Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies.
Locked on 01/24/2004 6:45:19 AM PST by Lead Moderator, reason:

This thread has degenerated into a flamewar. No more replies. Sheesh.



Skip to comments.

Gap widening between Bush and conservatives
Townhall.com ^ | January 23, 2004 | Jonah Goldberg

Posted on 01/23/2004 5:23:57 AM PST by Apple Pan Dowdy

Gap widening between Bush and conservatives


Jonah Goldberg

I thought President Bush's State of the Union address was fine. It wasn't outrageously long. He drew a bright line between himself and his critics on the war in Iraq, the Patriot Act, Social Security Reform, etc. He delivered it well, and the nudity was tasteful and integral to the plot.

As luck - or bad timing - would have it, I was invited to Manhattan to address the New York State Conservative Party right before the president addressed the nation. It seemed only fitting since the subject of my speech was the conflict between Bush's "compassionate conservatism" and traditional conservatism. You see, conservatives in New York City have suffered more and for longer than conservatives in the rest of America. Trust me, I grew up on New York City's Upper West Side. We felt like Christians in Ancient Rome.

Well, after three years with George W. Bush at the helm, many conservatives are starting to feel like we've been sent to the catacombs. Don't get me wrong. Out in real America where most Americans - liberal and conservative - don't focus on politics every day, Bush is still doing very well. And, even among conservatives, Bush has considerable political support. But among ideological and intellectual conservatives, emotional support for Bush is starting to ebb.

I can't point to anything scientific. But if you pay attention to what conservatives are saying at meetings and in magazines, on the Web and at the think tanks, as well as what readers, friends, colleagues and sources say, there's a definite undercurrent of discontent with the president.

For some it started with his plan to offer amnesty-lite to illegal immigrants. For others, it's his fence-sitting on gay marriage. For others, like me, it was his signing of the campaign finance reform bill even though he thought it was unconstitutional. Or maybe it was his support for steel tariffs. Or the farm bill. I forget.

Anyway that doesn't matter. What unites pretty much all of these grumblers is a deep sense of, well, disgust with how much this administration is spending.

When it comes to taxpayer dollars, this is the second most "generous" administration in American history, second only to that of another Texan, Lyndon Johnson. There may be good aspects to George Bush's "compassionate conservatism," though on the whole I never liked it, but it's clear that compassion doesn't come cheap at the Bush White House, on whose watch overall spending from 2001 to 2003 grew at 16 percent and discretionary spending went up 27 percent. That's double Bill Clinton's rate.

Bush's defenders are eager to point to the war on terrorism as an excuse for increased spending. Fine. But that's only a small part of the story.

Under Bush, spending on education has gone up 60.8 percent, on labor 56 percent and on the Department of the Interior by 23.4 percent . The price tag for the president's Medicare plan alone starts, but won't end, at $400 billion. The farm bill was a pork horror show, pure and simple. More people work for the federal government now than at any time since the end of the Cold War.

Brian Riedl of the Heritage Foundation sums it up this way: "Overall for 2003, the federal government spent $20,300 per household, taxed $16,780 per household, and ran a budget deficit of $3,520 per household."

The reason most Americans haven't heard a lot about all this is twofold. Conservatives have stayed relatively quiet and liberals have controlled the anti-Bush microphone.

Democratic presidential candidates and interest groups have been screeching that the president is gutting education and abandoning the elderly. Obviously this is nonsense on tall stilts, since Bush is spending a lot more on both than Bill Clinton ever did.

In fact, on Medicare and education, for example, the Dems think Bush is being stingy. And a study by the National Taxpayers Union found that each and every one of the Democrats running for president have plans that would raise the deficit even more, from $169.6 billion under Joe Lieberman to - get this - $1.33 trillion under Al Sharpton.

Conservative opposition to such overspending is more complex than the media and the left think. Some just don't like red ink. Others think big government erodes freedom and traditional arrangements. Others believe it slowly inoculates the citizenry to greater levels of social engineering.

Whatever the reasons, conservatives - as opposed to partisan Republicans - have sincere misgivings about the kind of presidency Bush is conducting. A lot of compassionate conservatism is smart politics for the Republican Party, and some of it is even good policy. And, yes, conservatives understand that the GOP is practically the only place they have a real impact in electoral politics.

