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]

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.'

Is your knowledge of the recent past so shallow or so limited that you do not, or refuse not, recall the circumstances under which this legislation was pushed and foisted upon us? Do you not recall the amount of graphic imagery beamed into each of our homes nightly nor the screaming headlines? Do you not understand that ordinary mom and pop types were roused up by this constant barrage? Do you not ,at all recall exactly whom the House and Senate were controlled by with a fairly iron hand? Just curious.

[A Navy Vet]

No, I got your point - I was making my own. As for Congress, the GOP has lost me. I'm now independent. A few good things have been done on their watch, but they've increased the size of the fedgov enormously and there's no one even talking about reducing anything, 'cept maybe Ron Paul.

I'm a Constitutionalist before any political party. I chair an organization called Veterans for Constitutional Restoration. Since the Republican Congress and WH, I have watched our liberties slip away and social spending increase faster than any other time in my political life. While tax cuts are nice and giving the finger to the UN puts a smile on my face, watching the exponential growth and unconstitutional power grabs of the fedgov is depressing. This under REPUBLICAN watch. I miss Newt.

[Lael]

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...

And just what will he call the deal he makes with Vincente Fox who comes on January 12, 2004...just two weeks away???

Whatever it is called, it will be Amnesty Lite, and Savage has 6+ MILLION unique poll responses that indicate it will *NOT* go down well.

[At _War_With_Liberals]

"When does the President usurp the powers of congress and begin writing laws? "

Stop painting Bush as Jesus. He is the most powerful man in the history of the US, and the HEAD of the PARTY.

He has great influence over the direction of the Congress, as is evidenced by his not vetoing 1 damn thing.

And the appointment of lackey, closeted socialist Bill Frist
as a yes man to the neocon agenda.

I have researched Frist's record of legislation. It is DISGUSTING to any conservative. On the religious compassionate moral conservative bit. he gets an 'A'. And he gets an 'A' for socialism.

[Who is John Galt?]

You are either voting for Bush or you are voting for the Democrat. Anyone aiding the Dems to win is NO CONSERVATIVE. This is FACT.

Actually, it might well be said that 'anyone aiding a non-conservative to win is NO CONSERVATIVE. This is a FACT.' If you want to devote yourself to splitting hairs between Republican non-conservatives and D@mocrat non-conservatives, by all means enjoy yourself - you might make a talented chad counter..

;>)

[!1776!]

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.

Wow, these seem like pretty liberal (or socialist) comments from a true conservative?

Restrict corporate profits now, the working class should unite and take over the factories!

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

Blame the welthy for being succesful?

[At _War_With_Liberals]

"To think that people can call themselves fiscal conservatives and don't understand how lower taxes are 90% of the battle . . . it boggles the mind. More "conservative" morons."

CUTTING SPENDING is key to reform, not a bullsh** tax cut to stimulate the economy. The admin did not do it for the middle class. The debt has to be paid, and there is not going to be another 'tech bubble' to pay it down. It is more likely that taxes will go up.

You are a generation Y indoctrinated moron.

[LucyJo]

I will however never vote for Dean or any of the other Anti-American/Pro-Muslim crowd.

Bush and the Dem nominee will be the major candidates for the presidency, and the only ones with a hope of attaining it - even that is doubtful for the Dem candidate. You may be trying to make some kind of statement that satisfies your conscience, or whatever, but if the Dem candidate should somehow win, you will in effect have helped to elect that person by not voting for Bush, IMO.

Of course, that is your privilege. I'd rather work toward a more realistic goal, and try influencing that person's actions in areas where I disagree with him. Bush is more likely to respond to conservative ideals than any Dem who might run, and any damage he might cause is less than would be done if another leftist gets hold of the reins.

[Wild Irish Rogue]

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

"As I said on another thread minutes ago on this very topic:

Nor will he ever SAY it!

Some mid-level offical will announce it at a sparsely-attended press conference, if that."

And you know this as fact-exactly how ??

[Who is John Galt?]

What are you trying to say? Just curious...

;>)

[FairOpinion]

"Then "they" will know not to take us for granted..."

==

IOW "cutting off your nose to spite your face" and "burn down the village to save it", elect leftist Democrats, just to take your petty revenge because Republican's aren't "conservative enough".

Brilliant startegy. (/sarcasm)

[LPM1888]

I won't be voting for Bush because of the sleazy way he slipped the Patriot Act II into law. If Bush doesn't support the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution I don't support him.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1047908/posts

[american spirit]

As I read this thread and the dialogue with T. Dawg it's very reminiscient of the arguments Mike And Gloria had with Archie Bunker that usually ended up with them walking off, hands in the air, screaming... AAAAAAHHHHHHH!

[Lael]

I have realized this in the last 2 weeks.

And you will have to wait just 2 more weeks to see the size and shape of the Amnesty Lite sellout to Vincente Fox.

People just don't get it...this issue has just started to bubble up, probably since the capture of Saddam.

Savage puts a poll question on his website, and in 10 days gets 6 1/4 MILLION unique responses running 19 to 1 against any form of Amnesty. The Local talk shows indicate that Illegal Immigrants are the #1 topic of choice.

And the Republicans insist on ignoring "the Elephant in the Room"!!

[FairOpinion]

"splitting hairs between Republican non-conservatives and D@mocrat non-conservatives"

==

Now the truth comes out, you don't think there is any difference between the R & D parties.

[FreeReign]

"Absolutely false: Taxes. He cut them." And added them to the deficit. Future taxes. Wake up.

Federal interest payments as a percentage of GDP on the National Debt is the lowest it's been since 1979. It's 1.7% of GDP.

Go back to sleep.

[At _War_With_Liberals]

"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. "

Spending averaged 3.23 under Clinton, 8 year average.

[CA Conservative]

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

I'm sorry, but this statement is ridiculous. By the 4th year of a 2nd Bush term (2008), Rehnquist would be 84, Stevens would be 88, O'Connor would be 78, Ginsberg would be 75, Scalia and Kennedy would be 72, Breyer 70, Souter 69 and Thomas 60. Currently, average life expectancy for men is 81, for women 84. Stevens, Ginsberg and O'Connor have all had health problems. Statistically, at least one or two of these justices should die in the next 4 years, and based on age and medical history, the most likely are Stevens and Ginsberg (history of cancer), followed by Rehnquist (age) and O'Conner (age and history of cancer).

[At _War_With_Liberals]

"And if a Studebaker was all one had to cross Death Valley in July, many simpletons would choose to walk. Give us a break."

We can invent relative analogies all day long and accomplish nothing.

To withhold a vote from Bush IS NOT a vote for Dean, it is the absence of voting for Bush.

[rottweiller_inc]

I do not endorse or support Howard Dean. You also do not support stopping him. That's scary. And definitely not conservative. Quite the opposite actually.

the point you're ignoring, perhaps by intention, is than a Dean president balanced by a republician congress would stop the advance of socialism, if only for ahwile, because the two can't mix.