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.
Actually when I was a mere newbie, 'innocent as a lamb', I asked somebody 'Heck I have to learn to stick up for myself, and strike back in the way I have been attacked'. And this understanding, kindly Freeper, Buckeroo was his name, I think, said to me, 'newbie, if you want to learn to kick and gouge with the best of them, follow the posts of this fierce veteran of the Freeper wars, Howlin by name, and she will show you how to do it.' I took this sweet man's advice, and have never regretted it.'
But to answer your question: the president's signing even such an obviously unconstitutional bill would be consistent with his oath because, in the end in our system, it is the judiciary's job to pronounce on a law's constitutionality. His oath is to uphold the Constitution, and the Constitution gives authority to determine a law's constitutionality only to the judiciary. However, in this case the president would have the authority to veto the bill and he could just because it was a bad bill. He could say, without wrapping his judgment in technical question of constitutionality, that the bill is not in accordance with our values, freedoms, etc.
Put into the context of CFR, Bush could have said, if he thought this was the case, I am vetoing the bill because I believe it does not improve the system, but rather makes it worse. What people here seem to have wanted him to say was that he was killing the bill because he believed it was unconstitutional. That is an entirely different thing.
I know some will jump on this as splitting hairs, but it's not. We have three branches of government and they are set up to provide checks and balances. If, as in your example, the legislature screws up and the president doesn't check the legislature, then we have to depend on the courts to do their job. That's our system. That's why we have a gazillion "special interest" groups ready to fly into court on a moment's notice to protect our freedoms.
See your so punch drunk you dont even remember it. Maybe some other time.
Since he have taken office there has been several elections, Republican vs. democRat, Bush was nearly silent. He did nothing to help his fellow republicans in most of these races. But this week he came south to raise funds for selected candidates to campaign against other republicans in the up coming primary. Bush has supported more RINOs than conservatives.
I wonder who he thinks his REAL OPPOSITION is.
And I'll have you know I am a very HAPPY poster......until I see people posting twisted truths and logic.
Oh, I do have a "thing" for Alan Keyes, but that, too, falls under the category of getting on my last nerve because he acts like he's morally superior to the rest of us, a trait not unlike Hillary Clinton has and you KNOW how she grates on my nerves.
:-}
The above is an adjective that never occurred to me. The limits of my imagination have now been delimited by your more catholic perspective. And for that I salute you.
Mo, You can raise people? You're really getting into the Easter holy day spirit, girl!
ROFLMBO ... Now that is funny
Actually I believe it was your attempt at debate with Cato, who slugged you bout your head and shoulders with the two by four of logic and debate.
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.