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 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 821-834 next last
To: FITZ
Bush hasn't turned around any of those EO's Clinton was signing like crazy

Fitz before you make charges like that at least know your facts.

61 posted on 03/29/2002 4:16:40 PM PST by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: LS
And I agree with all the conservatives listed in the above article, and Wesley Pruden, George Will, and Cal Thomas. I can add Thomas Sowell, though he didn't name Bush, who came out against all foreign aid and third world debt "forgiven" etc. These are the people I've always agreed with. My postions haven't changed. Some of Bush's positions have changed.

Anyway, I've learned some valuable lessons this week. It hasn't been a lot of fun but it has been valuable.

62 posted on 03/29/2002 4:16:45 PM PST by RAT Patrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: FITZ
So you would give the Presidency to a radical environmentalist (Al Gore) or a person who tried to nationalize one-seventh of the U.S. economy (Hillary) instead?

Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

63 posted on 03/29/2002 4:17:48 PM PST by hchutch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
Wonder how pursuing the goals of the New World Order is Conservative? "uniting conservative support by continuing to push the war on terrorism into far nooks and crannies of the whole world."

The real opposition to Bush is coming from the neo-consrvatives not the conservatives. World dictators will be long dead before they are a threat to us. Conservative Americans want to conserve America by using our troops and aid to build fortress America and not to bail out the rest of the world and end up with the fate of the British Empire.

64 posted on 03/29/2002 4:18:49 PM PST by ex-snook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BeAChooser
Chooser, I really am sympathetic to this. But you need to let it go. There is zero, hear me? zero support in government by either Dems (naturally) or Republicans to re-hash the Clinton crimes.

It is a plain old dumb political strategy. The Dems would bash conservatives with the "that's-all-they-have-is-to-attack-Bill-Clinton" club, and we'd get sucked into a debate over the last ten years rather than the next ten. Whatever the Clinton crimes were---and I think there were a lot---every single special prosecutor who has looked at the evidence has agreed that there just isn't enough to "hang" the guy or Hillary.

There is a time to let things go. In the 1880s, the Northern politicians finally quit "waving the bloody shirt," because there were more important things than reviving the Civil War---did you know that Cleveland even advocated pensions for SOUTHERN veterans? Imagine the hue and cry from the northerners!!! But the point is, you can't fight past wars and hope to win future elections. If you "be a chooser" to do that, do so without me. Cause it isn't going to convince a single voter out there, and will only make you look like a kook.

65 posted on 03/29/2002 4:19:02 PM PST by LS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: LS
It was the 1982 cuts that brought the top rate down from 50% to 25%

I think you are wrong about this. Here is what the Prentice Hall Documents Library says, in part, about the Tax Reform Act of 1986:

Other features of the Tax Reform Act of 1986:

Tax cut. The top marginal tax rate on wealthiest individuals was reduced 44% (from 50% percent to 28%). The marginal rates for leass wealthy individuals were also reduced, but not by as high a percentage. Tax reductions were said by some critics to underly the massive mushrooming of the federal deficit during the Reagan administration.

Here is the link.

66 posted on 03/29/2002 4:20:24 PM PST by vbmoneyspender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
President Bush has got the water flowing in Klamath Falls. How many have sworn to vote FOR him in the next election because of that?
67 posted on 03/29/2002 4:20:26 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
I don't disagree with the concept of incrementalism. I don't like gambling with the Constitution. I don't like being lied to. If that makes me too picky then that's life.
68 posted on 03/29/2002 4:20:37 PM PST by RAT Patrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: vbmoneyspender
Not in that particular act no he did not raise taxes. He did raise the gasoline tax, federal park permit fees, excise taxes on tires and a host of other "revenue enhancements" that even today we are still paying. That is the fact and no matter what you say will not change those facts. The elder Bush's problem was that he actually called a tax a tax and he lost his base, Reagan was smarter and had more guile.
69 posted on 03/29/2002 4:21:30 PM PST by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
Boy when these professional Republican politicians are running for office they swear up and down that they will protect the Constitution, defend the borders, lessen the size of the government, anything they think you want to hear just to get your vote. Then as soon as they win they take a HARD LEFT TURN! It makes me sick! Is this how a President with an 80% approval rating leads the country?? What will we get if his ratings fall to 60%, outright communism??

