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.

[GunsareOK]

I do not endorse or support Howard Dean.

[JustAnAmerican]

"In other words....you'll be helping elect true LIBERALS. How nice".

What's that old saying, "Sticks and Stones", in this case I could care less how other people think I should vote. Bush is pushing through more socialistic programs then any Dim could ever hope to get through. 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.

[Who is John Galt?]

Conservatives only have one choice in 2004 and the overwhelming majority of them will make that choice happily.

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...

;>)

[Texas_Dawg]

That leaves not voting in the Pres. election or voting Constitution Party, since I value my vote, I will be voting for the Constitutional party in the Pres. election and true conservatives in all others.

This is like betting on your favorite team in the Super Bowl... even though you're team got eliminated earlier in the playoffs. It's what little 5-year-old brats do... pout when they do not get their way on everything (despite getting what they want in many other cases). Save yourself sometime and just stay home.

[At _War_With_Liberals]

"President Bush is beginning to anger certain hard-line conservatives"

An outright deception and misstatement meant to marginalize every Repu who disagrees.

No surprise from the loafer-licking WT. The bias in their recent editions is overwhelming.

[Little Ray]

He's not a conservative. He spends too much money on things which the Federales have no business buying. He IS a man who stands by his principles and his friends. I don't always like his principles (CFR is fiasco, and promising to sign a new Assault Weapon Ban really p.o.'ed me) or his friends (Presidente Fox and the Saudis), but it is nice to have a man and not a weather-vane for President.

[Texas_Dawg]

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.

[!1776!]

GWB will win in a landslide and crush the Dean-supporting FRinge FReaks.

Does the short sighted, short attention span, short memory, instant gratification, one issue wonder crowd get on your nerves also?

I can't figure out whether they are wearing blinders to realty or simply scared of success.

Short Sighted: A vote not cast for Bush is a vote cast for a liberal.

Short Attention Span: Bills have to pass Congress before they can be signed into law - these things don't just magically appear on the President's desk.

Short Memory: 8 Years of Clinton.

Instant Gratification: The left has loaded the Courts and Agencies with people who think they get to re-write the Constitution. It takes time to fix that. Just because it isn't easy doesn't mean it isn't worth doing.

One Issue Wonder: If I don't get my (exact) way on issue X I'm not voting for him (likely for reasons listed above). That always signifies a genius plan in action.

[Wild Irish Rogue]

" I will not be voting for Bush in the Presidential election, especially with his coming endorsement of amnesty for illegals."

The Bush Administration has announced they are giving amnesty to illegals ??? When you make a statement like that, I am sure you can provide a link to the official announcement.

[GunsareOK]

I said nothing about legalizing drugs (although it may be a platform of the Libertarian Party).

[Texas_Dawg]

He's not a conservative.

He absolutely is. One of the most conservative we have ever had. So much so that he's willing to make sure he does not lose the White House (which he took back for us) to liberals, even if it means having to give in on some things he'd much rather not have to sign.

[RinaseaofDs]

You are better off not arguing with old Texas Dawg. He's logic intolerant in a way that is, well, sort of sad. I wasted a fair bit of unrecoverable lifetime before somebody alerted me to the issue. It must be a right of passage for FR newbies.

Buchanan is right here. The war is the only issue that prevents Bush from facing a primary opponent. On his watch we lost the 1st amendment to the constitution(he signed the bill), the door is open to legalizing gay marriage, he abandoned Estrada and the other clearly conservative court appointees for the bench. He signed the largest entitlement ever into law (prescription drug benefit).

He's about to grant amnesty to 8 million illegal aliens, and has done zero to end the H1B and L1 visa programs.

Meanwhile, manufacturing is out the door, primarily because the government won't back off of all the regulatory costs and legal mandates required of manufacturers in the US, yet says nothing when the jobs go to nations where none of those mandates are in place.

He is a ghastly conservative. He said he wouldn't sign campaign finance reform and did it anyway, which would have been normally enough for most conservatives to be infuriated, but then there's the war.

If the democrats had a credible guy on their side, a Sam Nunn hawk with decent fiscal sense, Bush would have a problem.

