Is this seminar poster night?
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.
#2---No, I would not give up the war on terrorism. But there are other options on how to manage it besides the one you outlined.
#3---Bush and Powell talk "new" policies all the time. It's called talking out of both sides of your mouth. We never know where our two most important leaders of state stand, nor does anyone else.
#4---Don't blame the Israeli people for the fact that their leaders (Netanyahu included) are always giving in to the "peace talkers". Their leaders have betrayed them on down through the years by talking one way and then governing another.
Let's see... the far left is proposing immigration amnesty....the far left increased the DoEd budget...the far left signed CFR...yep, the far left keeps backing out on their agenda in order to appease the right and take their issues away...
Fifth, as a share of GNP, government spending has stagnated and started to decline, if only slightly.
Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth, we defeated the USSR and communism. That alone is one of the outstanding achievements of humanity when viewed in the long run of history.
Eleventh, we pretty much killed off AFDC and welfare, for the first time in 25 years.
Twelfth, we ended MOST (but not all) of the farm subsidies.
Thirteenth, we have created an anti-tax climate in this country that there was a genuine REVOLT in TENN when they tried to raise taxes, and most states (such as Ohio where I live) won't even try it. That was the reason for the cigarette suits. But those, too, will dry up and without revenue, the state governments (and feds) will inevitably shrink.
Fourteenth, did I mention we ended communism in Russia? How about this? Despite pressure to put big tariffs on autos, Reagan resisted, and now the U.S. auto industry can compete with Japan any day of the week.
Fifteenth, we have buried Japan, the supposed "colossus" of the 1980s, especially in "high tech" areas, where we hold 80% of the world's hard drive market.
Lemme know if you want 15 more.
Hide and watch, my man.
Assuming there is an election in 2003, millions of principled conservatives will cast votes on principle.
We bought the Gore=death of Republic.
Now Dubya is doing it kinder, gentler version of the same; and without stains on blue dresses.
But, we won't get fooled again.
We will either not vote or vote our convictions. And Bush will fulfill his destiny - father and son - one termers
As for people talking out of both sides of their mouths, I hate to tell you but it's called DIPLOMACY. Churchill did it (he's a real lib, right?), Alexander did it, and Napoleon did it. I will be the first to agree that the Bush mid-east position should have been clearer. But as with almost all presidents (including Reagan), the so-called "moderate" Arabs usually convince people that they can "persuade" the radicals to settle down---which of course they can't. Usually, it takes a president a turn or two to figure this out.
Finally, you don't get off the hook with this "leaders vs. the people of Israel" crap. How many Israelis do you know? I know the head of one of the ONLY conservative think tanks in Israel. Want him to tell you how liberal most Jews are? Until recently, it was against Israeli law for the conservatives to print ads or get on TV to air their concerns. This is one of the biggest problems with American conservatives---they simply do not understand how incredibly LIBERAL Israel Jews are, and why it is THAT which has driven the Oslo Accords and other appeasment garbage. Even Netanyahu was forced "to the middle" because of the liberal nature of Israel's population. Until that changes, we can do nothing.
Don't get me wrong. You're welcome to join. We'd rather have you inside the tent pissing out, if you pardon my LBJ reference.
See you tomorrow maybe!
Opposition against President Bush's policy agenda, especially his recent decisions on CFR and provision 245(i) of HR 1885, is mainly coming from the far rightwing. These people want to draw a line in the sand, on each and every issue that arises. They want no compromise and no negotiation with the loyal opposition. In other words, they don't want the President to play politics.
These individuals are members of the "third party" movement in America. These are the same major third parties, that together, couldn't garner even one million votes between them, in the last Prez election. We all know who they are. They supported the likes of Harry Browne of the Libertarian Party, Pat Buchanan of the Reform Party, Howard Philips of the Constitution Party and John Hagelin of the Natural Law Party. Four losers!
I believe these people, who say they supported Bush during the primary and general election seasons, never actually supported the President and if they did, that support was weak from the get-go. I think there are many who oppose Bush, just because he is the President. Just as they would have opposed a president Algore and just as they did oppose President Bill Clinton. Some of these same people who oppose President Bush, opposed President Reagan back in the 1980`s. There's no pleasing them, so why even try.
The Bush Bashers are here to stay. Let's realize what their motivation factor is and what their agenda stands for. These one million political malcontents, don't want partial victory, they wnat it all. That is delusional thinking and has nothing in common with reality.
The vast majority of conservative-republicans will continue to support President Bush. Those who want to moan and groan about everything Bush does, won't ever be happy with anything he does, now or in the future!
Look, I would LOVE to be in such a majority that Bush (and anyone else) HAD to listen to my conservative views. But it simply isn't reality, and the sooner many Freepers here get that, the more effective we will really be.
Another dose of reality: Bush is what he has always said he is---a "compassionate conservative," and you can put the emphasis on whichever part you want. To him, tax cuts are important, and defending the country is vital. He has quietly issued three pro-life Ex Orders that very few here want to acknowledge. But, yes, on several issues he has "caved." So what do you do? Abandon him because he caved on one or two issues, or stick with him because he has addressed one or two? Regardless of what you do, it's pretty clear that the vast majority of Republicans (96% approval in last week's Gallup poll) and the large majority of Americans (still at about 80%) love the guy. And that, sir, is reality.
What is your source for this contention. I did a google search on this and ended up at the Hoover Institute's web page and they wrote in there that "President Ronald Reagan’s Tax Reform Act of 1986 . . . reduced the top marginal rate of tax from 50 percent to 28 percent." Here is the link. Now maybe what you are saying is that Reagan made the tax code simpler by eliminating various tax deductions in return for lowering marginal rates. But is it really fair to call that a tax increase?
LOL! I gave over $500 ($700 about?) to the Bush campaign, about $150 to Alan Keyes, $100 to the Republican party, and more to various organizations. I wrote letters to the editor for Bush, I carried around campaign garb. EVERYWHERE I went, etc etc... I've given HOURS to the man. But then, those are facts that might not fit into your little dream world.
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.