Do you aprove of President Bush's performance." It doesn't say on XY and Z.
Moreover, an increase in negative numbers would push Bush to the left since conservatives are not differentiated from liberals.

Real polls with a vlaue other than shaping public opinion to the desire of the Media-Government complex would ask aabout set of policy questions and then allow the consitituents to pick among multple answers.

[Reagan Man]

A few points.

Actually, there were two tax cuts. There was the initial $1.35 trillion tax cut, followed by a $100 billion tax cut stimulus package. At first, the tax cut/stimulus package, was separate, but eventually, was rolled into the bigger tax cut measure. Many economists have said, the $100 billion tax cut/stimulus package, significantly bolstered the US economy, towards its 5.4% growth rate in the first quarter of 2002.

It would have been great if Bush and Congress, had cut government spending, along with passing the tax cuts. But because they didn't cut spending, doesn't reduce the impact these tax cuts will have on limiting the overall growth of government, in the next ten years. That was one of the positive outcomes/accomplishmnets, of the Reagan tax cuts, overall government spending was slowed.

>>>Overall, he has proposed the largest increase in federal spending since FDR--hardly a conservative stance.

Your statement is flatout wrong and factually untrue. I'd like to see exactly where you got those statistics from. According to the 2003 Federal Budget, overall spending will increase 3.5%, ( from $2.052 trillion to $2.128 trillion) with defense receiving a plus 8.6% and non-defense descretionary spending getting a plus 5.6%. Homeland Security gets a whomping 111% increase, from $12 billion in 2002, to $25 billion in 2003.

The greatest increases in government spending, came under FDR and LBJ. The spending increases under FDR, came about because of WWII and the increases under LBJ, came about because of the Viet Nam War and Great Society programs. Recent increases under President Bush, have come about because of the costs related to the war on terrorism and that's reflected in the 8.6% DoD increase. The #1 job of the federal government, is to serve, protect and defend America/Americans, from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. President Bush is doing his job.

>>>He traded the ABM for NMDS and willingly agreed to LESSER weapons than the most liberal disarmament freaks. This was a no-win political ploy that results in less national security at a time of greater vulnerability.

Reductions in America's nuclear arsenal will not hurt our military effectiveness. The recent agreement with Prez Putin, is for strategic weapons and doesn't apply to any tactical nuclear arms. Besides, they're not being destroyed, just warehoused. Having 1700-2200 nuclear weapons on hand, is more then enough firepower. This wasn't a political ploy, because Bush intended on reducing the nuclear numbers with, or without the Russians agreement, unilaterally.

>>>Yep, but didn't rescind military abortions overseas.

"The Department of Defense Appropriations Act for FY 1996 and the Department of Defense Authorization Act for FY 1996 revise the DoD policy. Prepaid abortions are no longer allowed, except in cases in which the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest. Please assure compliance with the new law. Authority to provide prepaid abortions in overseas facilities is limited to cases in which the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest. The new statutory provision does not affect the current law or policy regarding abortions in cases in which the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term. In such cases, abortions may be provided using appropriated funds."

On June 9th, 1999, an attempt by Reps. Loretta Sanchez (D-CA) and Carrie Meek (D-FL) to lift the ban on privately funded abortions for military personnel and dependents stationed overseas in overseas military medical facilities failed. The vote on the amendment to the Department of Defense Authorization bill (H.R. 1401) was 225-203.
That's the current policy. Military women defending our country overseas can't terminate an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy at a Military hospital, even if they pay for it and a Doctor agrees to do it, unless it's rape, incest or it endangers the mother's life. In rape or incest cases, the servicewoman must pay for the abortion.

"* made no deal for release of the EP-3 plane crew from Red China"
>>>And I've got some land in Florida for sale.

I don't want any land, I just want your explanation of the deal that occured, between Bush and the RoC.

"* promoted increases for off shore oil drilling * has strongly advocated drilling in ANWR * pushed for building more nuclear power plants * campaigned to reduce our dependency on oil imports"
>>>All of these have shown no results because he has shown no backbone. We were told he was saving his political capital for later, but he has shown no desire to spend ANYTHING on principle.

