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."

[DennisR]

Hm...do you think "old dusty road" is a D?

[Paul Ross]

Slow socialism is still socialism. And GWB/Rove isn't that slow about marching down the slippery slope....

[Lazamataz]

No difference between having a Bush and Hillary Presidency, is there?

Okay, I'm being melodramatic and exaggerating-for-effect. However, Bush's incredible leftwards lurch has bothered me greatly, and makes it much harder to support him.

However, one thing I reject outright is the concept that I OWE him my vote. If Bush fails to perform, he has not EARNED my vote, no matter who is running against him.

I try not to vote AGAINST people, but FOR them. The only exception I have made to this rule was in 2000, I voted AGAINST Gore. I will be returning to my usual practice of only voting FOR people this coming election.

[old school]

Huumh! You know, you're quite right! The difference between conservatives and some republicans is: that there is no pretense among conservatives. They are simply conservative. Some republicans adhere to the adage, "My Mother, Drunk or Sober!"

[Roscoe]

The post smelled pretty D, so a quick Google (Is that a verb yet?) brought up a probable source.

[Hoppean]

Nope, Laz is right, and must be, because right now, I think we would probably be better off with a conservative Democrat in the White House.

As sickening as the thought is, Evan Bayh would never have done all the FDR stuff that Bush has. I am not exaggerating.

This is true. Had a Democrat been in the White House, a lot of the proposals coming out of there would never have gotten this far. Could a Clinton have gotten away with the Section 245i Amnesty, or the USA Patriot Act? The Congressional Republicans would have blocked it. Bush's liberal programs are getting a free pass.

[habs4ever]

Bush is doing all this to keep his job? He is doing "wrong"? Not for the good of the nation? He's doing wrong by devoting his energies to his most crucial task, or what any sensible President would do?

[Paul Ross]

Exactly. His personal popularity, based on trivializing the conservative agenda, and canonizing the liberal, may well get him elected with huge margins, but will be the END FOR THE CONSERVATIVES AND GOP. We won't get the Senate back, and we will lose the House. If GWB thought it was tough with a House and Senate (yes, even the Senate WAS) in our nominal control in spite of Jeffords and RINOs, he will be inheriting a 'Veto-Proof' legislature that will be pulling a Reagan on him....

It sickens me to think of Tom Daschle with a huge Senate majority telling GWB when he finally discovers some partisan/conservative gonads being told "Do you feel lucky? Make my day, Punk!" And it is all avoidable if GWB was to just jettison Card/Rove. These guys didn't get him elected. We did.

[Palmetto]

The post smelled pretty D

Nay, it stinketh like D swine.

[A Navy Vet]

Yeah, my palms are starting to sweat...

[afuturegovernor]

Sam Nunn would have made a great President

Sam Nunn was a DEMOCRAT.

[Lazamataz]

Yeah, my palms are starting to sweat...

I have that effect on people. :o)

[habs4ever]

Why not hold off until say...summer of '04? Let's see if the Senate can pass a capital gains tax, or that Saddam is swinging from a lampost ,or that the PLO is no more, or maybe that the Iranians can get re-runs of Dallas on their TV''s, or that the threat from al Qada is a lot smaller, so Bush can concentrate on domestic affairs to your satisfaction? He's got a full plate right now, and dissing well before halftime isn't normally a prudent thing to do, is it?

[Hoppean]

Again, would you rather promote home ownership, or welfare-state dependency?

False choice. I choose neither. Abolish the welfare state and abandon this Bush plan. Promoting home ownership is not a legitimate function of government.

[varon]

Because we didn't get into the current mess overnight, and Constitution doesn't allow us to make a U-turn on a dime ……..

Au contraire my fellow Freeper. The truth of the matter is that the Constitution not only allows buy also provides the mechanism with which to do it. The mechanism is called “ELECTIONS”.

The newly elected President can reverse any and all executive orders of the prior President(s) and the Congress (both houses) can replace any existing legislation by with new. Those matters can be accomplished in the blink of an eye (matter of weeks if not days).

The problem that exists is that even though the Constitution provided the means it didn’t and can’t provide the will, either in the voters or the elected officials.

Sort of reminds me of a saying I first heard many years ago and that I’m certain that most everyone has also. It was true then and it certainly is true now, “where there is a will, there is a way”. :-)

[Lazamataz]

Why not hold off until say...summer of '04?

Hold off on what? Commenting on his actions? No, I don't think so.

I will however agree to hold off making a voting decision as regards Messr. Bush until sometime in 2004. I think I can accomodate that.

[Poohbah]

where there is a will, there is a way

Actually, it's "Where there's a will, there are lawyers."

And that's the problem.

We have DELIBERATIVE bodies. If you really could get every warm body in Congress to do your bidding instantly, then you wouldn't NEED a Congress in the first place.

[afuturegovernor]

I will not be voting in any Federal-level Congressional or Senatorial races.

The United States has had lots of people die in war in its 200 years that would be really proud of you. People in China still are dieing to be given the right to cast a real vote. Consider how lucky we all are.

[A Navy Vet]

"The Libs-Dems-Coms-Socs will ultimately prevail because they play to the basest instinct of the human being: love of self."

...which manifests itself through greed and sloth.

[Hoppean]

Helping people own private property isn't socialistic

The socialistic part is the [Government] helping people own private property.