Rumbling on the Hard-Right

The Washington Times ^ | December 30, 2003 | Stephen Dinan

[GunsareOK]

President Bush is beginning to anger certain hard-line conservatives, particularly over fiscal issues, the way his father did in the year before he lost to Bill Clinton in 1992.

It's not clear how deep the dissatisfaction goes, and whether it will translate to damage at the polls in November.

[At _War_With_Liberals]

"I am not a "one issue" conservative and the MOST important issue on the table is who is going to protect America from terrorism and their ilk"

NO IT IS NOT 'the most important issue. By professing to save THE COUNTRY, the citizens are getting screwed over in so many ways that it makes my head spin.

You have been conditioned into thinking this. We have decimated AQ and now have Iraq as a 'center of the ME' BASE.
I suuport and thank Bush for this, but I'm not going to bend over for his neocon domestic agenda. And many here feel the way I do.

[Who is John Galt?]

"Once again," perhaps you can tell us "how [our RKBA will] be reclaimed under" any Republican president who ignores the Constitution he swore to preserve, protect, and defend? "Is it magic? Something that automatically happens when a Republican is elected?"

"I'm not willing to help the left whittle more of my 2nd amendment rights away by putting someone who" ignores the Constitution "in charge of the agencies responsible for implementing laws written by Congress."

;>)

[At _War_With_Liberals]

"If people would start to understand that we have a President, not a king, and that laws originate with the Congress, maybe they could figure out how to win the war they are willing to sell out for a battle."

No sale. The most powerful man IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD has no influence on the domestic agenda and direction of the nation? Absurd.

[JohnnyZ]

Amid out of control pork barrel spending, gay marriages

You're blaming Bush for gay marriage now? Sheesh, holy fantasy world Batman!

[kildak]

Texas_Dawg, exactly what is your definition of true conservatism?

[!1776!]

I don't know about this particular chart, but I was told that other similar once including spending on Homeland Security as "social spending". Just goes to show you, how far some people go to try to present Bush in a bad light.

I really asked what I thought was an easy question to the original poster. Does this chart include federal employee salaries?

If the chart simply reflected social program spending it would have been a quick no, but I got the history of social programs 101 lecture which makes me suspicious. That and the title - Human Resources which could be just about anything including salaries, benefits, etc...

Honestly, the light of critical review can be very illuminating...

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Especially, when people claiming to be conservatives are working hard to get leftist peaceniks like Dean get elected.

A lot of us are just hard-working conservatives like you who's worried about the GOP drifting leftward. We're not a bunch of riff-raffs seeking to start flame wars with those who blindly support the policies of Bush and the GOP establishment. All we want is for Bush to lead on domestic issues like he's done on foreign policy.

So your statement is totally asinine and disrespectful.

[Lael]

Bush has no intention to stop the invasion. He will only encourage it. He hides behind double talk to defend his disastrous immigration policies. It is remarkable that politicians ignore their voters on this issue.

You have no idea just how correct you are!

Obviously, Karl Rove is cluless! [he doesn't have a 'success' letter in his name!]

Michael Savage plus the local talk shows have discovered this issue, and now talk very little about ANYTHING else!!

This must be the Arbitron Ratings driven, and 6 MILLION responses to Savage's Web poll [multiple responses are screened out!]

January 12, just two weeks from today, Vincente Fox visits, expecting Bush to "deliver". If he does, there will be 10 months of Bush Bashing over Immigration!

Savage is proposing that conservatives refrain from voting the Presidential Line over this.

After all, Bush just barely got in while losing the Popular Vote by half a million.

Can he do it while losing the Popular Vote by 6+ MILLION??

[At _War_With_Liberals]

"I am a GOP-bot because it is the only defender of American conservatism"

No sale. Bush, the admin, the RNC and neocon media have marginalized conservatives as useless extremists with a bankrupt, outmoded philosophy.

They waged the war on us. Bush has applied his "You are with us or against us" to us now. Only a weakling or someone who benefits DIRECTLY from the GOP policies will bend over for them.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

Dean as president would not be within view of the worst thing in the world.

He is weak and stupid and even the republicans could beat the daylights out of him on every issue.

The Constitution would be no more damaged under him than it has been under Bush. It's pretty much gone anyway.

I get so tired of the stupid shouting about people who don't vote for my heroic rockstar god president are enemies.

If a president sucks, he doesn't deserve your vote, period.
And George Hebert Walker Bush just plain sucked like Jimmy Carter. He didn't deserve to be president in the first place. Except for a few bright people in his administration, George W. Bush has been lukewarm to poor.

He'd have to do something really outstanding to get me back to vote for him again, and given what we've seen from him so far, he isn't likely to do anything like that.

When the war in Iraq started, most everyone I saw was very pleased with him.