But I'm not sure George Bush understands how much he is asking from those who brought him to the dance.


TOPICS: Editorial; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: bush; jonahgoldberg
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 401-406 next last
To: Lazamataz
Too bad for you...
141 posted on 01/23/2004 6:51:37 AM PST by carton253 (The terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States and war is what they got!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: section9
because as is strained by many people on this board 'who else are they goin g to vote for'
142 posted on 01/23/2004 6:51:39 AM PST by N3WBI3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: AbsoluteJustice
Then again when the founders wrote the law weapons were not firing 1000 RPM unless you owned a galing gun, and I do not bleieve there were any other than the military who owned one personally

Travis McGee makes the point that the era-lethality was as high for a standard blunderbuss.

To wit: With the lack of medical technology, a blunderbuss shot is as deadly -- and as much of a 'crowd pleaser' -- as any assault weapon today.

However, be aware: The AW ban has no language about full-auto weapons. It's strictly aimed at semiautos.

143 posted on 01/23/2004 6:52:06 AM PST by Lazamataz (The Republicans have turned into Democrats, and the Democrats have turned into Marxists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
"They're in power, but now we call them Republicans."

Amen brother Amen.

144 posted on 01/23/2004 6:52:34 AM PST by cynicom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: carton253
Do not let your liberal professors get away with misusing the term "assault weapon." Obviously an assault weapon is any weapon with which an assault can be committed. You have already lost the argument as soon as you accept the validity of the term. Assault rifles, the English translation of the German term sturmgewehr, are selective fire (capable of both fully automatic continous fire and semi-automatic one round at a time fire), have 20 and 30 round magazines, and fire an intermediate cartridge more powerful and with longer range than a pistol cartridge but less than a medium machine gun or battle rifle cartridge.

The primary practical use of such a rifle is to engage multiple targets rapidly. Mixed packs of feral dogs and coy-dogs have sold quite a few semi-automatic versions of assault rifles. We don't all live in cities, and we can't all expect a law enforcement response to our 911 call in time to do us any good.

145 posted on 01/23/2004 6:52:43 AM PST by Cannoneer No. 4 (The road to Glory cannot be followed with too much baggage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: carton253
Too bad for you...

Too bad for the United States, you mean.

Although I do have one satisfaction: At least YOU TOO will bear the increasing burdens of all of GW Bush's giveaways.

146 posted on 01/23/2004 6:53:18 AM PST by Lazamataz (The Republicans have turned into Democrats, and the Democrats have turned into Marxists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: Apple Pan Dowdy
Several months ago I swore that I would not give another penny of donation to Bush or the Republican Party until they started doing something about the open border situation. But now here it is election time and I am already giving in and know that I will send money and I will work at the local campaign headquarters for him..... simply because "we must never let Democrats return to power!"


I hear you. But I have something I want you to consider. How are we going to get rid of politics as usual and let the powers that be know they have to listen to the conservative, if we do not vote for the most conservative person posssible? I in the past week have gotten 3 requests for money from the reps. All went in the trash. I want to send a message to them that they can not help but hear.
147 posted on 01/23/2004 6:53:23 AM PST by RiflemanSharpe (An American for a more socially and fiscally conservation America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Orangedog
What would an assault weapon do to Bambi if you shot him with it?

I was just seeking information. I don't want your guns banned...

Yes, I do know what an assault weapon is and what makes it an assault weapon.

148 posted on 01/23/2004 6:53:26 AM PST by carton253 (The terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States and war is what they got!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: the gillman@blacklagoon.com
Where are you going?
149 posted on 01/23/2004 6:54:05 AM PST by carton253 (The terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States and war is what they got!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: William McKinley
uh, we were arguing? I was simply pointing out the last I had heard regarding Bush's position on the AWB. If one takes solace from his not making the ban any worse but being eager to sign it then do so. But its still spitting on the Constitution.
150 posted on 01/23/2004 6:54:26 AM PST by KantianBurke (2+2 does NOT equal 5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: William McKinley
Well, I did draw an inference that you are predicting that he ISN'T going to push for a much more restrictive assault weapons ban.

