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.
LOL! No, VRWM Minion, it's even worse than that. It's not if he's "ever found" to have signed an unconstitutional bill, as in "found" by the Supreme Court, for example. No, it's if he ever signed a bill he or me or thee THOUGHT was unconstitutional. We don't even have to wait for the courts to rule. In fact, we don't even need the courts, just let Bubba or whoever THINK the bill is unconstitutional and we'll all go along with that. First we remove the bumper stickers, then we remove the prez. Or maybe automatic removal is too good for such a bum.
(Your delicious sarcasm is catching.)
People like me what? You mean people who actually live in the real world and realize we're not dictators
On the contrary. Your intellectual laziness and lack of moral fiber gives rise to dictatorship.
And that to move our agenda ONE STEP forward, we have to compromise, rather than sit in a cave and complain because everybody won't do like you think they should?
Last time. Then I think I need to go to bed, because I'm wasting my time. You can't compromise away your principles, because theoretically there is no gain that would be great enough to offset that compromise.
People like me who actually take what other people SAY and BELIEVE and THINK into consideration?
You mean people like you who are presumptuous and arrogant enough to believe that they know how I act and what I do?
People like me who don't think that anybody who disagrees with me is a traitor, or wants to shred the Constitution, or doesn't understand plain English, or isn't a real conservative?
Don't know where you got all that from, but I said nothing of the sort.
I can see how people like myself bug the crap out of you.
You don't bug the crap out of me. You amuse me. And you make me sad. You also make me happy I never had kids.
And I am SO GLAD I don't know anybody in my real life like you;
Sigh. Unfortunately, I know a lot of people like you.
you're so strident life around you must be miserable.
Don't know which is more amusing...your sanctimony or your presumptuousness.
God help anybody who isn't perfect or disagrees with you.
This one is too funny, considering the post it's at the end of.
Do you see any lack of "critique" around here? Hell when accusing a president of treason. malfeasance and calling for impeachment is NOT enough "critiquing" then I don't know what to tell ya.
I know you meant this as a slur, but so true. There are those of us out here who hold people to standards...you know, murder and stealing are wrong, breaking an oath to uphold the constitution is wrong, etc. Old fashioned fuddie-duddies.
I'm sure you think that mindless brand name loyalty for the GOP is the way, so go in peace.
As for eating our own, well, we aren't. Bush isn't a conservative. If he were a conservative, and espoused and supported conservative constitutional ideals, such as eliminating the Dept of Education, reducing federal spending, controlling borders and illegal immigration, really reducing taxes, etc. then I would support him.
Until then, Bon appetit.
After all the crappola we've been dealing with, over the last two weeks, this is a mild diversion. But you are right Howlin. 'I don't like Bush, I hate Bush, why can't you?' LMAO!
So let's make it a non-hypothetical question: How far will you let Bush torture the Constitution before you say Uncle?
You wouldn't look like such a damn fool if you put some thought into what you are saying.
and you and a few others here on this thread seem just like du rats just like ole target here. Thanks for playing!
If a bill is bad, on whatever ground, no doubt it should not be passed, or even passed out of committee, as you said. But if it is, how much responsibility and therefore power do we want presidents to have to make constitutional judgments?
Did you see my question about how conservatives would react if a president like Bubba vetoed a law outlawing partial birth abortion on the basis he thought it was unconstitutional?
I can see you care about the travesty of abortion, as do I. What are your thoughts on this example? Would we not feel that we deserved our day in court? That it was not for Bubba to take away our chance to argue that the law was constitutional by refusing to sign it simply because he thought it was unconstitutional?
Doesn't it seem the opposite is being argued re CFR?
Do they EVER give up
smack smack
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.