Now, I hear more grumbles than compliments, even at the gun club.

He should wake up and remember who voted for him.

Oh, the religon of peace?
They are only a danger to us because we let them live. After they hurt us enough whomever is president will have to destroy them, like it or not.

[Who dat?]

I'm one of the "hard-line conservatives" who won't be voting for Bush.

Yep. You’re not going to be alone either.

IMO there are a lot of people that are going to be shocked when they find out exactly how many people there are in this country that, knowing *damn* good and well that they were probably making a mistake, held their nose and voted for GWB anyway.

And my prediction is that he’s not going to win. Whatever. It’s not worth arguing about. Just wait until election day and watch what happens.

[A Navy Vet]

"... laws originate with the Congress,..."

And the veto pen sits in the White House. Apparently, it's now rusting away in some old coffee can in the basement.

[At _War_With_Liberals]

"Absolutely false: Taxes. He cut them."

And added them to the deficit. Future taxes. Wake up.

[Who is John Galt?]

He should wake up and remember who voted for him.

Bump...

;>)

[At _War_With_Liberals]

"Ok,I'll try with you-Where and when has President Bush ever said he supported amnesty for illegals ??"

Fact: The admin supports McCains plan and influenced the writing of it. It will be tweaked. And now McCain will support Bush in exchange.

[hchutch]

Some of the comments Sam Francis has made (like the one below) cross that line in my book.

"The civilization that we as whites created in Europe and America could not have developed apart from the genetic endowments of the creating people." — SAMUEL FRANCIS, SPEECH AT THE AMERICAN RENAISSANCE CONFERENCE, MAY 1994

Source:
http://www.nationalreview.com/frum/frum031903.asp

I should note that those comments got Sam Francis fired from the Washington Times, not exactly a liberal newspaper.

The company that Francis seems comfortable with (American Renaissance, VDARE) certainly does not speak well for it. VDARE once ran a letetr praising a nasty chap by the name of Kevin MacDonald (who used to post here as macdonald14 until he was outed by Cachelot and banned). The "14" in that screen name, by the way, was a reference to something.

It looks to me, at least from what I've seen, that if paleo-cons are not racists and bigots, then they're engaging in the first cousins of racism and bigotry or they have no problem with those who do. And I have to agree with what David Frum wrote about them.

In my opinion, Buchanan's pretty damn close to racist, or at the least he has no problem associating with racists. He certainly seems to act like a bigot sometimes. He was the last one, and that was in 2000.

[FairOpinion]

My statement is factual.

Anyone not voting for Bush is helping the Dean/Dems win.

Anyone helping the Dems win is no conservative.

[!1776!]

"Once again," perhaps you can tell us "how [our RKBA will] be reclaimed under" any Republican president who ignores the Constitution he swore to preserve, protect, and defend? "Is it magic? Something that automatically happens when a Republican is elected?"

Since you won't answer my question, I'll take a stab at yours...

First, a liberal President will continue to erode RKBA through various means. It might be more illiterate judges that can't read "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" and instead rule that it is a "collective right."

Second, a liberal President will have to pander to his base, a la the Brady Center and PETA. AWB, is nothing like what they could dream up.

Third, the agencies implementing law (ATF in this case) can effectively strangle buyers and licensed dealers with red tape (especially if they have packed courts to fall back on). A simple rule change here, a different interpretation there, and you get an entire legal industry ground to a halt. The President is in charge of these agencies.

The gun banners tried Congress, and they had success for a while. The NRA has been the most effective organization at turning that tide but there is still a ways to go - those bills should never even make it to the President's desk.

Now they are working at the judicial level and having mixed results. Maybe you should ask the President's opinion on protecting the firearms industry from frivilous lawsuits because with or without AWB, it will be tough to buy a firearm from a bankrupt company.

Remaining are the implementing agencies. The CDC has historically been infested with gun banners. Only recently have they ever so reluctantly begun to see the light of day. There are other agencies out there that can make life a headache outside the light of the press that you either don't know about or don't want to acknowledge.

Is that better? Now please tell me how many steps backwards you are willing to take since you might not get your way on on battle in a larger war?

[FairOpinion]

The site where that chart is from is extolling FDR's virtues, and bashes Bush. That should also give you a clue, as to what they are really doing.

http://www.sentryoveramerica.com/issue24_GWB_vs_FDR.htm

GWB and FDR--Sad Differences

Reagan and FDR--Similarities


"The truth is, opposite to RNC rally cries, is that George Bush—based on official Office of Management and Budget data—is the biggest socialist in the history of the world. "

[Who is John Galt?]

Anyone helping the Dems win is no conservative.

And it can fairly be argued that 'anyone helping a non-conservative win is no conservative'...

;>)