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 ...
Real conservatives are expected to bend over, grab their ankles and shout "Thank you sir, may I have another!"
Regards
J.R.
Also, I remember Jay Rhodes of AZ who was minority leader in the house for over 10 years I believe. The media always said that he was a 'conservative' republican. When he retired in the early 80's he had one message for the media, he said openly and clearly that the one group in the republican party that he really didn't like was the 'conservatives'. that's the word he used to describe them.
We read now that in election season now the RNC gives money to republicans in primaries who have conservative opponents. They are making a long-term effort and strong effort to simply keep the conservatives from power.
Bush has criticized Daschle in the last year, but his criticism of Daschle is not nearly as strong as his criticism of that conservative republican from colorado named Tancredo? That's a normal pattern for republicans, it's not an aberration.
In a large city near where I live the republicans dominate easily. The most popular mayor they ever had in that city was a liberal republican. Toward the end of his career he organized a big state-wide republican meeting over a weekend at a resort for rich liberals. At that meeting he did nothing but bad-mouth conservatives. He stated openly that this was the purpose of the meeting and people in attendance cheered over it.
In AZ the republicans have been dominant for a long time, I get a great chance to see what the republicans are all about. Believe me, they do not serve the population, they are very contemptuous of conservatives, much less so towards democrrats. They are rich liberal country clubbers who only work for the rich just like the democrats accuse them. That's why the accusation sticks so strong and why it is so hard for the repubs to become the dominant party nationwide when the dems are so pitiful.
Sorry to disagree with you, because we both agree that reagan was a great leader. But I just personally don't see anything good in the republican party if you are a conservative.
The 1996 figure was 17%.
Thanks for the research, Poohbah.
After looking at the poll, I would estimate the MOI to be around 7%. Repeatedly there is a non-sensical 5% on polarizing questions such as (not really an example, but for demonstration of some of the responses) "Who would make the better President?" who answered one candidate and voted for the other.
And that consistent 5% of illogical answers doesn't even account for the statistical error in extrapolating results from a sample across the entire voting population.
The medical industry is currently falling apart. Medical costs have risen for 25 consequtive years now at significantly above the inflation rate. Recently insurance companies have told their best clients that this year there will be an additional 20% increase in cost. Rising numbers of americans cannot afford medical insurance. This is a real bona-fide crisis.
Ronald Reagan would've known it was a crisis and he would've prescribed the standard conservative treatment for this industry for decades. He would propose changes to reduce the paperwork requirements for that industry. He would propose tort-reform to reduce the litigation cost on that industry. He would've done it in order to help the lower income americans. Reagan would've successfully convinced lots of democrats to vote with him on these issues also and prevailed.
Bush' behavior in this situation is very very different. He's a born-rich guy very much unlike Reagan who was born poor. To Bush these things are only a problem when the democrats use the issue to push a lot of his country club republican friends out of office, that's the only time it ever registers on Bush' mind. The democrats of course are phonies, they don't care at all about the people victimized by their policies, they merely say they do, and so they are unwilling to move on this issue. Bush, the country clubber, recognizes the dems are not going to attack on this issue and so it is a non-issue to him. He's also aware the liberals have enormous power in the media and is unwilling to challenge them on anything, unlike reagan. So, bottom line is, the rich spoiled brat named bush sits on the sidelines and criticizes conservatives when he should be using them as allies to make changes for the good on this issue.
Don't let this guy nopardons fool you. Reagan came into office and he was willing to take the liberals head-on even when republicans were small minority in the house of reps where all legislation starts. He got his big tax cut through under those conditions. Bush does not possess those qualities of courage, integrity and leadership to even try to do what reagan did.
It is true that reagan paid a huge price as the liberals in the media/academia relentlessly attacked him with lots of lies. Bush doesn't have that problem. The liberal media very much likes him compared to reagan. According to republican cheerleaders this means success.
Let's just take education vouchers, as an example. Bush got about 8 percent of the Black vote, yet everyone knows that Blacks - especially those in the inner cities - favor education vouchers.
What did Bush do? He caved in to the DemocRATs, without a fight. Why didn't he schedule visits to large Black churches in all of the large cities - DC, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Chicago, NY, south central LA, etc., and bring the Blacks on board?
He could have gotten his vouchers and won over some of the Blacks. And I doubt that he would have angered any of his base.
"Its a small, vocal group."
These days, anybody who stands by their principles falls into that category.
Sure is. Rove strictly referenced white evangelical Christians in that comment, and he never backed it up with poll figures or demographics, as far as we know. Also, it's disingenuous - and nonsensical - to infer that some of those people voted for Gore. Rove was speaking to an audience that would be openly receptive to anti-white, anti-Christian rhetoric. Pretty sickening, really. It's the kind of thing Terry McCaulliffe would stoop to.
Based on ABC News exit polling data from 1996 and 2000.
Also, it's disingenuous - and nonsensical - to infer that some of those people voted for Gore.
18% did, according to the same poll.
True enough. But all it's gonna take from this administration will be another two years of increasingly virulent liberal social policies, a couple more shivs in Irsael's back, and an attack on the 2nd Amendment, and that mythical 4 million vote deficit could increase tenfold into something very real.
In 1994, the Democrat base stayed home in droves. The Republican base was just less of a no-show.
OK... you sourced it. Can't say I like or respect or trust the source, but you sourced it.
The Dems are simply losing their scare-'em issues for the base, and their attacks on Bush are looking less and less focused on reality--just like they did in 1994, BTW.
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.