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.

[gatorbait]

If you wish to drink the Bushite Koolaid, be my guest. I was going to let most of this thread pass, but that statement is just silly. The whole article, including Vigurie's and Buchannan's remarks just smack of the post 1964 tantrum thrown by the Goldwater types. I respect your anger and irritation, I truly do, but how will will principled ,indirect vote for the Democrats solve anything? You have the 1993-2001 holiday from history to reflect upon and tell me , how that was a good thing? Much is made of Clinton signing the Welfare Reform Act on the third or fouth try. Clinton only signed it after Dick Morris told him to do so. Score 1 for us,but think of whatever else we can look back upon as big victories for conservatism under Clinton. Do you really, in your heart and mind ,believe that a Dean presidency would give either of us want we want and need? Returning to your phrase about Kool aid drinking, I believe that leaping off into 3d Party of stay at home voting patterns delivers Guyanan Grape in 55 gallon drums.

[CA Conservative]

Really? The first President Bush assumed that gun owners had 'no where else to go,' after he signed the ban on importation of so-called 'assault weapons.' Guess his assumption wasn't quite correct, and your's may not be, either - especially if the current President Bush renews the '94 Clinton/Feinstein 'assault weapons' ban...

I am a bit confused by a lot of the rhetoric here, blaming Bush for not controlling the borders, accusing Bush of planning to grant amnesty to illegals (even though that has been categorically denied by the Bush administration), and now the assault weapons ban...

Kindly keep in mind that the only way the ban will be renewed is if Congress passes an extension. If that happens, will you vote against your representative and senator as well? And exactly what would you have Bush do differently with regard to border control, keeping in mind the budget restrictions he has to work with? And don't tell me to put the military on the border - they are kinda busy overseas right now.

I am not happy with everything that Bush has done, but I am happy with most of the things he has done. Even if your ideal candidate, whoever that might be, were to be magically elected president, you would not be happy with everything he/she did after three years - it is just the nature of our system of government. We do not live in a monarchy or dictatorship, so anything Bush wants to accomplish has to move through Congress. That means compromise at times.

And with regard to the fiscal conservatives, keep in mind that non-defense spending increases have been kept to 4%... not great, but a lot better than under any Democrat would have been. Add that to the tax cuts, PBA ban, dumping Kyoto and ABM treaties, his willingness to ignore the UN and defend the USA interests first - I am more than willing to give him another 4 years.

[StoneColdGOP]

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. Arnold seems to have the same problem. The license issue apparently will be revived in Jan. Too bad for California, McClintock was not elected.

You are all too correct. There are dark days in store if we follow the path we are on now.

[Godebert]

Your homepage looks very similiar to Chancellor Palpatine's. He also liked to attack true Conservatives, labeling anyone that didn't agree with his socialist neo-con agenda as an evil "paleo-Con". If you noticed.....Jim Robinson gave that boot to that liberal turd.

[DManA]

You must have an odd definition of the word "choice".

Conservatives only have one choice in 2004

Are you trying to say that conservatives have no choice? That's not exactly a conservative position to take.

[At _War_With_Liberals]

"But isn't it fair to say that Bush's SC (and other federal court) picks will be FAR more to you liking than would Howard Dean's or Dick Gephardt's?"

What I am saying is that there is a ZERO chance of an activist SD judge stepping down and letting Bush appoint a moderate. By def, an activist judge will be carried out in a box before they allow that to happen.

On the other hand, if Dean is president, they WILL step down and it will be a disaster. Since Bush's reelection is all but guaranteed, it does not matter.

Bottom line: Bush II will not get the chance to appoint a SC judge unless one drops dead. And the odds are MINISCULE.

[Godebert]

Well said.

[Zipporah]

So you are asserting that all paleo-conservatives are racists and bigots? I will say I am neither. I know nothing of "the American Renassance".. I am a paleo-conservative based on the following: to me a paleo-conservative is a real conservative, as opposed to a "mainstream" conservative or a neo-con , I am fervently anti-communist, very much against sweeping federal programs, and wish to lower taxes as much as possible and limit centralized federal government, abolish unconstitutional federal agencies, in other words, follow Constitutional principals and the principals of the Founding Fathers. There may be variations of paleo-conservatives.. but I'm not responsible to answer for anyone but myself.

