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

Skip to comments.

Conservatives not satisfied with Bush's record
The Washington Times ^ | June 18, 2002 | Ralph Z. Hallow

Posted on 06/18/2002 9:57:13 AM PDT by jimkress

Edited on 07/12/2004 3:54:48 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

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."


(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: betrayal; liar; neoconservative
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 561-578 next last
To: Dane
Whatever you want to beleive Laz. Helping people own private property isn't socialistic, well maybe it is in Laz world.

And neither is making sure people have jobs, with minimum wages, and giving them and government cheese that they can keep and own. If you take away money from A and give it to B, it's not really socialism, it's for the "common good". A nice DU euphemism might be something like "rightsizing of wealth".

That's the real world, baby, and it's groovy, yeah.

181 posted on 06/18/2002 11:44:02 AM PDT by Wm Bach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
There is more than one way to skin a cat, but given the current political and media climate, we need to do so in a way that is NOT messy. Think of it as Bush working the count, and waiting for his pitch.

He has good advisors for the most part, people who came up with a decent strategy that worked (Bush won) despite the fact that 4 million evangelical Christians stayed home AND the DUI smear that occured in the last week of the 2000 election.

I'm going to trust them, because these folks will pick the fights and win them much more often than not. I think we can win, but it's going to require PATIENCE, and a gradual rollback here and there.

We should only initiate or accept a political battle if it will likely cause one of two results: The enactment of legislation reflecting conservative principles or the election of conservative politicians to office. That's how I view it. Some call it cowardice, I call it common sense.

182 posted on 06/18/2002 11:45:13 AM PDT by hchutch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
I show that it is largely a socialist giveaway program.

I don't know if it can be considered a "socialist giveaway" or not, but the tax credits part of it is largely an attempt to manipulate the market. If there was a market for low income housing, the developers would be building it. Since they aren't, I have to assume it's either a low profit or no profit venture. The tax credits are an attempt to artificially inflate the profit potential in building low income housing to inflate the supply. If the developer's aren't careful they'll lose their butts, because tax credits don't do you any good if you didn't make any money to owe taxes on. Government attempts at market manipulation seem to have a history of unintended consequences as bad as, or worse, than what they were trying to solve.

183 posted on 06/18/2002 11:45:46 AM PDT by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: caddie
This post has been so long that I've forgotten the Bush faux pas listed in the original article, but here are a few others which also make my jaws clench: Amnesty for "illegal aliens." The retention Cabinet Secretaries Whitman, Mineta, Powell and their policies, (especially Mineta's rejection of racial profiling in search of terrorists, while searching little old ladies at the airport). His lack of directness with the Arabs about their support of terrorism. No off-shore oil drilling off of the coast of Florida or anywhere else for that matter! And that whole notion of a Palestinian State (that's just non compos mentis-duh). And the list goes on!
184 posted on 06/18/2002 11:47:09 AM PDT by old school
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
The goal is to win the War on Terror.Bush is the man to do it, so is his team, and NO ONE else so far has the brains, or plan to do just that.Yup, good idea to change horses for someone who may not grasp the peril as well, but sure will keep the 0.5% happy at all costs.
185 posted on 06/18/2002 11:47:14 AM PDT by habs4ever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
Your kind of thinking will ensure a Hillary Clinton victory.
186 posted on 06/18/2002 11:47:23 AM PDT by rstevens
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: billva
>> In other words those who pack their bags and walk away have no complaint with whatever happens. <<

Your argument crumbles under scrutiny. I did not vote for Bill Clinton, and felt quite justified in griping loud and long for 8 years.

187 posted on 06/18/2002 11:48:05 AM PDT by SerpentDove
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: Redleg Duke
Yeah, sure, youbetcha! And then, when Hitlery gets in in 2005, everything passed will be not only overturned, but replaced with a draconian socialist substitute. But, then, these "conservatives" don't want anything fixed, they want everything broken so bad that a revolution results. That is the only way they hope to get their real "agenda" in place...on the blood of millions.

Who are you and who do you work for?

188 posted on 06/18/2002 11:49:28 AM PDT by Palmetto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz; Poohbah
"Four MILLION conservatives did not vote, or voted third-party, or voted for GORE on 11/7/2000."

