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.
It may be simplistic to you, but you missed the entire thrust of my argument.
This has nothing to do with being critical of President Bush. Republicans, conservatives, independents and democrats have been critical of Bush on a multitude of issues. I don't agree with Bush on every issue myself and have been critical of him on both CFR and his support for section 245(i) of HR 1885. There, I just criticized the President, again.
What I'm referring to, is those people who have vehemently opposed Bush and said, they will never vote for him again because of one specific issue, or another. This coming after a mere 14 months in office, is highly questionable behavior, for any true supporter of President Bush. These same, so called, former Bush supporters, have followed up their dumping of Bush by trashing him with personal insults. COME ON NOW, this is just too thin. I question whether they ever supported Bush, at all.
I believe the 85% of conservatives who voted for Bush in the last election, are still soildly behind him. I think those who voted third party, are the ones making most of the noise here on FreeRepublic. It was same way during the 2000 Republican primary season and the 2000 general election phase. The political malcontents around here, wait for any opportunity to attack President Bush and for good reason. They don't support him. Not now, not ever!
When Dick Chaney came to this area we were on the podium with him. I've been invited to two fundraising breakfasts that featured W. I'm hardly a third party voter.
So please, give me a break.
Bush, I would agree vis a vis Party to Party is kicking a little butt, but at what cost is the question.
I can make an expediency argument for the Steel bill, but CFR was a huge mistake IMO.
Yea, sure.
This is precisely what CFR is designed to discourage.
Nah they were just party ticket punchers. If Conservatives had simply taken the time before the primary votes to actually read the canidates stands and opinions on core issues I think that likely either Forbes or Keyes likely a Forbes/Keyes ticket would have taken the nomination. I think along with that the vast difference between them and Al Gore on all issues would have gotten the GOP a landslide against Gore rather than a razor thin margin. Bush nearly lost because rather than trying to be a Republican he tried to be DEM-A-LITE. I despise Al Gore but the only reason he nearly won is because Bush tried to play Gores favorite political game of me too politics. Gore was the master of it as his daddy taught it to him. A damaged Gore should not have been a problem for the GOP.
Been reading Buchanan's book? His assesment of the "big picture" is absolutely amazing and is worthy of a lot of respect, I think.
Oh ye, of little faith.
So who will it be in 2004? Browne, Philips, Hagelin, Keyes, Paul? All past losers. May be, a Democrat. The choice is yours. =^)
From what I understand by the time you get to the end of Buchanan's book you want to slit your wrists. I've got enough problems.
No, my friend. The choice is YOURS, as I most likely won't be voting. If I do vote it will most likely be for Keyes, for whom I have a lot of respect.
First you must define an exact universal definition of a subjective term.
principle (prîn´se-pel) noun Abbr. prin..
1.A basic truth, law, or assumption: the principles of democracy.
2.a. A rule or standard, especially of good behavior: a man of principle. b. The collectivity of moral or ethical standards or judgments: a decision based on principle rather than expediency..
3.A fixed or predetermined policy or mode of action..
4.A basic or essential quality or element determining intrinsic nature or characteristic behavior: the principle of self-preservation..
5.A rule or law concerning the functioning of natural phenomena or mechanical processes: the principle of jet propulsion..
6.Chemistry. One of the elements that compose a substance, especially one that gives some special quality or effect..
7.A basic source. See Usage Note at principal..
8. Principle. Christian Science. God.
Overall? Yes, I think Ronald Reagan would be proud and very supportive of President Bush's leadership, political gamesmanship and mainstream conservative qualities.
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.