[gatorbait]

Bush thinks he is undeafeatable so he will ram illegals,more Welfare and gun bans down our throats knowing people like you will vote for him no matter what he does.

For the sake of argument, let's assume your assertion is correct.Now, can you explain why , and leave out vote getting as that is a fall back catch all to use, Bush would do anything like this?

[Warren_Piece]

Reading this debate has made me realize I have become a 1-issue voter.

When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I saw with a child's eyes. I was passionate about taxes, Judicial appointments, CFR, culture wars, abortion.

I grew up on Sept 11, 2001.

I have 2 children. I protect them ferociously within my sphere of influence. There are men in this world who want my children dead.

Everything else pales in comparison to this fact. Those issues were diversions, child's play.

There are men in this world that want to kill my children. I cannot personally protect them from many of these evil plots. I believe that President Bush can, insofar as any human lerader can.

I cannot look into my children's eyes and do anything but pull the lever for President Bush.

[!1776!]

I gave you the link to get the definition from the source defining it. Use it.

That's okay, if you have to beat around the bush (twice now) on what "Human Resources" entails I'll just default to my definition. Remember you provided a pretty picture, I asked for clarification, and you dodged the question.

I'm guessing your next response will be I'm not willing to dig for the answers. Let me save you some time - you provided the plot, you back it up with answers.

Why is is labeled Human Resources instead of social programs?

Why did you respond with Human Resources, than switch to language about social programs.

Sorry if this appears offensive, but you are impressing me as a possible scam artist.

[At _War_With_Liberals]

"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."

Because corporate profits and rising stock prices mean more to Bush than the reduction in the quality of life for peasants that are living in communities deluged with these problems.

The wealthty overwhelmingly excuse Bush for anything and everything because the illegal issue does not affect them in the least.

I have realized this in the last 2 weeks.

[FreeReign]

"They're very pleased with the president signing [the ban on] partial-birth abortion and my members, from what I hear and see, are clearly pleased with his steadfast fight on terrorism, and tax cuts, but they certainly do question the Medicare increase."

My feelings, exactly.

[!1776!]

Bottom line: Bush II will not get the chance to appoint a SC judge unless one drops dead. And the odds are MINISCULE.

Yeah, 70 - 80 years is mid-life. They probably got another 100,000 - 250,000 miles in 'em.

[Warren_Piece]

I've seen Texas Dawg have it out with Palpatine before. Either he's schizophrenic, or they are not the same person.

[CA Conservative]

Actually, the Democrats _do_ have such a guy, who might be considerably more conservative than G.W. Bush. Unfortunately, he's not running. I could even consider voting for him (and I have sworn NEVER to vote for a Democrat again).

His name is Zell Miller.

Even Zell Miller believes that Bush is the right man for the job -he announced on Fox News that he would be voting for Republican for president for the first time in his life this election.

[Who is John Galt?]

First, a liberal President will continue to erode RKBA through various means...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.

Thanks for the reply. "First," a Republican President who signs unconstitutional gun control legislation is no better than a "liberal President [who] will continue to erode RKBA through various means."

"Second," a Republican President who panders to the Brady Center is no different than a "liberal president [who] will have to pander to his base, a la the Brady Center..."

"Third," I know several law-abiding citizens who used to hold FFLs. I have yet to see this President propose "a simple rule change here" or "a different interpretation there" that would put them back in business.

If there is no functional difference between a Republican President and a D@mocrat President, then what do you suggest makes the former worth voting for? Karma?

;>)

...those bills should never even make it to the President's desk.

Time will tell. Many of the real conservatives who were elected in '94 promised to limit their time in office - and are therefore no longer present to influence the matter. Let's see what the left-over political pragmatists actually pass into 'law'...

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.

It will be even tougher if the President signs a bill banning those same firearms, don't you think?

;>)

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.

And how will this situation be improved if Mr. Bush signs, as he has promised to do, a reimplementation of the 'assault weapons' ban? Hmm? Are you expecting him to sign the bill, and then instruct ATF not to enforce it? Or will he use 'pixy dust' to make everything better?

;>)

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?

Frankly, I might be willing to suffer another Clinton for 2 years, if it would produce another honest-to-God "Revolution of '94." Personally, I will not promote an anti-constitutionalist Republican in lieu of a real republican...

;>)