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.
Second, dunno about the total tax burden. Hard to figure if you include states. My guess is that it dropped from 1982-1986, then went up again.
As for who you think Reagan "was," apparently you HAVE NOT read "An American Life." You'll see that it was more than "bitching" about the right-wing. He considered the right wing an impediment to getting things done---he saw himself like a Monroe, bringing groups together. Obviously he did not do that. He never had these kinds of ratings, and, far more than Bush, he always had a core group that hated him.
Reagan and Bush are far more similar than you want to think: both had 2-3 main ideas that they wanted to implement (Cold War/war on terror; tax cuts; rebuild military). They then had a number of smaller, equally important issues they wanted to pursue (SDI, which Reagan got funded, and which Bush has accelerated; abortion, which Reagan didn't do anything on, and Bush did; reducing government which Reagan favored, but didn't do anything about, and which Bush doesn't favor necessarily); and various other "reforms." The big difference is that Reagan had a GOP Senate AND a working majority with the "blue dog" representatives, while Bush has a scant majority in the House and a Dem senate. Given these factors, Bush has been every bit as successful so far as Reagan.
The Reagan comparisons from your side have been coming from all corners. I just point out the lies. You cannot name one thing that Bush has done that Reagan did not do or enforce. Bush has followed the same outline Reagan used and in 15 months in office has accomplished more than Ragan did in his entire first term and Reagan did not have a shooting war to deal with. No you are not "critiquing" you are simply tarring the image of two good Americans, one great president and one that will be great, that is if he can survive the knives of self-proclaimed “patriots”.
Don't you feel like you've been repeating the same sentence over and over again for two weeks to people who don't even have their hearing aids turned on?
Here in Connecticut you can't register 'Independent' because that's a party. You have to register 'unaffiliated.' I switched from Republican to Unaffiliated. I was told that there are a lot of people doing that (McCain won the primary handily in my town, county, and state).
Hope your kid feels better.
tic.
tic.
tic.
The clock is definitely running.
Where did I tar the image of any good American? My comment is a hysterical laugh at comparing 8 years of Reagan to little over 1 year of Bush. That is a comparison that you might want to dissect at this time, but if you want to compare the 2 seriously, you may want to give the benefit of the doubt to the man that took us from double digit inflation and interest rates to a prosperity that still goes on. Not to mention a large role in bringing down the Soviet empire...a fete that wasnt hardly even considered by anybody with a degree...I mean since George has been at it for a year you might want to hold off on that comparison or face some laughs, and I say that with all due respect to your opinion on other matters.
Actually, I have. Twice. Guess I'll put it in the pile for reading again. Perhaps since I'm the right wing you say he thought was an impediment I glossed over that part.
My only comparison and perspective on politics comes from my business experience. I've been very successful, and one thing I figured out early on was that if a good number of people aren't out to knock you on your @ss, you're not doing it right. I would argue that deep, palpable dislike directed toward you is a great sign. I, like others on this board would call Bush's popularity a bug not a feature.
Given these factors, Bush has been every bit as successful so far as Reagan.
Oh, come on.I used this example on another thread. Here in Connecticut we elected a liberal whacko Republican named Lowell Weicker because he promised to balance the state budget. His brilliant plan was to institute a state income tax. My father-in-law is British. As he said 'Any idiot could balance the budget with a bloody income tax.' Bush's success is due mostly to the fact that he advanced the liberal agenda. Please don't make me list them all.
Didn't miss a thing. Learned a hard lesson 8 years ago about party loyality over core principles. You see once there was a GOP governor who was loved among the masses. The GOP thought highly of him as did the Dems. The DEM's thought so highly that they ran a token party Wall Flower to oppose him.
All was well the two parties lived in harmony supporting Universal Health Care and all classes being hooked up to the internet. Then all of the sudden King RINO says hey we're broke where did the money go? All the loyal RINO's yelled Hurump and banged their fist in agreement with RINO and DEM's that taxes must be raised or else. Of course the leading RINO waited till his second and final term to make his shocking discovery.
Some people wrote letters saying RINO was right. Some of the DEM friends of RINO blammed RINO for the mess and some conservatives got mad and protested the whole mess. They all were taken in by RINO's high approval ratings he was on top of the political ladder of his domain.
That RINO is the present governor of Tennessee. He is the DEM's usefull idiot and despises conservatives. Did I vote for him in 1998? No I voted Independent instead. You see RINO had 4 years to address issues that were destroying his state and instead chose to ignore them so he would not rock the boat and perhaps not get re-elected.
Being everyones good pal was far more important than oath of office. This became an obsession and all was lost. His damage was even seen at the last POTUS election where a conservative could have taken the state in a landslide. Why? Because RINO's only endore other RINO's.
I just cant understand the view that we shouldnt be critiquing Bush. I'd like to hear how the supporters in lieu of CFR think they will change Bush to act as a conservative if there is no conservative criticism.
Of course there is the ugly possiblility that they dont care if he acts conservative.