I feel, literally, as if I have a gun to my head this year. If I vote for someone other than Bush, I'm putting my family in jeopardy. We are going to have to wait four more years and see what we end up with.

You can't look at the last four years as a liberal and be all that unhappy. Look at how much of their agenda has been accomplished. So what that it wasn't Clinton claiming it as part of a legacy.

Save yourself some lifetime on this one.

[Muleteam1]

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

I just listened to a radio program where the caller was a supposed hard-line conservative but is "angry" at George Bush. This sounds like a DNC plan, albeit very transparent, to attract illiterate conservatives. Well, this is one true hard-line conservative who does not buy it and does not intend to roll-over for the socialist Howard Dean.

Muleteam1

[Publius Maximus]

Anyone aiding and enabling a Democrat to get elected, especially in these critical times is just plain enemy of the US and the American people.

This is bunk. The truth is the truth: The Republican party, under Bush II, has become the thing it hated most: A money-dispensing, vote-grubbing party more determined to do what will maintain majority (and buying votes ALWAYS works in a democracy, it's why they all eventually go broke) than what will preserve the Republic. There is no excuse for the Medicare vote, except as a grotesque, unapologetic 'triangulation' of a typically Democrat issue for purely political gain.

WHile I will hold my nose and vote for Bush next year, I don't have any illusions that he's really a conservative.

Incidentally, Clinton was the best thing that ever happened to the Republican party. He causes a major re-alignment in Congress - breaking a 40 year stranglehold his Party had on the institution. Dean can be just as devastating to liberalism. Problem is, he's going to be outflanked on liberal issues by Bush - who is going to use liberal issues to bankrupt us by the end of his second term, at which point conservatism will be discredited.

I know it's a sin not to gloat about Bush, but he has a lot to prove before I can honestly say I support him 100%. War on terror - sure, because none of the quacks in the Democrat fold have a freaking clue about the nature of the enemey. But on social issues, and particularly spending issues, Bush II has been a complete dud so far. Maybe he'll use his second term to become the draconian budget cutter his opponents claim he is. I hope so.

But this nonsense about being a traitor because one is mad enough at Bush's pandering to consider letting others elect him is just nuts.

[stopem]

It's a long way till Nov 2004 so I wont make any decisions until than but there are disturbing issues that Bush needs to take care of for the sake of conservative votes.

And illegal aliens, immigration, and protecting our borders are high on the list as is spending.

[Texas_Dawg]

Short Memory: 8 Years of Clinton.

A. MEN.

They are like the few Iraqis who fully supported the invasion and celebrated its success but now complain that the place isn't a paradise yet.

[nwrep]

Gunsareok, why don't you acknowledge the one issue on which your votes for Bush would be crucial, if it helps get him re-elected? And that issue is Judicial appointments. If you are a conservative, the notion of someone other than Bush being the President should bother you on the Judicial front.

Regards.

[Texas_Dawg]

It's a long way till Nov 2004 so I wont make any decisions until than but there are disturbing issues that Bush needs to take care of for the sake of conservative votes.

For you, maybe. He'll win in a landslide though b/c most conservatives are very happy with him, and the moderates trust him enough to vote for him as well.

[NeoCaveman]

And the two disappointments you mention would have been far worse under the only other alternative in our 2-party system.

You forget the option of gridlock! Klintoon couldn't get these passed and it wasn't for lack of trying.

Besides I already said I was voting for Bush again. Can you tolerate any disagreement at all? Sheesh.

The "Party is always right" mentality only applies to Stalinists and Democrats (but I repeat myself)

[At _War_With_Liberals]

""I see no erosion at all in the president's support, and that is largely because of the president's conduct of the war and the belief in the very strong character of President Bush," he says."

Gillespie and the RNC have had this answer/plan ready, when they prognosticated the likely reaction to Bush's socialism.

In a nutshell: "The far right old school exremists are irrelevant and will be ignored, because we do not need them. And ANY DEBATE OR RECOGNITION of their CONCERNS can only lead to problems, so screw them." Any questions now?

This is what Gillespie talks about off the record with insiders. When that NH newspaper 'outed' this position, he denied it profusely. LIAR.