Posted on 03/29/2002 3:08:59 PM PST by TLBSHOW
WASHINGTON --
It looks as if President Bush 's honeymoon is over. He's fine with the American people -- his personal approval rating is still in the 80 percent range -- but his own natives, Republican movement conservatives, are already restless.
Like Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan before him, Bush is already being branded as an appeaser of liberals and a sellout on a range of issues dear to the right-side hearts of many of his party's faithful. These are, it must be mentioned, impossible people who, more often than not, prefer to lose on principle than win through compromise.
They hate Washington and all it stands for, which is compromise and government of all the people. Unfortunately for them, presidents, even their own, have to work in this town -- and that means compromising, however reluctantly, with the opposition in Congress and the vast bureaucracies of governance and liberal constituencies.
Like baseball, it happens every spring. This year, even with overwhelming conservative (and liberal, too) support of the president in our officially undeclared war on terrorism, there are the right's gripes of the moment:
The president from Texas, lusting for Hispanic votes in his own state and in California, is too friendly with Mexico, pushing amnesty for illegal immigrants from south of the Rio Grande and San Diego.
He has sold out free-traders by imposing old-fashioned tariffs on the import of foreign steel -- or he is just chasing Democratic voters in Pennsylvania and West Virginia.
He may have been holding his nose when he did it, but he signed the campaign-finance reform bill pushed by Democratic senator Russell Feingold of Wisconsin and apostate Republican senator John McCain of Arizona.
As part of the war effort, he is advocating a 50 percent increase in the United States' minuscule foreign aid program. This one rebukes conservatives who were determined to set in stone the idea that there is no connection between poverty in the poor regions of the world and hatred and terrorism directed at the richest of nations, the United States.
He is pushing Israel to compromise in its endless war against the Palestinians in the occupied territories of Gaza and the West Bank.
He is pushing education policy and legislation that would increase federal influence in states, counties and towns across the country -- a big no-no to movement conservatives.
He is not pushing tax cuts the way he did during the campaign, partly because war and educational reform cost huge amounts of taxpayer revenues. Most of this was bound to happen, and any ideological president, Republican or Democrat, is eventually forced to betray campaign promises and core constituencies. The only difference this time is that because of continuing public support for military action (and its high costs), Bush is beginning to take more flak from his own kind than from the loyal opposition.
In the conservatives' favorite newspaper, The Washington Times, political columnist Donald Lambro began a news analysis last week by saying: "President Bush's about-face on trade tariffs, stricter campaign-finance regulations and other deviations from Republican doctrine is beginning to anger his conservative foot soldiers but does not seem to be cutting into his overall popularity -- yet."
John Berthoud, president of the National Taxpayers Union, puts it this way: "We're very disappointed about these new tariffs on steel and lumber. That's two new tax hikes on the American people. ... There's a concern among our members that in his effort to build and keep this coalition for the war, which is certainly needed, he's given Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle and the forces of big government a free pass."
Phyllis Schlafly, president of the Eagle Forum, added: "He's been getting a pass from us until now, but the amnesty bill is what tipped it over for us. I agree with Sen. Robert Byrd (a Democrat). This is 'sheer lunacy.' ... A lot of people thought Bush's education bill was terrible. But we didn't rant and rave about it because we wanted to support him on the war. That's changed. The amnesty bill is the hot issue out here. It's out of sync with what grassroots Americans want."
Finally, Stephen Moore, president of the conservative Club for Growth, said: "The danger for us is that Bush may begin to take the conservatives for granted, and you are seeing some signs of that happening with the steel tariff decision, foreign aid and other spending increases in the budget."
So it goes. There is nothing new about this. In the 1970s, William F. Buckley and other movement conservative leaders publicly "suspended" their support of President Richard Nixon because of what they considered his liberal moves toward welfare reform, tariffs and other issues considered part of the liberal domestic agenda -- to say nothing of his reaching out to communist China.
But in the end, Nixon kept them in line by pushing the war in Vietnam beyond reasonable limits. George Bush could accomplish the same political goal of uniting conservative support by continuing to push the war on terrorism into far nooks and crannies of the whole world.
As far as that 44% figure is concerned, that is the percentage reduction you get when you reduce the top marginal rate from 50% down to 28%. That works out to a 44% reduction. If the rate had been reduced from 50% down to 25%, then it would have been a 50% reduction.
At the same time numerous tax benefits, credit and deductions were eliminated or phased out and the SS tax was jacked up. The net effect for many individuals was a tax increase.