Somewhere down the line the GOP leadership is going to have to take a principled stand.
Don't hold your breath.
Why is it the "move-on'ers" ONLY focus on Clinton. These crimes were committed by DOZENS if not HUNDREDS of high level democrats. Those people are STILL infesting the democRAT party, just waiting for their next opportunity to steal elections and sell this country out. Many of them are actually still in government. Some of them are running for elections to high office. And the bottom line is that you didn't answer my question. How conservative do you have to be to uphold laws as important as those that protect us against election tampering, privacy violations and murder?
The Dems would bash conservatives with the "that's-all-they-have-is-to-attack-Bill-Clinton" club,
Why are you obsessed with Bill Clinton? Why won't you move-on'ers EVER discuss the many others who committed crimes? Don't they matter? The fact is, without them, the Clintons would have been powerless. The fact is, without Clinton in office, THEY are powerless. NOTHING is preventing Ashcroft from PROPERLY investigating these matters and dishing out justice where it is due.
And who says this must start with an attack on "the Clintons"? Ashcroft would be a FOOL to start with them. Perhaps that is why Starr did. No, you start with the underlings. That's how you ALWAYS break up mafias ... and that is just what Clinton created ... a mafia. You investigate those underlings (Clinton's Chinese "friend" called them "princelings"), charge them (so they face the prospect of LONG jail sentences) and then turn them (and some will to avoid that long jail time) ... so that the case against their bosses and their bosses bosses is eventually undeniable. THEN, you go after their bosses.
I suggest Ashcroft start with just 3 cases. First there is the Riady non-refund where CLEARLY friends of Clinton (be they Riady or be they democRAT fundraisers) committed very serious election tampering (ILLEGALLY and KNOWINGLY introducing MILLIONS of dollars from Communist China into OUR election process). Second there is Filegate, where one party attempted to gain political advantage (ah heck ... let's just say it ... BLACKMAIL) another party's highest members by ILLEGALLY acquiring what might turn out to be THOUSANDS of FBI files and then ILLEGALLY transfer the damning information in them into DNC databases. Third is the deaths of Foster and Brown ... where it would appear, AT BEST, a suicide and a mass murder were covered up.
These cases are perfect because each has hard evidence (you don't just have to depend on hearsay) to prove crimes were committed and that (AT THE VERY LEAST) underlings were involved. Each is about a serious matter and not just about "sex" or "lying about sex". Matters such as election tampering using communist cash, violating the privacy of THOUSANDS of people, blackmailing the other party's leadership, and murdering government officials will be difficult to spin, especially given the existance of FOX NEWS. You saw the effect FOX NEWS had on the reporting of the Pardongate allegations. Each case also has credible witnesses ready and willing to testify. Witnesses don't get any more credible than military officers who were in good standing. And each case leads to the Clinton Whitehouse or the top people in the DNC (FOB's).
You investigate these cases, then AFTER you win them, you will be able to focus on the other scandals with the public's approval and perhaps even move the focus up the ladder towards the Clintons. Prove that the Clinton Whitehouse, at the very least, covered up the murder of Ron Brown and you have the black community and ALL Republicans demanding the rest of the scandals be investigated. Prove the Clinton Whitehouse covered up a MASS MURDER and you will have EVEN democRATS demanding the same. You don't start out by focusing on Clinton as move-on'ers think we would.
Investigating these crimes is not only the right thing to do, it is the smart thing to do. By ignoring the crimes you only STRENGTHEN the democRAT party. What does it matter if Bush signs a CFR bill that he thinks will help Republicans, if democRATS are just going to go out and STEAL the next election using TENS of MILLIONS in ILLEGAL cash? That is PRECISELY what they did the last couple elections and there is PLENTY of hard evidence ALREADY to prove it. Yet, Ashcroft and the GOP ignore this. Do you think the democRATS won't learn a lesson from this?
If we ignore these crimes, the democRATS will learn that a President who controls the media (like they did AND STILL DO) and the law enforcement arm of the Federal government (like Clinton most certainly did) can get away with literally ANYTHING. They have already learned that Republicans cannot prevent them from committing crimes and they know that during THEIR administration, IF there is an investigation by the GOP, they can plead the 5th, lie or just pretend a memory lapse and the Republicans will essentially do NOTHING. And if Republicans do nothing now, they will learn that when they commit crimes, and after Republicans are back in power, Republicans STILL won't do anything ... even with mountains of evidence. They won't even INVESTIGATE to gather further evidence.
They will learn they can get away with stealing elections and Republicans will do NOTHING. They will learn they can openly tamper with the voting process and Republicans will do NOTHING. They will learn that they can get campaign funds from illegal sources (even by selling US secrets to the enemy) and Republicans will do NOTHING. They will learn that even if discovered, they can say they returned the illegal funds, not do so, get caught not doing so and STILL the Republicans will do NOTHING.
