Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

BUSH'S REAL OPPOSITION: REPUBLICAN CONSERVATIVES
news/op/ed ^ | 3/28/2002 | Richard Reeves

Posted on 03/29/2002 3:08:59 PM PST by TLBSHOW

BUSH'S REAL OPPOSITION: REPUBLICAN CONSERVATIVES

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.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: bush
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 421-440441-460461-480 ... 821-834 next last
To: OneidaM
Oh, please. Anybody who says they have kept every word they've ever promised is obviously either a liar or delusional.

I'm GLAD people like that don't undertand me.

441 posted on 03/29/2002 9:09:15 PM PST by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 433 | View Replies]

To: OneidaM
Hey Cato feels strongly about what he is saying...just like everybody else does. Feelings are running raw right now, and it's all because of Bush not having the courage to veto that assinine bill.

But I think we conservatives will survive with a minor schism.

442 posted on 03/29/2002 9:10:03 PM PST by rbmillerjr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 433 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
You're right...I don't undertand you. And, sorry to disappoint you, but when I look someone in the eye and shake their hand, that obligates me.
443 posted on 03/29/2002 9:10:40 PM PST by ModernDayCato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 441 | View Replies]

To: ModernDayCato
FYI toots..."HE" Howlin..just happens to be a "SHE" Howlin.....
444 posted on 03/29/2002 9:10:49 PM PST by Neets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 439 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe
See, what you're saying is that if Bubba had vetoed a law prohibiting partial birth abortion because he thought it was unconstitutional, you would say the bill was constitutional and therefore he should have signed it.

And by not signing it, would not he be keeping all of us from finding out for a fact whether or not the law was constitutional?

And by not signing it because he thought it was unconstitutional, would he not be taking upon himself the authority that only the judicial branch has?

And by not signing it because he thought it was unconstitutional, would he not be thwarting the will of the people, expressed by their legislators, insofar as he denied them their day in court to argue that the law was constitutional?

445 posted on 03/29/2002 9:10:50 PM PST by fightinJAG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 423 | View Replies]

To: ModernDayCato
It's the JOB of the DOJ.

It's the job of the president at the DISCRETION of the president.

446 posted on 03/29/2002 9:10:59 PM PST by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 426 | View Replies]

To: rbmillerjr
Astute politicos?

Indeed.

Lobsterback Tories?

I think not.

Follow the leader complexity?

I think not.

Thanks for clearing that up for me.

You're quite welcome.

447 posted on 03/29/2002 9:11:31 PM PST by Reagan Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 410 | View Replies]

To: OneidaM
Sorry...I never went for that gender-neutral stuff. My he is the old fashioned kind. Believe it or not, no offense was intended (on that).
448 posted on 03/29/2002 9:12:56 PM PST by ModernDayCato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 444 | View Replies]

To: ModernDayCato
(Incidentally, your usage of 'ad hominem' is incorrect.)

As is your guessing people's gender.

449 posted on 03/29/2002 9:13:01 PM PST by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 438 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
Sorry...never met a lady with a mouth quite like yours. But then again, I don't hang out in places where I would.
450 posted on 03/29/2002 9:13:51 PM PST by ModernDayCato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 449 | View Replies]

To: ModernDayCato
Are you declaring here and now that in your entire life you have NEVER had to go back on a promise? Never? Ever?
451 posted on 03/29/2002 9:14:07 PM PST by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 443 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
Wait...I take that back. Gorgeous Ladies of Wrestling sometimes tapes near me.
452 posted on 03/29/2002 9:14:53 PM PST by ModernDayCato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 449 | View Replies]

To: Howlin;ModernDayCato
I'm GLAD people like that don't undertand me.

I guess when he said 'Your boy Howlin calls me everything', ModernDayCato showed that he doesn't understand you at all, Howlin -- LOL!

453 posted on 03/29/2002 9:15:00 PM PST by Lucius Cornelius Sulla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 441 | View Replies]

To: ModernDayCato
Well, you got me that time. What a witty reply. I may not get over it.
454 posted on 03/29/2002 9:15:05 PM PST by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 450 | View Replies]

To: ModernDayCato
Well, as much as I hate to leave this love-fest..and boy do I love love fests...I have to get some beauty sleep so I can get up and get barefoot and in the kitchen tomorrow to get ready for Easter Sunday....maybe another day eh???
455 posted on 03/29/2002 9:15:05 PM PST by Neets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 443 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
a duck is a duck is a duck Reagan man, you started the war of descriptors. But green seems to mean red and yes no around here lately...you welcome as well.

Who is naieve, as you deemed Cato seems more fitting on the other side of this debate.

456 posted on 03/29/2002 9:15:09 PM PST by rbmillerjr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 447 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
Well, you might have a point, but RR didn't sign the legislation, did he? Roe v Wade was a Supreme Court decision, not a bill sent to his desk by the Congress. Frankly, I thing RR signed some unconstitutional laws, including the 1986 Gun control law among others. But that was then, and this is now. Bush lied, and he signed a piece of legislation which is in gross violation of the Constitution. But it isn' the first unconstitutional law he signed ("Patriot act"} and given his record, won't be his last.

So tell me. If you think signing unconstitutional laws is ok, then I assume you would have no problem if Bush signed a law banning ownership of handguns, or making it a felony to refuse quartering a National Guardsman in your home during a declared terrorist emergency, or making Catholocism the state religion and banning any Muslims, Jews or Baptists from practicing their religion?

457 posted on 03/29/2002 9:15:23 PM PST by Jesse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 424 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
Gee...I wish I would have posted this. I don't think I've posted a 400+ thread since the 'purge'. LOL...
458 posted on 03/29/2002 9:15:30 PM PST by RCW2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
Good point. Bears repeating: if a president violates his oath by signing any law he thinks is unconstitutional, he also violates his oath by enforcing any law he thinks is unconstitutional. If it's immoral and wrong to sign any law a president thinks is unconstitutional, it's immoral and wrong to enforce any law a president thinks is unconstitutional.

Taking this to its relentlessly logical conclusion is mighty ugly, friends.

459 posted on 03/29/2002 9:15:44 PM PST by fightinJAG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 424 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
Now how could I possibly answer that with any certainty?
460 posted on 03/29/2002 9:15:48 PM PST by ModernDayCato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 451 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 421-440441-460461-480 ... 821-834 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson