Conservatives not satisfied with Bush's record

The Washington Times ^ | June 18, 2002 | Ralph Z. Hallow

[jimkress]

Conservative lawmakers and activists disappointed with President Bush's first 18 months in office are calling into question his tactics and strategy in advancing the conservative agenda.

"The president for the most part has been our guy," said House Majority Leader Dick Armey, Texas Republican and a prominent conservative on Capitol Hill. "A few times we disagree."

[hchutch]

What makes you the arbiter of "conservative" campaigns? I think he's pretty conservative. He just doesn't have the hard edge others have, and he's also smart enough to pick his fights. He's patient, and he'll come back for more later.

I'm not looking for someone to jump off a cliff. Let's get what we can and go for the rest later, when the poltical terrain is more advantageous for us. Principle is fine and dandy, but you don't get to translate them into policy if you lose elections.

[finnman69]

Aside from withholding support, what other leverage does a conservative voter have with the RNC?

When I hear of people trying to convince me that by witholding support they are sending a 'message' I think of PETA trying convince people to not drink milk. Noone cares that PETA does not like milk, but what gets people most interested in their cause is they use outrageous stunts to draw attention to their claims which have a pretty poor success rate in advancing their agenda.

Conservatives don't do enough to get the attention of the Republican party. If you become a wall flower the RNC will continue to ignore you. And if you think you are being ignrored now, wait till your non-support gives the office back to a Democrat. If the RNC feels the conservative base won't come home, they will seek out moderate votes to counter the supposed missing conservative base. Conservatives won't get their items they want passed by staying home. They will eventually get them by supporting the Republican Candidate.

[Zathras]

People tried to tell Bush Sr. he was making a mistake by raising taxes.
People tried to tell Bush Sr. to stop compromisizing with the DemocRats.
People tried to tell Bush Sr. to get off his butt and campain in '92.
People tried to tell Bush Sr. to abandon this "thousand points of light" goal.
People tried to tell Bush Sr. not to abandon California in the '92 election.

This came from people who CARED about the future and saw he was being setup.

[Dane]

Huh I guess you would rather build huge public housing projects, rather than helping people own private property.

Gee FDR would be proud of you.

[Teacher317]

Well said. Here's part of my post on another thread...

The GOP may be the only current viable party for the Constitution's (hopeful) revival, but certainly not in it's present form. We'll be back when you guys figure out that principles matter more than political gamesmanship. Loyalty to ideals, not loyalty to name brands. That's what is bothering so many of us the most, I think. I really, truly, honestly thought that GWB was a Reagan-esque man of PRINCIPLES. I was excited. My hopes were sky-high. I thought that my very first steps into 'active' political proselytising (and MARCHING, fer cryin' out loud!) would be vindicated. I SWORE to all my friends (and anyone who would listen) that THIS was the guy who would turn back the tide of Socialism in America. I got TWELVE non-voters and first-time voters to go to the polls and vote for him! Instead, he's made a BIG liar out of me on that "Socialism" stuff, and he's proven to be just "more-principled-than-Clinton-and-Gore-combined"... and that's a depressingly low bar to hurdle.

[Lazamataz]

On CFR why give your enemies a hammer to beat you with when the ad bans will probably be stripped.

So your premise is to make unconstitutional law in order to fight unconstitutional law.

The Housing program is income based and helping people become home owners makes people more conservative.

So your premise is to propose a largely socialist program in order to make them conservative.

the democrats stripped most of the conservative issues out of the education bill. There is that pesky dashole Senate again.

So your premise is to sign liberal bills in order to implement conservative ideology.

Oh yeah which administartion has stated that the 2nd amendment is an individual right?

So your premise is that failing to challenge unconstitutional gun laws makes for more constitutional gun laws.

Got it.

[finnman69]

I've got an ID number for FreeRepublic? I didn't know that ... Does that pi$$ off the Libertarians as much as the prospective National ID does?

LOL, you are # 27,220 by the way. Just swipe your mouse over your name.

[SerpentDove]

>>IOW, a candidate has to agree 1000%, massage feet, and fetch the paper, to get laz's vote. Laz could care less about the reality of the system.<<

Nothing like a good ol' ridiculous, irrelevant comeback.

[Lazamataz]

Huh I guess you would rather build huge public housing projects, rather than helping people own private property.

Huh I guess you would rather give money taken from me at virtual gunpoint to give to other people in a totally socialist manner, in order to house them, rather than allow capitalism to fill the need.

You sure you are on the right forum? I'm thinking you need www.democratunderground.com.

[DemoSmear]

Now, I was aiming at the Begonias, not the peegonias. Must've been a slip on your part.

I can't get no satisfaction,
I can't get no satisfaction.
'Cause I cry and I cry and I cry and I cry.
I can't get no, I can't get no.

When I'm Freepin' on my 'puter
and that man comes on the thread I'm on
and he's tellin' me more and more
about his interpreted information
supposed to inspire my conservative nation.
I can't get no, oh no no no.
Hey hey hey, that's what I say.

I can't get no satisfaction,
I can't get no satisfaction.
'Cause I cry and I cry and I cry and I cry.
I can't get no, I can't get no.

When I'm watchin' my TV and O'Reilly comes on
to tell me how my sister bit back the Møøse.
Well he can't be a møøse 'cause he doesn't bite
the same Freeper sisters as me.
I can't get no, oh no no no.
Hey hey hey, that's what I say.

