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.
Sure do ---they're big in my part of Texas. Real popular.
Lobsterbacks it is??
You would know all this because you read his own book, right? You would also know what isn't in the book---that despite his wonderful, eloquent speeches and writings on abortion, in his 8 years he did virtually nothing, but in less than 2 years, GWB has already issued three Ex Orders that have reduced abortions on federal properties, revived "parental consent," and otherwise ACTUALLY REDUCED abortions.
Reagan, whom I love as a president, was nevertheless FAR from the model "conservative" you think, and Bush far closer than you think (in terms of actual results). BTW, what do you want to be that the size of government/GNP is smaller under Bush than under Reagan, at any year?
But since the Brigadiers are so fond of WW II, let's use that: imagine the incredible difficulty of launching an invasion of Nazified Europe from America. Wouldn't happen.
I believe these people, who say they supported Bush during the primary and general election seasons, never actually supported the President..."
Your view is too simplistic. I criticize Bush and have voted the straight Republican ticket for over 40 years now. I donated to Bush and the party. I've gone to Republican state conventions, worked as an election official, passed out candidate brochures, etc.
Having Bush sign CFR is like finding out your wife is a prostitute. Yes, she brought in money so the family could weather the future better, but you don't want to have anything more to do with her.
1)race to see who can be the best moderates the fastest with 80% approval ratings?
2)Compare Bush to Reagan? lol
3)start using arguments I used to hear from liberals about Reagan didnt do anything for the economy ?
I know he bitched about the 'hard-right.' I also know that there were principles on which he would not waver, and he loved to 'mix it up' when he could. I do not see either trait in young Mr. Bush.
Furthermore, Reagan is the American dream. He understood that there were tons of Reagans out there, and he wanted government to get out of their way. Ending their free speech and free association just doesn't seem like that fits with those principles, but then again I'm sure Reagan actually was just as liberal and unprincipled as GW Bush, right?
I don't give a rat's @ss about abortion. While I think it's wrong, I think it will happen until people change.
As far as size of govt to GNP is concerned, that's misleading. How about percentage of income that is paid in taxes?
Whether he's got some grand political strategery in mind or whatever, I don't care.
Oh those pesky principles. I mean wouldn't it be so much better if no one had them. And isn't it interesting that a liberal hack is in a sense extolling a lack of virtue in people.
Don't worry though, the GOP is just about finished purging it's ranks of nasty assed, principled, impossible, conservatives. Won't it be grand when the two parties can actually merge. I mean after all if we don't have principles that separate us, life will be so idyllic.
Look North to see what can happen when political parties no longer represent what their namesakes and philosophies intend. The conservative party here in Canada would be considered liberal in the U.S., and the Liberal party would be considered outright socialist.
Always be vigilant about not just your opposition, but also about the party you're casting a vote for. The enemy of your enemy isn't always your friend.
Note: I'm not saying this is actually what's happening with the Republican party, as I'm definately out of the loop on most of the bills and such that they pass day-to-day, but I have noticed that the RINOs have gone beyond a mere handful. They're a bloody herd.
I expect the Rats will do any low, rotten, lying thing they can think of to gain and keep political power my friend but when the Republicans play the same games and call it smart strategy, well that just wrong. I haven't agreed with a lot of the Presidents views lately as I have already said and theres more like stem-cell research and pushing Israel around to name a few more. But I held my nose and went along for the sake of Sept 11 and the war on terror, which is now just about the only area in which I think GW is doing a good job. But when the President signed that unconstitutional bill that takes away our right to free speech then made jokes about it, that was the straw that broke the camels back for me. I am very disappointed in Mr Bush. I loved Ronnie Reagan , he was my Commander-in-Chief and a great President. I had hoped GW would be another like him but now I see it was all wishful thinking on my part.
sigh...
I too take the CFR signing as a lot more serious than other run of the mill issues, as we are talking about Free Speech and the very first Amendment in the Bill of Rights here.
and I am an active Republican soon to be Independent (yet I'll confess I'll still vote for conservative Republicans) yet not get my money or campaigning any longer........sorry for the confusion.
However, what I am asking for are standard Republican values in our government. We cannot drastically reduce the government, but we can do it incrementally. But, you cannot accomplish that by increasing the size of the government. The Dept of Education by itself has increased by 25%. I am not asking for an end to abortion, but at least the government stop funding abortion. I am all about incrementalism, but it has to be in the conservative direction. A huge increase in non-military govt spending will not accomplish that.
What is my point? I want him to hold the line. I know he cannot deliver anything I want, I just dont want him to make it worse. Geez....how many seats in Congress does he need for that? If he needs an absolute majority in all branches of the govt so that he can get his agenda moving, then hey, I could be the President. The kind of radical change I was talking about may need an absolute majority, but if he was a leader of any kind, he should be able to accomplish the little incremental things that I proposed. He is simply not leading the nation. 80% popularity rating is not an ornament. You use it to get your agenda moving.
Now, it is entirely possible that GWBush is a squish, and he likes to do feel-good things so that the editorial board of NYT would love him. If that is the case, I am wasting my time and my vote.
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.