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."

[Texasforever]

What did Reagan actually get passed other than his tax cut?

[Red Jones]

I'm with you MissAmericanPie;

I live in AZ, it really surprised me to read in Barry Goldwater's autobiography that he voted some republican and some democrat in every election his entire life. I think the extreme party factions have hurt our country. Politicians like George Bush who can only think about party politics don't do our country any good. Bush says that he cares so much about making the republicans dominant that he must become a democrat on 80% of all issues and abandon his campaign rhetoric. He should instead only be concerned with doing what is right. Bush falls far short of the kind of a leader we need in this country.

It would do our country good for the republicans to get beat up real good at the elections and that's what counts, not party posturing.

[Texasforever]

The "Patriot movement" is a real entity. Look it up.

[Texasforever]

Barry Goldwater was a flaming liberal on all social issues.

[WRhine]

But they are NOT conservatives, just a bunch of whacked out knuckle draggers that have visions of revolution running through their little minds.

Funny, the British characterized the Founding Fathers of this nation in a very similar way as you just did. Tex, you have proven yourself time and again to be convictionless, blow the wind RINO that shills at the drop of the hat. The cruel reality is that posters who never deviate from the WH talking points have little to no credibility here or elsewhere. Deal with it.

[Texasforever]

Funny, the British characterized the Founding Fathers of this nation in a very similar way as you just did. Tex, you have proven yourself time and again to be convictionless, blow the wind RINO that shills at the drop of the hat. The cruel reality is that posters who never deviate from the WH talking points have little to no credibility here or elsewhere. Deal with it.

I knew the founders and you are not cut from their cloth.

[WRhine]

I knew the founders and you are not cut from their cloth.

hehehe. Somehow I just can't see you supporting any political freedom movement that involves a lot of risk and sacrifice. Was Benedict Arnold one of your drinking buddies?

[Texasforever]

As a matter of fact I hanged him.

[Reagan Man]

Just because you assume something doesn't make it true.

Did you even go to the link I supplied and read what Reagan had to say about political compromise? I'll bet you didn't!

I don't know anything in politics and governing, in our society and culture, that isn't open to some level of compromise. But I'm not an absolutist, or a reactionary. It just depends on who you are and how much you're willing to compromise your principles. If you can't be flexible and keep an open mind, you're doomed to failure.

<I>>>>"From the looks of the posts you seem kind of out of step with conservatives, and no, there were some principles Reagan would just not compromise on, like a conservative platform, and telling moderates and liberal's to go their way, right out of the Party. I can't believe you don't get that. I think you really do, you just rather compromise your name sakes principles."</i>

I've been a Reagan conservative since 1975. It is you whose is out of step with conservatism. While Reagan supported the Republican platform, which was based in the principles of the conservative movement, he always courted independents and dissatisfied Democrats. He knew if he didn't make an appeal to those in the political center, he could never win elective office. While Reagan was a master at political gamesmanship, he understood the need to compromise to some extent and to settle for less then 100% of what he wanted.

On Reagan's tax reform plan, he asked for a 30% cut across the board, but had to settle for 25%. Reagan's greatest legislative achievement, the 1981 tax reductions, was a compromise.

[WRhine]

As a matter of fact I hanged him.

Ahhhh Yeaahhh that's the ticket. Belch!

[Red Jones]

the prime legislation that reagan got out of congress was his big tax cut of 81. He got that tax cut at a time when the republicans were more weak than they are today. After that big success he settled into a mode of compromise with congress which meant that as long as they funded his military he let them do about anything they wanted. Of course late in Reagan's presidency he was very weak in congress, they were walking all over him.

By comparison Bush will not apparently ever stand for principal, he will not ever fight with the liberals on any big issue. So, unlike Reagan he will not incur the wrath of the liberals. People like Reagan in hindsight and he did win re-election in 84 very easily. But during much of reagan's actual presidency he was in the doghouse according to the popularity polls. He only improved his popularity when he campaigned for re-election in 84. Other than that his poll ratings were much lower than bush or clinton. But now that Reagan is passed from the scene andpeople see him in hindsight through history, they really like him.

Bush may be more popular now with the public, but not in history he won't be any ronald reagan at all. Bush won't stand up for the americans unlike reagan. Bush is an elitest who stands with the liberals against the americans. I hope bush proves me wrong, but I don't see it. Bush and the republicans truly don't like the conservatives, it is their preference to cut them out.

[Reagan Man]

<I>>>>"Lots of democrats are plenty more worth voting for than lots of republicans. I'm coming from a conservative point of view."</i>

LOL Conservatives don't vote for Democrats. You're no conservative.

