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.
That's the best you have? That's your atom bomb? Snicker.
I never said what he did was illegal. I said it was wrong. Wrong. Not right. Morally incorrect. Remember right and wrong?
And I was being a smart@ss ... you need a DICTIONARY for that word?
You can't save anything without POWER, and you don't have POWER unless you get elected to an office. As I have stated MANY MANY times in the last week, a conservative with NO OFFICE is of NO USE to anyone.
How did I make it this far in life without the enlightenment of my friends Howlin and Reagan Man.
You bet it is. It's all I need. It's a nice feeling, too. One that would drive you right up the wall.
And you wouldn't sound so much like a barbeque infatuated empty ten gallon hat Texan if I could figure out what in the H you were talking about.
Let me repeat, reaaal slow. Bush has been a big government shill since his election. In signing CFR, he explicitly violated his oath of office...he doesn't even deny the bill is unconstitutional, for crying out loud. He said he would veto it as a candidate. So how is it exactly that I am supposed to have any more respect for the liar Bush as compared to the liar Clinton?
hmm lets see, Cato lays out his principles, individually, what is important to him,,,,,,,sticks to them,,,,,,rules out politicians who have violated his principles and he is politically naieve???????
And you Lobsterback Tories, with your follow the leader complexity are astute politicos?? Thanks for clearing that up for me.
Just out of curiousity, how much soft money do you contribute to political organizations during each election cycle? You must be a big player to be this upset and to feel this violated.
From the debate over Washington's one and only veto based on the constitution. He finally vetoed it but ONLY after agonizing over the political impact on his support from the southern party. His final decision rested on Jefferson's arguments but he made his decision on as much political calculation as he did on "principle
Like Knox, Hamilton believed that “In cases where two constructions may reasonably be adopted, and neither can be pronounced inconsistent with the public good, it seems proper that the legislative sense should prevail” and the bill should be signed into law (all documents Library of Congress: GW Papers
It is unrealistic to think that any, every, all, politicians don't play dirty, or don't break campaign promises..it's naive and stupid to think that...
I think this was a smart politician doing a smart thing...I can't guarantee a SCOTUS ruling in our favor...but if we do get it..it takes CFR off the agenda of the Dems and the RINO's....for a very long time.
What happen to Bushbots .. I liked that .. I don't know about this Lobsterbacks ...
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.