Posted on 03/16/2006 11:56:08 PM PST by EternalVigilance
President Bush's troubles with congressional Republicans, which erupted during the backlash to the Dubai seaport deal, are rooted in policy frustrations and personal resentments that GOP lawmakers say stretch back to the opening days of the administration.
For years, the Bush White House and its allies on Capitol Hill seemed like one of the most unified teams Washington had ever seen, passing most of Bush's agenda with little dissent. Privately, however, many lawmakers felt underappreciated, ignored and sometimes bullied by what they regarded as a White House intent on running government with little input from them.
Often it was to pass items -- an expanded federal role in education under the No Child Left Behind law and an expensive prescription drug benefit under Medicare -- that left conservatives deeply uneasy. What Bush is facing now, beyond just election-year jitters by legislators eyeing his depressed approval ratings, is a rebellion that has been brewing since the days when he looked invincible, say many lawmakers and strategists.
Newly unleashed grievances could signal even bigger problems for Bush's last two years in office, as he would be forced to abandon a governing strategy that until recently counted on solid support from congressional Republicans.
*snip*
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Objections to her nomination could have been made without the gratuitous insults, and I have not forgotten the pundits involved. Their books are on my permanent "do not buy" list.
The pundits (and anyone with a brain) pointed out she had pee-poor qualifications for the Supreme Court. For anyone to respond that they were sexist for saying so was obscene.
That wasn't a comeback. It was an observation about what one's condition must be to present a post such as your's.
It should have read; It's too early in the day for you to be so impaired.
Before everyone dumps too much on President Bush, I think it helpful to remember the choices of electable conservatives we had in 1999-2000. My first choice was Dan Quayle, but although I am a Hoosier and know what a great conservative he is, he was permanently tarnished as a dim-bulb by the media and likely wouldn't have managed to win the general election, even if he had garnered enough support from the party.
The American public is NOT really conservative. Most of them are middle of the road types who don't pay too much attention to politics. In order to get their votes, the first thing a candidate has to do is not scare them. I realize this flies in the face of what conservatives think, but I feel it's the truth. Someone like Pence might be able to convince the public of the correctness of his positions without being demonized.
He is, however, working under the handicap of not being nationally known. Major media rarely interviews him, which indicates to me he is pretty good on camera.
His best shot might be as a vice-presidential candidate, but who knows what will happen in the next year? He might break out and garner a lot of support.
You're not doing a very good job.
The last refinery built in the US was in Garyville, Louisiana, and it started up in 1976.
Miss Marple, the "outcomes" of the Bush admin has not been conservative but as liberal as ever.
In theory, it would be nice to think that "if a new program or spending more money is how you accomplish an outcome, he will do that as well" . . . it would be nice if that worked but that ain't happening. Perhaps his new welfare program of giving free downpayment for homes to minorities would work, but after all, they were given free HUD housing for years and that did not work either.
The New Orleans spending is a pefect example of Bush kicking taxpayers in the groin. The fraud after 911 was huge, as was the waste. The fraud after the 2004 Florida hurricanes (that I saw first hand) was huge, as was the waste. Bush knew that, yet after Katrina, money is pouring in by the hundreds of billions as freeloaders sit around in posh hotels (paid for by taxpayers) drinking beer and watching TV. After the history of fraud and waste, there was no accountability but just an open checkbook with taxpayer money.
It is the totality of it all that we should focus on, not the 100s of examples we could list. We are furious at Bush because he has been worse than Scumbag in many respects. Now think about this. . . yes, Scumbag, Reno and all the scum were as bad as it gets from most respects. Scumbag was slime where Bush and Laura are good decent people.
HOWEVER, . . .
1] from a fiscal comparison, Scumbag was far better than Bush (less social spending). From growth of government, Scumbag was better than Bush (less govt expansion under Scumbag). These are facts and are not debatable, as the facts are in the OMB and other stats.
2] Re SCOTUS . . . yes, Gore or Kerry would have appointed another Ginsberg and the spineless Respendicans would have helped approved the Marxist nominee 97-3, like they did Ginsberg.
But Bush did not appoint Sam Alito, he appointed Harriet. It was a revolt by true conservative activists like me and others at FR and conservative national commentators that forced Bush's hand. Re Roberts, Bush did not have the balls to appoint Luttig, Brown or other conservatives.
3] Re the war . . . yes, Scumbag failed to respond to attacks on USA interests all through the 90s and in 2000 after the USS Cole attack.