Without control of the Senate, there is no way Bush is going to get what he wants on any energy related issue. If you understood politics, you'd understand why this is true. It has nothing to do with spending political capital. You first have to control the debate in the Senate. Republicans don't control Senate debate, because they don't control the Senate calander. The Democrats do! Bush isn't a dictator, he's a democratically elected leader, whose party controls one of two, chambers of the Congress and with a slim majority too boot! Wake up already!!

"* repealed many last minute Clinton EO`s
>>>Name them. He has not rescinded the most flagrant abuses and has shown no desire to do so. He has also shown no interest in rooting out the leftover corruption and treason in federal offices. We are at "war" and no one is willing to lay a glove on the un-American traitors left from X42's regime. How conservative is that?

Bush imposed an across the board moratorium, that blocked any new EO's from being printed in the Federal Register. That permanently halted any of Clinton's most recent executive orders. Most rules can't take effect until they've appeared in the Federal Register for a certain period of time. How many EO's this action stopped, isn't public knowledge.

A few of those Clinton EO`s that were stopped cold, are for new environmental restrictions on runoff from animal feeding operations; more than 800 pages of new guidelines for managed care programs under Medicare; and Clinton's designation, made hours before Bushes inaguration, of the former military post at Governor's Island in New York Harbor, as a national monument.

The Bush administartion also imposed a freeze on hiring of new federal employees "unless and until", a Bush-appointed agency head approves the hiring, preventing holdover Clinton officials from hiring new employees.

Here's a few links to articles about overturning presidential EO's, Tough to Undo What Clinton Did and Clinton's Executive Orders They might help to open your closed mind on the subject.

As for investigating Clinton and other members of 'der schlickmeister's' administration, that would be a waste of taxpayer money, especially at this point. If President Bush had proceeded with DoJ inquiries, the liberal press, many liberal special interest groups and regular old fashioned American's, would have torn him up for a multitude of reasons. Bush said, he wanted to move on and start out fresh. That's what he did. You don't like that, okay, but the time has come to get over it already. There is no way, that Bush should be held responsible, for not going after possible wrongdoings, during the Clinton years. There were three different IC's, that investigated the Clinton's and many of their closet associates. After five years, those IC's basically came away, empty handed. Some convictions and several jailings, here and there, but nothing BIG-TIME!

You want perfection out of this president, it ain't gonna happen, pilgrim. No president and no human being is perfect. We've got serious political gridlock in Wash-DC today. In fact, we've had political gridlock in DC for the last 20 years! But Bush is doing his Constitutional duties, to the best of his ability and so are all his people. You can criticize Bush all you want, but stop being a typical, back bench bomb thrower. It serves no good purpose. America is at war. If you consider yourself an American patriot, then start acting like one. And NO, I'm not calling you unpatriotic. So don't even go there, bucko.

[antidisestablishment]

You know, it's strange. My grandfather raised 12 children through the depression and dustbowl and farmed his entire life. I guarantee he dealt with more "vagaries" than a modern farmer faces and he made it work. It was through hard work, thrift and planning. Yes, he saw crops fail; he saw hail take out a year's pay; he even saw years when the price of his produce didn't pay for the seed. But he never needed his Uncle to bail him out. He was a farmer, not a welfare recipient. He never took government money and he lived his own life and died a free man.

That incredible amount of money you agree with giving away comes out of everyone's pockets. It doesn't grow on trees and the ultimate cost is our freedom. The USSR had a similar plan and I never saw it produce a viable market, nor a plentiful crop. Free market farming would be cheaper in the long run despite the subsidies and artificial prices. The people making money on the farm program are corporations and comglomerates who play the goverment's game for every penny. Small farms and independent growers are not being killed by honest competition, they are being killed by lawyers and accountants.

Relating this back to the original post, is this Bush's fault? No. Congress passed it. However, Bush signed it. And, by all appearances, it was a direct payment for rural votes--votes he already had!