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.

[JohnnyZ]

I will vote for him if he lets the assault weapons ban fall.

The AWB will never get out of the House. Even if the Chris Shays GOP Northeast liberals join up with the Dem leadership, Democrats in rural areas & swing districts are not going to vote against guns right before the election, ESPECIALLY not with Dean topping the ticket.

I think Bush is awesome, but of course there are always things that could be better: spending habits, more free trade, more trade enforcement, ending illegal immigration (more legal is ok by me), immediate Marriage Amendment.

I think 2004 will be a GOP victory, followed by a renewed mandate for 1) lower spending, 2) more competition in Medicare (1&2 when we pick up a couple votes in Congress in 04 -- 51-48 ain't much of a Senate majority, and the House has its liberals), privatization of social security, and dealing with immigration.

[Zipporah]

SO you are saying because the poster is not voting for Bush "You're also not a conservative whatsoever.".. I am not voting for Bush BECAUSE I'm a conservative.

[SunStar]

His fiscal policies (an Education Bill that panders to NEA teachers who won't vote for him anyway and the drug expansion of medicaid), his failure to control the southern border, and his signing of "campaign finance reform" are my main gripes as well as his reluctant arming of the pilots.

I agree. However, the policies you listed were clearly espoused during the 2000 campaign as things he would do... Education bill, prescription drugs, and campaign finance reform. He also said he would "take out Hussein", limit Partial Birth Abortion, and appoint "strict constructionists" to judicial roles. He has done all of these things. I voted for him knowing what he promised to do, and I didn't agree with everything he said.

[BamaAndy]

With all respect--and I know you've heard it before, but, every vote not for Bush is a vote for the democrat. Better to fight with a chance to win and win a filibuster proof majority in congress (when after that happens, we should expect conservatism to finally have a chance to prove its worth--and do the things that ought to be done for the sake of the country and freedom). With democrats we have less freedom and with more democrats we'll have even less. Please reconsider. President Bush is a guy of his word and although has signed things that are grievous, he has avoided slipping faster into socialism--that the democrats would have us do today. Following your point, I cheer for Nader and hope as many of the lefties vote their conscious! That means they lose and that means the country wins. Thank you and God bless.

[Texas_Dawg]

Your FR handle is hilariously ironic.

[GunsareOK]

In the past, I would have said that a vote for the "assault weapons" ban reauthorization would have been a critical vote. As I said, the signing of campaign finance reform, the failure to control the borders, and the expansion of medicaid, just to name a few things have already convinced me to vote for another candidate.

I realize that neither Alan Keys nor Howard Phillips will be elected, but if they were, I would be confident that they would make good choices of Federal judge nominees.

I will vote my conscience for President. Sorry if some don't like it.

[showme_the_Glory]

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


Yep!!!! Happy to vote Bush in 04.

[headsonpikes]

...it is nice to have a man and not a weather-vane for President.

Truly - and a man who cares for the country, at that!

[At _War_With_Liberals]

"And that issue is Judicial appointments."

Bush will appoint no SC judges in the next 5 years. Not one activist judge, by nature, will step down and allow a conservative justice to be appointed. Not a possibility.

[riri]

LOL. They used to make fum of posters and say they were posting from the White House basement. I am convinved you are GHWB posting under the name Texas Dawg.

[Texas_Dawg]

SO you are saying because the poster is not voting for Bush "You're also not a conservative whatsoever."

Yes.

I am not voting for Bush BECAUSE I'm a conservative.

You're not one at all actually. Sorry to break it to you. You'll be part of a 1% FRinge group of right-wing socialists.

[FairOpinion]

So according to you, we should keep electing socialists, because that is really good for the Republican party.

[NeoCaveman]

Bush will appoint no SC judges in the next 5 years. Not one activist judge, by nature, will step down and allow a conservative justice to be appointed. Not a possibility.

You think they will all still be alive in 5 years? I'd take that action, might even give you odds.

[rintense]

As much as I have disagreed with Bush on various issues, I am a self-professed Bushbot and will remain so in 2004. The advancement of conservatism can not (and will not) happen overnight in this country. And while many can say some of what GWB has done is not conservative, his overall agenda is. And this will continue, which is why GWB will have my vote.

[Texas_Dawg]

LOL. They used to make fum of posters and say they were posting from the White House basement. I am convinved you are GHWB posting under the name Texas Dawg.

I just care enough about Howard Dean not being in the White House to work on making sure it doesn't happen. There are many right-wing socialists at FR that don't care though. That's fine, that's your choice. Just don't kid yourself into thinking you're a conservative or that you represent a large percentage of people.

[Texas_Dawg]

As much as I have disagreed with Bush on various issues, I am a self-professed Bushbot and will remain so in 2004. The advancement of conservatism can not (and will not) happen overnight in this country. And while many can say some of what GWB has done is not conservative, his overall agenda is. And this will continue, which is why GWB will have my vote.

Exactly. Thank you.

[Fishrrman]

Wild Irish Rose writes:
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.

The "official announcement" won't happen until his second term. You read this prediction here first.

Cheers!
- John

[!1776!]

What is "human resources"?

Is that salary costs?

If so how have salary costs increased or decreased when normalized by inflation?

Just curious.

[luckydevi]

define conservatism

[FairOpinion]

Were Bush omniscient and omnipotent, I would be very disappointed in him. But since he is neither, I would vote for him rather than see our country dragged down to become a second-rate socialist nation at the hands of the Democrats. We are living in dangerous times, with enemies from both the outside and within our borders. We do not have the luxury of looking for a 100% pure conservative President. Life, and politics specially, is full of compromises, and as long as we can achieve most of our main goals, such as preserving freedom, growing the economy, and defeating fanatical terrorists, we should support Bush and his Administration. The thought of a Dean or Clark as our President is just too ghastly for me.

===

Excellent. It sums up the key points perfectly.