However........
Bush's policy in Iraq is horrible. We are nation building. We are doing a police action. My nephew in the Marines, who was trained as a specialist in long range artillery, is doing door-to-door police action with a rifle in cities, as the Iraqis are unable UNWILLING to do that.
We should have gotten Hussein then left, after a reasonable attempt to get them set up. Spending $400 billion plus for a black hole that will always be unstable and radical is nuts. Bush also promised to go after nations that support terrorists, yet he has given a free pass to Syria and Iran who are waging war against us through IEDs and funnelling terrorists into Iraq. Bush has sent charity aid (taxpayer dollars) to Iran, even though Iran is killing our troops.
What other president in America's history sent aid to enemies at war with us the way Bush has?
A good Commander in Chief would have used air power and financial warfare and diplomatic warfare and SOFs after the initial surge into Iraq, and little to no boots on the ground. We would be spending a fraction of what we have. Hell, let them go into civil war. Terrorists killing each other is not a bad idea. If a new anti-American dictator appears, then we do it again if need to. Bush's nation building is killing America.
Meanwhile, N. Korea's nuke program rolls on as does Iran's. We are less secure under Bush than we were under Scumbag; even though Bush called N. Korea and Iran part of the axis of evil, their threat has grown under his admin. Instead of a full robust ABM system (not a token one) and anti-bioweapon program, money is being spent on charity to Africa and other global and domestic welfare programs. Hell, we have to eliminate the entire F-117 fleet and 50% of the B-52s just so we can buy FOUR Raptors (due to the $1.7 TRILLION we pay for social welfare, that Bush has grown).
No matter how you look at it, Bush has done little right. He has been a real disaster. He has not been a conservative. Fiscally, he has not even been a moderate, but a flaming liberal. Our hatred for the RATs, which we all share, should not cloud our analysis of the damage Bush has done to the nation and the Republican party.
After Reagan, the GOP party was a proud organization. Personal responsibility, limited government, America first, et al. come to mind.
After George Bush, the GOP will never be looked at by Republicans themselves as the party of limited government. The GOP will never be thought of as the party of national security (shrinking military with rising social welfare). The GOP will be looked at as the party of government expansion, open borders (like an open house with free food and shelter for anybody that can walk across the nondefended border) and as a twin sister to the RAT party.
I would point out that Reagan didn't shrink government, either, nor did he reduce spending.
But, proceed in working for whomever you think is going to represent your ideas the best. President Bush is not running again, so it seems to me that positive articles about whom you support would be a better alternative.
As I said...converts are what you are looking for. In order to get your guy elected you need to convince the Bush-supporters that your guy is the best choice. You aren't doing a very good job.
I took two months off of work at my own expense to campaign for him. That cost me about $30,000. Few conservative activists gave up that much to support their candidate.
Also, Bush submitted his first budget just a few months after taking office in 2001. When I saw the expansion of government, the GALACTIC sized increase in the socialist dominated Education department, and the sickening increases in redundant and wasteful programs, I knew right then Bush was bad for America. I was taken and spit at, as were all conservatives.
I would point out that Reagan didn't shrink government, either, nor did he reduce spending.
Wrong. You can't look at raw dollars, but must look at inflation adjusted data.
Under Reagan, the % of total budget devoted to social welfare shrank, and the % of the budget devoted to the Defense of the USA increased.
Under Bush, the % of the budget devoted to social welfare has increased, the % of the budget devoted to Defense initially decreased, until the war, and that increase is NOT helping to increaseour security but to go for the war effort. R&D and new eaponprograns under Reagan DWARFS the R&D and new weapon programs under Bush.
These are facts, are not debatable, and can be verified through statistcal research. (SOURCE: The OMB Historical Tables)
I hear what you are saying about supporting "my guy" but first steps first. We would not be in the position we are now if at first, activists showed outrage at Bush at his first signs of fiscal insanity. Too many activists supported him through all his crazy programs, and Respendican Congressmen refused to vote against his agenda.
We need to learn our lessons, and I do spend more time on analysis than I do future elections. I realize many here dwell on the next election and what can be done to get Republicans elected. I really don't get into that that much at all. I dwell on current events and analysis, and on Free Republic, my posts are generally about the current.
I do believe harsh criticism is good. The conservative cause would make more headway if all members at Free Republic would express outrage at nonconservative speeches and agenda. To simply continue to defend Bush and the GOP simply because of the "letter R" after their name (and the alternative is the RATs) not only does no good for us, but helps move the nation further and further into the cesspool as Republican officials see grassroots members defending socialist programs and supporting Congress or Bush when they do liberal things.
The home page at Free Republic does not mention Republicans. This is a forum for conservatives, as the home page states. If one truly hates the RATs, they would make far more progress for conservative principles by criticizing liberal moves by the GOP than by simply preaching to the choir and bashing RATs.
This is what I do at FR. I am as anti-RAT as anybody, and I spent more of my own money supporting George Bush than nearly all FR members. If anybody spent over $30,000 like I did, then great, but I am sure I did more than 99% of the members.
My criticism and analysis is my continual fight for the conservative cause, which is Free Republic's cause. Sad to say, as many national commentators have pointed out, and as FACTS from the OMB bears out, Bush has been a liberal (not debatable fiscally), thus my truthful posts and analysis.
could be because alot of folks saw Juda Baines Bush for what he was from the getgo? it aint just Bush either - look to congress and the senate. It's never been more evident (excempting those with full on koolaid firehoses strapped to their faces) that there is absolutely no difference between the parties in anything but rhetoric.
Agreed.
The Bush team encouraged and supported Thune's campaign. Thune campaigned on keeping that base open. If the White House was not going to support keeping the base open they should have told him not to campaign on that issue. Their failure to do so was, to be kind, disingenuous.
guess he didn't make a strong enough case, or transformation is more important than keep that base.
In Indiana, we were to lose Crane Naval Ammunition Depot, despite Mitch Daniels being elected governor. We made the case and it was kept open. South Dakota did the same.
The Education bill was one which he campaigned on. I have no idea why you were surprised about it. You can go back and find numerous speeches in which he talked about this issue.
I am unimpressed by claims of campaigning and giving up salaries. Campaigning is voluntary, and if you didn't know who you were campaigning for you were simply woefully uninformed.
Leaving for a few hours. Will reply to anyone when I return.
Some folks don't understand the value in constructive criticism.
No leader can be effective if he shuts his ears to the warnings of his friends. Telling folks to simply "quit whining" and to not question the president deprives our leader of the broad perspective needed to govern and undercuts his support. The result is a false appearance of party unity, and a false appearance of public confidence.
It might hold up for a few years, but the facade will eventually crumble. We're seeing a bit of that now.
An effective leader is obsessed with "doing the right thing." This means doing what is right for the country, regardless of the popularity of a particular decision, but it also means welcoming and heeding valid criticism. A good leader does not surround himself with sycophants who tell him what he wants to hear (friends he would never fire), but rather with those unafraid to tell him what he needs to hear.
Simple, cliched, but true.
My advice to the president would be to start listening. The climate of the past five years has been one of utter inhospitality toward anyone advising outside the clique. Supporters of the president should not be made to feel that giving him advice is anathema.
Thank goodness we ignored the unspoken rule, for once, and got Alito in place of Miers.
The Education bill was one which he campaigned on.
You are wrong in what you are implying. He campaigned for school vouchers, which got shot down in flames. Instead of keeping Education spending level or decreasing it after the voucher crash and burn, he let Manslaughter Kennedy have an open check book to name his price. After Manslaughter Kennedy gave Bush a level that he thought Bush would laugh at, Bush took his number and added on BILLIONS to Manslaughter Kennedy's crazy number and the Education Dept ended up with a 29.5% Increase!!!.
I can assure everybody this--if Bush campaigned on a 29.5% Increase in his first budget, not only would I not have campaigned for him, but Bush may not have even been the nominee for the GOP, and Gore would have won the election.
In addition, by Bush's fifth budget, the Education Department had received a 79.9% Increase since Scumbag's final budget.
I can also assure everybody this--if Bush made a campaign promise to increase Education spending by 79.9% over five budgets, Al Gore would be president.
You can't say, Miss Marple, that Bush campaigned on increasing waste at the DOE by 79.9%. If you can find those transcripts, show it here for the Internet world to see.
Re your point #2:
You are wrong here also.
Your claim that I have never supported Bush is false, as my previous post gave facts to make clear. You have a hard time believing that those who critique Bush and the GOP are Republicans. The fact is that the most vocal members who show the most outrage at the fiscally liberal Republicans are usually the most passionate conservatives.
His your friend related to comedian Ron White a.k.a. Tator Salad?
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.