<I>>>>"Jerry Ford held a press conference AFTER ronald reagan had wrapped up the republican nomination in 1980 just before the convention and said that reagan was unfit to lead.</i>

You're full of s**t. After a bitter nomination battle in 1976, between Ford and Reagan, President Ford invited Reagan to speak at the Republican National Convention. Reagan wanted Ford for his VP in 1980, but Ford turned it down. After being POTUS, VP didn't appeal to Ford. These two men were friends, not enemies.

<I>>>>"Reagan was in a much weaker position in congress than bush is today..."</i>

Republicans controlled the Senate for Reagans first term and half of his second term, 1981-1987. Reagan worked from an electorial position of strength, following two landslide victories in 1980 and 1984. He also had Tip O'Neil to deal with and O'Neil loved the give and take of politics. They accomplished something for America with the tax reform plan that helped the economy recover and the massive military buildup, that eventually won the Cold War. Bush is working with a slim majority in the House and an obstructionist liberal Democrat led Senate. There was political gridlock in Reagan's day and there is even more gridlock today.

There is only one Ronald Reagan. But George W.Bush is the most conservative president we've had since Reagan and at times, is very Reaganesque.

[Texasforever]

LMAO. Reagn would spit in your eye.

[MissAmericanPie]

Yes, I read your link, and there is a difference between going toe to toe and hammering out a compromise with democrats and giving them the farm for nothing, nadda, zip in return.

Even to go so far as to take liberal action, when there is no pressure to take liberal action. Here is something else the "gipper" had to say:

"A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply swell its numbers...And if there are those who cannot subscribe to these principles, then let them go their way."--Ronald Reagan

I've always gone my own way, it just so happened that it was the same direction the Republican Party use to be headed in. I'm a registered independent. Just because the Republican Party is jumping off a cliff, doesn't mean I have to follow them.

[Red Jones]

yeah, reagan very successfully made a play for democrat votes. He did it by thumping on conservative issues. Bush is too much a coward to do that. Bush tries to appeal to democrats by being a liberal. Bush is real tough standing up against conservatives and calling them names. But Ronald Reagan wouldn't offend anyone on his side unlike Bush and ronald reagan would go out after democrat votes and get them not by pretending to be a liberal as Bush does, but by being a conservative. Big difference between reagan and bush, we agree on that wholeheartedly.

We shouldn't forget that before GW Bush we had GHW Bush and the elder bush was probably the most malicious destroyer of american jobs that we ever had as president in our nation's history. The young bush isn't really much different from his father in that he just doesn't care about our people or our nation. He lives in the world of the elite, the welfare of the ordinary people means absolutely nothing to him.

[WRhine]

Red that was one of the best assessments and contrasts of the Reagan and Bush II presidencies I've ever seen. You are right on the mark.

[nopardons]

The Reafan MYTH over shadows the facts and dthe truth ; even in the minds of many FREEPERS. Bush has done more in 18 months, with a weird war, than Reagan did in his first 18 months.

It remains to be seen, what history will make of this President Bush. It took about 4 decades , for the mythmakers, to enshrine Harry Truman into the Olympian stratosphere.

just remember, there is NO president, >B? NOT ONE , who has / will ever do even 75 % of everything that those who voted for him, want him to do. Far too many here, really want a dictator ... not a president. They either don't care, or don't know eneoeugh about what presidents can or can't do, so they complain / whinge / whine and demand that he do what they want carried out ; whether it's legal, rational, or any good at all, or not.

[nopardons]

Thank you, dear, for posting <B> facts </B> ; something sorely lacking from most FREEPERs's replies.

[Texasforever]

Here is Reagan talking to you

"When I began entering into the give and take of legislative bargaining in Sacramento, a lot of the most radical conservatives who had supported me during the election didn't like it. "Compromise" was a dirty word to them and they wouldn't face the fact that we couldn't get all of what we wanted today. They wanted all or nothing and they wanted it all at once. If you don't get it all, some said, don't take anything.
"I'd learned while negotiating union contracts that you seldom got everything you asked for. And I agreed with FDR, who said in 1933: 'I have no expectations of making a hit every time I come to bat. What I seek is the highest possible batting average.'
"If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, and that's what I told these radical conservatives who never got used to it."

Ronald Reagan, from his autobiography, An American Life
ou

[Reagan Man]

>>>"... there is a difference between going toe to toe and hammering out a compromise with democrats and giving them the farm for nothing, nadda, zip in return."

Take the farm bill, as an example. I didn't support Bush signing off on the farm bill, but you don't think most farmers today, are conservative and Republican? Think about it.

While political parties aren't everything to all people, they're the only way to win election victories and Reagan understood that. Btw, got a link to that Reagan quote?

>>>"Just because the Republican Party is jumping off a cliff, doesn't mean I have to follow them."

I'm a Republican Party member and i"m not jumping off any cliff and neither are other Republicans.