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."

[Roscoe]

He'll vote for him in 2004. Betcha a dollar.

[Lazamataz]

He'll vote for him in 2004. Betcha a dollar.

I'll take your bet. Poohbah, you in? One crisp American samolean. One fresh American Greenback. Come on, take a risk.

[Palmetto]

On other issues of conservatism, I am not surprised. Not pleased, but not surprised.

I have to say I am surprised.

I will not be surprised again.

[Poohbah]

No bet.

You DO know what horse sense is, right?

It is that faculty that prevents horses from betting on people :o)

[Palmetto]

BTW, which 3rd party do you normally vote in? LP? Const?

[Roscoe]

You're on. Give the buck to FR when the time comes.

[Palmetto]

LOL

[Palmetto]

I'm beginning to think that inflexible and short-term thinking Conservatives will be more effective in foiling GWB than Tom Daschle or any of his friends.

Dude, open your eyes. This Emperor ain't wearin' no clothes. Nekkid.

[Kibbylou]

Laz, can you say, "Mrs. President Hillary Clinton"?

[Lazamataz]

Laz, can you say, "Mrs. President Hillary Clinton"?

Kibby, can you say, "Distinction without a difference"?

[technochick99]

LP. The Constitution Party is too religious for my tastes.

[usconservative]

"The White House strategy toward conservatives is to treat us as a special-interest group, like blacks, Latinos and women," said Stephen Moore, president of the Club for Growth. "That's a problem, because we're not just another interest group but the very base of the Republican Party."

We've been saying it for Months now Laz. Frankly, I really want to support President Bush, but time and time again he disappoints me.

First it was Stem Cell Research, which he should've outright banned. Pro-Lifers (myself on this very forum) predicted human cloning would be spawned from it, and it has. President Bush blew it on this one BIG TIME.

Then it was increasing funding for AmeriCrap. Clinton's pet program to pay "volunteers" (that word has not been bastardized) to have sex with him in the Oral Office.

Then the Education Bill, which is an unmitigated F'ing disaster.

Add to that Campaign Finance Reform, Farm Subsidies, Steel Tariff's and more and we only begin to SCRATCH the surface of an alleged Conservative turned bleeding heart Liberal President.

Outside of President Bush's *brilliant* handling of the War on Terrorism and that little tax cut that got passed last year, he's been one disappointment after another, after another. I struggle to find issues that I agree with him on anymore.

Gee, wasn't it just last week I posted "10 Things President Bush Did, That AlGore Would've Refused To Do" somewhere on FR? I'm really not so sure about the Bush Presidency anymore.

[habs4ever]

Good question, and I fear some haven't shaken off old, bad habits.I would welcome the firing of Norm Minetta as a first step.

[A Navy Vet]

"Helping people own private property isn't socialistic,..."

Sorry to butt in...giving special interest groups taxpayer funded GRANTS for home ownership is very socialistic. This is a fine example of wealth re-distribution, gov overstepping its authority, and guaranteeing outcome rather than opportunity. I am just astounded at this one. How can this possibly be reconciled with the conservative value of self-sufficiency? Providing a safety net for those truly in need is one thing, paying for their friggin down payment is beyond the pale! And don't give me that home ownership or welfare hyperbole - it's not either or.

[habs4ever]

Ronnie also had a thing called the recession of '81-82.Asking the public "to stay the course" wasn't popular, was it? Funny how things bottomed in November 1982.

[Lazamataz]

You and I agree more and more often.

Should you be scared, or should I?

;^)

[Roscoe]

Hey, your post is a cut and paste from http://www.democrats.org/brokenpromises/

[Lazamataz]

Well, last time we talked about this, I was still backing Bush and you were criticizing him. Oh, excuse me, to use the correct vernacular, I was a BushBot and you were a BushHater. :o)

But over the last few months, my loyalty has been worn thin.

I think the AW ban will be a final chance for him to reclaim me as a voter. If he cares. According to Poohbah, they've written Conservatives off outright and could care less who we vote for.

[DennisR]

"At least I hope so anyways."

I hope you are not holding your breath! Americans are so self-centered and apathetic that they do not realize or care what is happening. They are truly the frog in the kettle of water. I hope you are right--that the people will come around--but I truly doubt this will happen. Politicians (both Rs and Ds) have learned how to get more and more of our money "legally" and then use it to pay off the voters. So conservatives are in a war that, apart from a miracle, can never be won. The Libs-Dems-Coms-Socs will ultimately prevail because they play to the basest instinct of the human being: love of self.

[habs4ever]

Distinction without a difference? In a war on terror? Oh yeah, the Hillary team, comprised on ace retreads from Carter's and Bubba'' admin will be itching to take the fight to al Quada and roll up the states that sponsor terrorism.No difference between having a Bush and Hillary Presidency, is there?

What the hell has happened to your brain?