"In attempting to authenticate this figure, I scrolled through your responses on this forum for the last few days. I cannot find where you sourced this figure. Do you mind authenticating this figure for me?"

Was this figure ever authenticated? If so, please direct me accordingly as it buttresses a theory of mine...MUD

189 posted on 06/18/2002 11:50:17 AM PDT by Mudboy Slim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: rstevens
Your kind of thinking will ensure a Hillary Clinton victory.

Right.

After all, it was indeed Bush Sr's policy of cramming the cnservative agenda down the public's throat that led to his defeat at the hands of William Clinton.

190 posted on 06/18/2002 11:51:40 AM PDT by Palmetto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: Palmetto
The third party voters should indicate that Bush's campaign alienated at least some of the base.

You also need to take into account the number of 3rd party people who voted for Bush, like myself.

191 posted on 06/18/2002 11:53:38 AM PDT by technochick99
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: finnman69
Conservatives won't get their items they want passed by staying home. They will eventually get them by supporting the Republican Candidate.

No, what we get is people like McCain & Jeffords. If the conservative "base" is guaranteed by people who will mindlessly vote for anyone with an 'R' by his name, why shouldn't the party go as hard left as they can to pick up the moderates?

192 posted on 06/18/2002 11:55:15 AM PDT by Sloth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
[Would you rather build huge public housing projects than help people own private homes?]

I offer other options: 1) Doing less of the former.

People who own their own homes won't be living in public housing, so that there will be "less of the former."

2) Doing neither outright.

And how do you propose to get that through Congress? By shouting "socialism"?

193 posted on 06/18/2002 11:56:07 AM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: jimkress
Even Mr. Tancredo acknowledges that the strategy of pragmatic compromise will "win Bush a bigger share of the vote in 2004."

"But he can win and still push the conservative agenda. We don't have to win at any price. We can win at a smaller price."

What exactly is winning smaller than a 500K-popular-vote loss? A 1M-popular-vote loss? Thanks, Tom, great strategery! The whole reason Bush acts this way is because Gore won the popular vote.

Hell, Reagan won the popular vote in two huge landslides and still did things like not abolish Cabinet offices, appoint Sandra Day O'Connor to the SCOTUS when he had a favorable senate Judiciary Committee when Robert Bork was available (having served as a Professor at Yale Law School from 1962-1975 and 1977-1981; Solicitor general for the U.S. Department of Justice from 1972-1977; and Acting attorney general of the United States from 1973-1974), among others.

194 posted on 06/18/2002 11:57:40 AM PDT by GraniteStateConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Redleg Duke
Let's have a bet. I bet that Dubya's current strategy of me tooism will lead to a "loss" of seats in both the House and the Senate in the 2002 election just like similar polices led to congrssional losses the 1996 election. The Machevillian, me too policy you support has been shown to be a loser at the polls over and over again. Do you want to take my bet?
195 posted on 06/18/2002 11:57:44 AM PDT by Austin Willard Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: technochick99
You also need to take into account the number of 3rd party people who voted for Bush, like myself.

As you know, the particulars of this "study" are in dispute.

I seriously doubt it contains such information, as that would not forward the apparent agenda of making it seem that conservatives stayed home in 2000.

196 posted on 06/18/2002 11:58:14 AM PDT by Palmetto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: habs4ever
The goal is to win the War on Terror.

I ask you, should a politican do 'wrong' just to keep his job?

197 posted on 06/18/2002 11:58:15 AM PDT by Dominic Harr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: AAABEST; Fred Mertz
Im not talking about violent revolution and civil war( civil wars ain't good) I just want a legal looking and smooth coup d'tat. We use Democrap methods against them bribes vote fraud we get control of the executive and get the absolute loyalty of the army. Then we crush and destroy the left by force. In the word of Mr Burns for our president we will need a real leader who will do exactly as hes told. Lets form a real right wing conspiracy.
198 posted on 06/18/2002 12:00:05 PM PDT by weikel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: habs4ever
The goal is to win the War on Terror.

Then why aren't we profiling?

199 posted on 06/18/2002 12:00:44 PM PDT by Palmetto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

Comment #200 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 561-578 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