They will learn that they can ILLEGALLY examine government files for damaging information on their opponents, put that information ILLEGALLY into their own databases and publish the information in their controlled media ... and the Republicans will do NOTHING. They will learn that they can both destroy the evidence of their wrong doing or simply disconnect the systems that are supposed to preserve a "paper trail" of government activities ... and the Republicans will do nothing.
They will learn that they can abuse the IRS, FBI and military, turning them into instruments for distracting the public from reports that might damage them or even use them to harass their enemies ... and the Republicans will do NOTHING. They will learn that they can intimidate, smear and lie about anyone who threatens them and the Republicans will do NOTHING.
They will learn that they can KILL high level members of the government (like Foster and Brown) who threaten to expose their activities and Republicans will do NOTHING. They won't even investigate.
If the GOP ignores the crimes the democRATS committed, they leave people like me (life-long Republicans) wondering whether we really can trust Republicans to properly investigate crimes by Republicans ... or even whether they might not commit crimes just like the democRATS did to stay in power. After all, why should we trust Republicans, if they won't even investigate crimes as serious as MURDER ... by DEMOCRATS? And once that trust is gone it will be very hard to regain.
The only groups I know of that "mand we'd get sucked into a debate over the last ten years rather than the next ten.
There won't be a next ten years if you don't fix the danger that the democRAT behavior of the last ten years poses. There won't be a next ten years if you ignore these laws just because you think you will gain politically. That very action will destroy this country, because if our leaders do not respect the laws, don't expect the public to either. And a nation without laws is not a nation ... it is either anarchy or a TYRANNY.
Whatever the Clinton crimes were---
Clinton Clinton Clinton. Why do you insist this is only about the Clintons? It is NOT. It is about a whole party gone bad and the other teettering on the edge of an abyss. NOW, because of GOP inaction, it is BECOMING "about" BUSH!
every single special prosecutor who has looked at the evidence has agreed that there just isn't enough to "hang" the guy or Hillary.
Oh give me a break. And who exactly selected those prosecutors. Fiske was #1 on a list drawn up by CLINTON. Starr was #2 on that list. Do you honestly think, knowing what we know about the Clintons, that they would have put ANYONE on that list that they didn't think they could control. If you don't think Starr was controlled, then explain this. Why did Starr allow the FBI files which HE told US were ILLEGAL for the Whitehouse to have, to REMAIN in the Whitehouse for YEARS after he told us that? Why didn't Starr say something when both the Whitehouse and FBI told the public that the files were returned? Starrs investigation of the Filegate was a JOKE. He didn't even bother to interview many of the key witnesses ... he left that up to Klayman then never used what Klayman learned. And why did Starr do such a shoddy job of investigating the Foster matter? All he did was RUBBER STAMP Fiske's report. Do you believe Fiske was honest? And as to Ray, he ALSO allowed those FBI files to remain in the Whitehouse, although to his credit he at least told the truth when directly asked where the files were a few years after the Whitehouse and FBI LIED. Sorry, your special prosecutors were more than TAINTED by the Clinton corruption. It is time for some HONEST investigation of these matters. It is time that some of these matters (like the Ron Brown case) be investigated at all. Reno just IGNORED military officers who SWORE UNDER OATH that something was very wrong.
There is a time to let things go.
Sure ... just "move on" ... adopt the mantra of the democRAT party and "be happy".
In the 1880s, the Northern politicians finally quit "waving the bloody shirt," because there were more important things than reviving the Civil War---did you know that Cleveland even advocated pensions for SOUTHERN veterans?
Don't try and suggest this is about "revenge". Thisis most assuredly NOT. It is about whether we are going to be a nation of laws or not. It is about whether we are going to allow leaders and parties to do ANYTHING they want.
But the point is, you can't fight past wars and hope to win future elections.
There is no statute of limitation on murder. You seem to think there is. There are NO EXCUSES for not investigating many of these crimes and the questions I'm asking are not going to go away regardless of how much you and the rest of the move-on'ers want them to.
and will only make you look like a kook.
Time will tell. Your problem is that unlike the "kooks" you equate me to, I have the facts on my side. Or would you like to try proving me wrong in any of the cases I mentioned?
If we must abandon principles to win the war by compromise,
Who exactly are we fighting and what are we fighting for?
Ah the Big Chill question...they dont like the answer that there own heart gives them.
You're wasting your typing finger. The rule of law in the impeachment case was the hors d'ouvre. The ultimate rule of law, the U.S. Constitution, was the main course.
Meet the new boss/Same as the old boss.
No that pretty much decribes what's going on. The Democratic party goes further left each election. The GOP in hopes of gaining a Rouge DEM vote as well lowers it's standards to try and get that vote. Both are headed in the same direction toward socialism. They are only arguing now about the speed of the train. Personally I wish the two parties leaders honestly despised each other so maybe some caution would come out of the process. When I see our POTUS kissing up to the worst disgrace to ever be elected to and remain in the senate chambers {both in personal qualities and political beliefs} it makes me sick.
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.