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.
Right on! I am so past stem-cell research and the Adarand challenge. Bush is selling out big time. All in the name of getting votes. So much for principles.
Consider your sources. You're disagreeing with a fine list of conservatives (noted above) and agreeing with a liberal hack.
He is pushing Israel to compromise in its endless war against the Palestinians in the occupied territories of Gaza and the West Bank.
He's turned into just another smooth talker who, when in office, sells out those he once claimed to represent.
I challenge purists who think Reagan didn't compromise all the time to read his own book, "An American Life," where he constantly complained about the "HARD RIGHT," and how they sabotaged elections.
There are two things at work here, totally unrelated. The first is 9/11, and if indeed (as many suspect) Bush sees not only this 4-year term, but his next, taken up primarily with confronting this evil that Clinton put off for 8 years, then it is likely he will "cave" on several conservative issues. (By the way, can we please understand that not all conservatives agree that "amnesty" is wrong; that CFR is bad; or that tariffs are dumb.) Nevertheless, Reagan gave in time and again (higher taxes in 1986, no killing of the Ed Dept., trade with the USSR) in order to militarily and politically defeat the Soviets.
I don't claim to know Bush enough to know if this is indeed his mindset, but it is a reasonable theory.
The second thing that happened was Jumpin' Jim. But even before Jumpin' Jim, we were pretty well screwed in the Senate. Lott is so incompetent that even with a 10 seat MAJORITY he'd be at a disadvantage. When Jeffords went, though, we have seen how now the Dems can make their own stupid 60-vote rules and bottle things up in committee.
Given that, Bush has brilliantly run rings around these guys, using executive orders on three separate occasions to reduce abortions; making the recess appointments; getting the tax cut through; and, for all its bad side, at least using CFR to likely ensure that the GOP gets a majority in the Senate. What they can do with it is anyone's guess, but I would bet if the GOP has a 3-4 seat majority, Miller and possibly Breaux would switch parties to get in the majority.
If not, then you would agree that the war on terrorism should be abandoned?
Second, true, Bush did rein in Israel a couple of weeks ago, but TODAY'S statement by Powell had a much different tone. If this represents the "new" policy, then it means that as always, Bush gives you ONE CHANCE to "straighten up and fly right," then he clobbers you. He gave Arafat his chance.
But third, you and all other American conservatives (like Rush) need to get something through your heads: Israel is DIVIDED on the "proper" policy, and they booted Netanyahu OUT. I think they should boot the Palestinians out, but it isn't my country. Until Israel, and the vast majority of liberal Israelis (imagine New York City in the Middle East!) decide that they cannot negotiate with the Palestinian terrorists, neither Bush nor all the upset conservatives in the world can do one thing. This is Israel's call, REGARDLESS of what Bush or the U.S. says.
Do you realize that Israel can tell us to stick our $3 billion in aid? They haven't because they like that aid. But when they come to the point that they see their security is more important than that money, then they can truly say that we have "let their people go." At that point, God help the Arabs, because Allah sure won't.
The fact is that on election day, you only have a reasonable choice between two people and a handful of wasted votes. Most people will choose the candidate who, despite his flaws, is CLOSEST to their views, and believe me, in 2004 that will be Bush unless Henry "Scoop" Jackson comes out of the grave for the Democrats.
In case you people here have forgotten, there is not ONE DEM of national standing who believes in national security and in destroying our enemies. Not one. That alone would cause those elephants to remember real quickly "who brung em to the ball."
Just admit that you're siding with the liberal author of this column over the Washington Times and other conservative publications.
While just how Enron was looted baffles first sight, a criminal spine to Enron scandals is both clear and familiar to the people: a thief (Mr. Lay) gives much cash to a politician (Bush); thereafter, the thief enjoys great favor and wealth as the politician rises to greater power still. That is a clear fact of the circumstance everybody understands, and therefore none can successfully hide.
Republican electoral success depends on great financial predominance. The willingness of rich rightists to donate large sums to Bush is a principal weapon in the enemys armory. The exigencies of wartime politics have already acted to reduce his fundraising capabilities somewhat, by rendering unseemly any aggressively partisan activity by a purportedly national leader (as Bush claims himself to be).
By political action emphasizing Mr. Lays great investments in Bush, as well as the clear favor Mr. Lay enjoyed, Bushs ability to raise party funds can be reduced still further.
Any number of Bushs "Pioneer" bag-men will be discovered still active, tainted by connections to Mr. Lay, and shown to be enjoying presently favors from Bush, just like the ones Mr. Lay did.
Rightist voting strength depends on a coalition of free-market believers and traditionalists. It is unwieldy: nothing is so corrosive of traditional mores as free markets; nothing is more traditional than calling for government curbs on thieving merchants.
Mr. Lays thieving shows so all can clearly see that markets are neither free nor well regulated, simply rigged, and Bushs connivance in the thefts makes the realization he is in on the fix just as unavoidable.
Free market believers have no defense against a fact of rigged markets; traditionalists always suspect markets of being rigged.
Free market believers without much real property of their own, the greatest proportion of them by far, must view with some alarm the routine deception of major accounting firms and mutual funds that Mr. Lay, by leave of Bush, engaged in, to his and his cronies profit. Free market believers with little property know enough to know it is they themselves who are the sheep these wolves seek.
Traditionalists, who are moved by a conscious thrill of virtue when, instead of serving their material interests by voting left, they stand and do the "right" thing by voting for a rightist candidate, with integrity and values, must view with some repulsion the greed displayed by those they have trusted to lead the nation. Mr. Lays thieving, and Bushs cash-bought conniving in it,
Win what?
Please point out for me our big "wins" the past 35 years.
From 1968 to 1992 the Democrats ate their own. I sure hope the Republicans don't fall into a trap like that.
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.