I know you are kidding but I am sick of this conservative president [GUFFAW] being held to a mythological standard of Ronald Reagan that is both historically inaccurate [Have you actually READ anything that Reagan wrote? I have, and I'm sure my standard is quite accurate, both historical and otherwise] and is being perpetrated by the same John Birch Society wing of the political right that demonized Reagan [CHORTLE - I collect Reagan memorabilia. He's my hero. And I think GW Bush is a pu--y and a coward, and most importantly he's a RINO. Please don't use those two names in the same sentence]
Their plan to win seems to have the help of their liberal comme media and the stories they write. Read their plan and I can show you so many stories the last few days that go hand in hand with this. Yes enron did not go as planned for the democrats but they are still trying to use it. Like a fire that simmers.
Don't let the rats use apathy through disillusion to shot ourselves in the foot in November.
He didn't have to turn around those last minute EO's he just refused to let them be published in the Federal Registry. End of story.
Harry Truman is a good example. The left-wing Dems hated him because he wasn't Henry (socialist) Wallace and because he wouldn't cave to the Soviets. The right-wing Republicans hated him because he wouldn't roll back the New Deal. The public liked him, and showed it at the voting booth.
What conservatives forget is that the president is president of all the people, and that includes the 50% who favor abortions; the 60% who want "better schools" (and likely think that the federal government has a role in them). I don't think it possibly to be ideologically pure and build any kind of support whatsover for more than one or two issues. Our system isn't made that way.
Jefferson caved on "free trade" and endorsed Gallatin's massive $10 million internal improvements plan (more than the entire fed budget!!!); Jackson trampled on the "states' rights" he endorsed in the campaign, and ignored the contracts negotiated by Indians; Teddy Roosevelt, in the name of "fair" competition, launched more anti-business suits than any other president. They were all enormously popular and (by all accounts) successful. Heck, even WASHINGTON enacted a massive tax increase, then sent the army out to collect it!
And I collect facts.
Well, it allowed them to try. Was anyone fooled?
I'm a bigger fan of Reagan's now than I was when he was President, but I've always thought this "revenue enhancement" ploy was a mistake. It would have been better to admit a flip-flop than to be so cute.
And a political whore is still a whore.
And losers have no effect on policy or legislation.
As if those who voted for a "conservative Bush" (now THAT's an oxymoron!) have effect on policy or legislation. Tell that to the Dems who 'lost' yet are seeing their agenda implemented as Bush 'steals' their issues.
With the way the Left has been 'losing', I'll be that they don't even run a candidate against Bush next election. Why should they?
Sorry, not if we have plenty of these and a defense shield to match. Don't think Clinton was not involved in the world. He must have bombed almost a dozen countries. How do you think we made all these enemies? Where is the British Empire from being involved in the whole world - in the sad shape we need to avoid.
You are quite right. If it smells like a rat democrat - it must be one. So George, let us out of the trap you have set. LOL
Does any of that memorabilia include Reagan's public lobbying for the Brady Bill after he left office, or his signature on a 15 day waiting period gun law in California, or his insistence that an amnesty be granted across the board for illegal aliens?
Bush never had any.
These are, it must be mentioned, impossible people who, more often than not, prefer to lose on principle than win through compromise.
If refusing to budge on the trashing of the Constitution makes me impossible, than I'll be impossible. Hell, I've been called much worse than that on this board.
Just for the record: I have called one senator, my representative, e-mailed and called the White House, and e-mailed a contact I have inside the Bush administration on the issue of CFR . . . to no avail. My senators both voted "right" anyway. And by the way, I found it interesting that both my senators---DeWine and Voinovich---who are not considered "hard right" have voted right on CFR, taxes, and the Clinton conviction. Yet I don't see any of these whining people on FR starting threads celebrating their "allegience" to the conservative cause! (You are totally right about the King. You know that scripture, "every tongue will confess, and every knee shall bow?" Osama Bin Laden will bow, Bill Clinton will bow, Louis Farrakhan and Muhammad Ali will bow. They HAVE to. We GET to :)
But the RNC & White House could care less if there is a Conservative movement here. Fred Thompson is stepping down this election and who does the RNC & White House imdeiately endorse? A former RINO TAXEM governor to replace him. A look in the political graveyard shows Tennessee Governors do not do well after that office. The chance of Da Bush mans favorite winning are zilch. But despite even this RINOISM LIVES and prospers in Washington, DC. That is sad because several far better and more electable conservatives were not considered by them. Among them left out of the loop is House Manager Ed Bryant.
How is it possible to prevevent disillusion from settting in?
Our President is marching to a different drummer.
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.