Isn't that your ultimate point?

151 posted on 01/23/2004 6:55:21 AM PST by Lazamataz (The Republicans have turned into Democrats, and the Democrats have turned into Marxists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: carton253
What would an assault weapon do to Bambi if you shot him with it?

The same thing that a typical hunting rifle would do.

152 posted on 01/23/2004 6:56:26 AM PST by Orangedog (An optimist is someone who tells you to 'cheer up' when things are going his way)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: carton253
I'm not against citizens owning assault weapons. I just could never fathom why anyone would need one.

I'm not against citizens owning a Corvette. I just could never fathom why anyone would need one. (After all, they kill people. A lot more people than assault weapons.)

153 posted on 01/23/2004 6:56:27 AM PST by weaponeer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Johnny_Cipher
Thank you for your thoughfulness and insight. I agree 2nd Amendment.
154 posted on 01/23/2004 6:56:46 AM PST by AbsoluteJustice (By the time you read this 100 other Freepers will have posted what I have said here!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: AbsoluteJustice
Nice post.

As for the AWB, I am ambivalent. It simply doesn't strike me as anywhere near the most important gun issue on the table. Getting judges with the propensity to read what the Constitution says rather than what they think is the way things should be, to me, is jobs 1, 1A, 2, 3 and 4 through 10. On that score, Bush has been outstanding. Also more important to me than any AWB is getting the government to admit that the Constitution has a personal right to own guns. Again, in this regard, Bush has been stellar. And when the UN started talking about some sort of small arms treaty, Bush killed it before it started saying anything that infringed on the individual's right to have a gun was a non-starter.

On the gun issues that matter to me, Bush has been great.

155 posted on 01/23/2004 6:57:06 AM PST by William McKinley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: Apple Pan Dowdy
Out in real America where most Americans - liberal and conservative - don't focus on politics every day, Bush is still doing very well. And, even among conservatives, Bush has considerable political support. But among ideological and intellectual conservatives, emotional support for Bush is starting to ebb.

HOWDEEEE! I guess the rest of us better shake the hayseed outta our hair and get more ideelojikal and intallexuual. Yuk, yuk, yuk!!

Jonah's NY snobbism is shining through. And the rest of his article is as agenda driven as any DNC piece.

Is Jonah a mole?

Prairie

156 posted on 01/23/2004 6:57:23 AM PST by prairiebreeze (God Bless and Protect the Allied Troops. And the families here at home---they are soldiers too.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: weaponeer
Okay...I'm going to explain my position one more time.

I asked the question hoping I would get some answers that went behind 2nd Amendment says I can have them, so I do. I don't have a problem with the 2nd Amendment or anyone owning an assault weapon.

When arguing with Liberal Professors about the 2nd Amendment, sometimes it's frustrating to have just one response -"it's the law."

Now, I admit that should be reason enough... but it's not...the debate continues, and I am finished. So... I thought I would ask. Next thing you know I'm a squishy Bushbot, gun snatching, pant-peeing weenie.

157 posted on 01/23/2004 6:58:12 AM PST by carton253 (The terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States and war is what they got!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
To that then I strongly disagree, Semi-auto weapons are crucial for hunting and sport. Then again as you stated it only takes 1 bullet to actually take a life.
158 posted on 01/23/2004 6:58:30 AM PST by AbsoluteJustice (By the time you read this 100 other Freepers will have posted what I have said here!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: AbsoluteJustice
The Kentucky and Pennsylvania rifles in the hands of Colonists were far superior to the weapons of the British soldier, in range, accuracy and rate of fire.

After the war, the new government recognized that it was a LACK of such weapons in the hands of the colonials that was the problem. Also, colonials owned cannon and warships privately.

I agree that a shotgun or pistol is in most cases more practical than a battle rifle for home defense, but the second amendment is not strictly about home defense and has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with hunting.
159 posted on 01/23/2004 6:59:26 AM PST by the gillman@blacklagoon.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: William McKinley
Well said and in 100% agreement!
160 posted on 01/23/2004 6:59:28 AM PST by AbsoluteJustice (By the time you read this 100 other Freepers will have posted what I have said here!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 401-406 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson