I wholeheartedly concur with what you are saying. I don't know about the history of these forums or the kinds of differences between conservatives that have arisen herein, but I do know that criticizing our President is certainly nothing to be ashamed of and, furthermore, is our moral and constitutional responsibility, when the necessary.
Regarding CFR specifically, I certainly understand that politics is often "the art of compromise" and that no one gets everything he or she wants. President Bush, particularly with a hostile-controlled Senate, is limited in the size and scope of measures he can enact. However, signing the CFR was a breach of his oath of office. The constitutionality of legislation, naturally, is the exclusive purview of the Supreme Court. Particularly in view of the last half century or more, if we cannot expect the Supreme Court to adhere to a strict interpretation of the Constitution, how are we to expect our national executives and legislatures to do so?
Signing CFR was a bad move. I fail to understand the constant move of Republican leadership towards the left. Ostensibly, this is for political gains (which are never realized). From a practical standpoint, these manuevers only succeed in alienating the conservative base which is the foundation of Republican electoral success. Anyone remember the left-moving "conservatives" who lost the '98 election because their supporters stayed home? (A' la Alfonse D'Amato?)
Moving towards the center neither secures votes from liberals nor secures votes from moderates and it only succeeds in angering conservatives, from which our President owes all his electoral victories.
Perhaps it is Bush's inexperience in Washington these past seven years, or maybe it's his wealth of experience in Texas politics that makes him expect the tariff issue, CFR, increased education bureaucracy, etc. to win popular support from the enemy camp.
Who knows? All I know is that it doesn't work.
If conservatives in the Republican Party hope to court women, hispanics, blacks, Jews, blue collar workers, etc. then they must do it by adhering to their own - conservative - beliefs. How can we expect people to distinguish between conservatives and those we claim to oppose when we endorse their policies. EVEN if it's for the sake of political expendiency.
In the long run, these poorly contrived tactics and political power games fail the President as well as his supporters.
After the President's initial success with the tax cut, we really haven't seen any major conservative initiatives signed into law by the President, have we? And those tax cuts are (a) smaller than most conservatives wanted, (b) smaller than the President asked for, (c) back-loaded so they will only take effect towards the end of the decade, and (d) time-limited so that after 2011, the tax code returns to its pre-2001 form.
Could it be that Bush is only a "great" president when we compare him to his predecessor? Could it be that Bush is only a "conservative" when we compare him to his father? Or are they more alike than they realize?
Bush signing CFR really makes me wonder. You can't argue that this was smart politically because the smart thing to do, if you want to remove the issue, is to tackle Campaign Finance (and through in Electoral) Reform from a conservative point of view. Why not come up with a counter-proposal? One that protects our rights to participate in the political process, to be heard - both vocally and through our wallets? Why not initiate legislation designed to bring the kinds of conservative reforms campaign finance needs? That would remove the issue from the Democrats and McCain (who isn't nearly the threat to the President's 2004 run that some of you apparently feel he is.) No...Bush didn't even try to derail the legislation, as is often done, by adding things to it that would make it too unreasonable, as a whole, to pass. Congress does that all the time to kill a bill that otherwise would go through.
Don't get me wrong...I support our President - as our President. But I don't blindly endorse him, nor do I bite my tongue when I feel he needs to be reprimanded, held back and reminded who got him elected and what he's there to do.
The further into the Bush administration we get, the more I begin to wonder. Is "Dubya" a true conservative who moves left to court votes? Or is he something worse and he only moves towards conservatives when he thinks he needs our support?
I NOMINATE THIS PERSON FOR BEST NEW POSTER!
Amen to everything you said!
EBUCK
Every President has signed unconstitutional legislation.
I'm not proud of him, he could have done better both constituionallly and poitically IMHO.
Fortunately, my disappointment isn't exacerbated by a lack of historical context.
If someone believes there was a President who never signed an unconstitutional bill, I hope they will enlighten me so I can adjust my standard.
In further to what you addressed regarding signing the bill and even constitutionality....not long ago I read a copy of the letter that President Madison used to send a bill back to the legislature. He based his veto on it being unconstitutional. If I recall correctly, the bill had to do with infrastructure--roads or canals.