I can't get no satisfaction,
I can't get no girl with action.
'Cause I cry and I cry and I cry and I cry.
I can't get no, I can't get no.

When I'm surfin' round the net and I'm doin' this
and I'm signing that and I'm tryin' to make some girl
who tells me "baby better come back later next week
'cause you see you're on a whining streak."
I can't get no, oh no no no.
Hey hey hey, that's what I say.

I can't get no, I can't get no,
I can't get no satisfaction, no satisfaction,
no satisfaction, no satisfaction.

[Teacher317]

OOPS! forgot the last part, which was most similar to yours...

"President Bush really squandered a solid opportunity for greatness, and he's lost my almost automatic vote for the GOP. Instead, he'll 'merely' be the rock which we clung to after 9-11.. not a bad future epitaph, to be sure, but not what he could have been, and a lot less than I had hoped he would be."

[hchutch]

Look, home ownership is something better than the welfare system that the Dems run. Again, would you rather promote home ownership, or welfare-state dependency? The program's not perfect, but it's better than the alternative.

[meyer]

Fair enough...but things like farm subsidies, unconstitutional campaign finance reform, and now home down payment GRANTS for minorities is not even attempting a "turn". Yes, I admire most of his foreign policy; yes, I think he's prosecuting the war correctly; yes, I'm glad he's told the UN to shove it a few times; and yes, he's done some good domestic things. But he's also helped further the socialist agenda in a number of cases. I can understand not having a radical agenda, but could he please stop giving so much away?

I tend to agree with you here. Nearly 100% now that I think of it. Yes, he certainly hasn't made too many moves to the right of late. Perhaps Clinton stole all the ink to the veto pen.

This down payment grant thing really got under my skin. Its like "reparations lite"; he's basically taking my hard earned tax money and giving it to someone else. I don't really want to start ranting, but I spent my time working 2 jobs, selling lunchmeat at the deli, pumping gas, washing cars and the like to gain enough money for my own down payment. There's no reason why any able-bodied idiot can't do the same. NO reason.

See, now I'm getting PO'ed again.

[Dane]

Huh I guess you would rather give money taken from me at virtual gunpoint to give to other people in a totally socialist manner, in order to house them, rather than allow capitalism to fill the need.

You sure you are on the right forum? I'm thinking you need www.democratunderground.com

Whatever you want to beleive Laz. Helping people own private property isn't socialistic, well maybe it is in Laz world.

[Joe Friday]

I'm sort of confused with this whole article. I mean, HELLO! This is who Bush is. This is why he was successful in Texas and why he will continue to be successful running this country. He doesn't PLAY partisan politics, and the GOP knew that going in. So why are a select few up in arms about his style now? Maybe they just assumed that he was going to be like most politicians and not keep his word. Their whole mantra is, "George, you're one of us remember? You need to start scratching our backs after we scratched yours in 2000." But Bush made it clear he wasn't going to play that game, and instead was going to get things done instead of provoking the gridlock that has been prevelant in Washington for many years. Has he compromised? Sure. But he said he was going to. You can't have everything.

[freeeee]

In other words those who pack their bags and walk away have no complaint with whatever happens.

Ok, fine. Since you reject withholding votes in order to influence elected officials, maybe you could tell me your plan to hold them accountable.

Or is accountability not part of the equation, and we simply hand them a blank check?

[Lazamataz]

Look, home ownership is something better than the welfare system that the Dems run. Again, would you rather promote home ownership, or welfare-state dependency? The program's not perfect, but it's better than the alternative.

If the thing was limited to a 100% tax-credit-based -- or even 90% -- I could abide by it. But my numbers show that over a 10 year period the program is well over 50% socialism and FedGov bureaucracy-building.

This is not something a Republican should be offering.

[hchutch]

Dane has a point. We're not going to fix things overnight. The question is, do we fall on our swords and let things become much worse, or do we start the slow U-turn to get things to the way they should be?

I opt for the latter portion, knowing that it will not be immediate and there will be setbacks along the way. But I don't see how else we can do it.

[Lazamataz]

Whatever you want to beleive Laz. Helping people own private property isn't socialistic, well maybe it is in Laz world.

Ludicrious.

If I collectivize all the land in America, then redistribute it evenly to every man and woman, that is nearly a textbook definition of total socialist redistribution.

But because men and women are now private property owners, so Dane calls it capitalist.

Do you even think when you post, or do you just pound your keyboard with your fist, generating random characters?

[Palmetto]

What makes you the arbiter of "conservative" campaigns? I think he's pretty conservative. He just doesn't have the hard edge others have, and he's also smart enough to pick his fights. He's patient, and he'll come back for more later.

OK, cool. So you're saying that we haven't abandoned the "Bush is Looking at the BIG Conservative Picture" argument just yet.

You must forgive me, I was taken off the Karl Rove Talking Points e-mail list, and I'm not always up to speed on these things.

I'm not looking for someone to jump off a cliff. Let's get what we can and go for the rest later, when the poltical terrain is more advantageous for us. Principle is fine and dandy, but you don't get to translate them into policy if you lose elections.

It used to be that Republicans tried win elections by changing the minds of liberals.

Now it seems they have adopted the classic Democrat strategy of handouts and apeasement to liberal special interests (also known as buying votes with tax dollars).