I get the feeling that it's all a big shell game, and the outcome will always the same regardless of the party! These cynical ba$tards must be laughing their heads off over the pain they are causing to the people who marched in the streets in support of the President! There isn't a dimes worth of difference between most Repub's and demoRats that I can see lately and it will be a cold day in July before I rally and protest again for a man that signs away my God-given right to free speech and makes jokes about it then rewards law breaking illegal immigrants and pumps millions of dollars into the stinking teachers unions with the help of Teddy(the swimmer)Kennedy!

As far as the next elections are concerned, unless things change in a big way, I'll be sitting them out because if the choice is demoRat leftist socialism vs Repub leftist socialism I vote for NONE OF THE ABOVE!

70 posted on 03/29/2002 4:22:16 PM PST by Walkin Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FITZ
You are flat wrong. First, Bush has issued three quiet but very important Ex Orders that have reversed 20 years worth of abortion rulings. One had to do with abortions on military bases. Just this week, the "privacy" reversal said that teens who went to a hospital for an abort had to have their parents notified. There was a third I can't recall, but I noted it when it happened.

Second, you are TOTALLY off on the significance of the welfare reform bill. Food stamps was a virtually meaningless part of it. The critical issue, which Bush is actually strengthening, is the end to AFDC, which broke up families. By combining that with "faith based," he has actually improved the GOP 1995 welfare bill.

71 posted on 03/29/2002 4:22:18 PM PST by LS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: LS
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,

Me thinks you best have another look see at this one. It is a RINO Friend Of Bush pushing the state income tax in Tennessee along with several other RINO's. The RINO's has been the Dems usefull idiot. Meaning a RINO is pushing DEM's Leglisation for them. Hardly a good idea in my book but is all too common in the GOP these days.

72 posted on 03/29/2002 4:22:55 PM PST by cva66snipe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: FITZ
, the compromise on fetal stem cells was something Bill Clinton would do.

I agree with most everything you said but I thought he did fine on the stem cell issue. I would have preferred nothing, but that would not have saved any lives. He made an okay decision on that one, it's been downhill from there though.

73 posted on 03/29/2002 4:23:04 PM PST by RAT Patrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
You seem to have one theory after another why both parties act the way they do. There are so many people that claim this strategery or that strategery that they eventually get caught in their own web of deceit no matter what party. Republicans and democrats are spinning so much these days that I can't tell who is who. From now on when Bush has to make a decision on policy, I'll wet me finger and hold it up to the wind to find out what he might do.
74 posted on 03/29/2002 4:23:27 PM PST by RamsNo1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: vbmoneyspender
One other thing, the Reagan tax bill stopped all personal interest deductions other than on real estate, limited medical deductions and greatly reduced deductions for employee business expenses.
75 posted on 03/29/2002 4:24:10 PM PST by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye
This IS NOT a Conservative administration, it's Republican. That's the point.<
76 posted on 03/29/2002 4:24:29 PM PST by Joe Hadenuf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: 185JHP
Just as I would caution the "purists" who ONLY want to elect a 1965-era Goldwater that there are few of those out there, I would caution you that the right guy (or gal) can still win an election on extremely conservative principles. BUT, the key is to make it sound "compassionate" and not harsh so the Dems can't label you as a racist/bigot/homophobe who hates old people.

Do I have a candidate in mind? Not really, but J.C. Watts is pretty conservative, and I think he would win a Senate seat; John Kyl of AZ is about as conservative as you get and he wins overwhelmingly.

I have said many times that I think Alan Keyes problem was that he, for whatever reason, refused to "work his way up" and pay his dues---like Forbes (who had money and Keyes didn't), he tried to jump in at the top. Keyes could likely win a House seat in the right district. But that would take more time than I think he wants to give it.

77 posted on 03/29/2002 4:25:44 PM PST by LS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
None. If it "ain't my or the highway" then it's the highway.
78 posted on 03/29/2002 4:26:27 PM PST by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: vbmoneyspender
Read what Moore wrote: it changed the BRACKETS to 15% and 28%, from Reagan's 25%. But both Reagan and the Dems thought at the time it was a tax increase---that is why they passed it. Again, read Reagan's OWN BOOK on how he viewed it at the time. We know from experience, though, that it raised the rate on MOST PEOPLE back from 25 to 28%!
79 posted on 03/29/2002 4:28:03 PM PST by LS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: RamsNo1
I don't know why they keep praising the RATs like they're so clever. WE have the White House. WE have the House. WE were voted into the majority (by mean of the VP breaking a tie due to voter fraud in St. Louis) in the Senate but got stabbed in the back by a traitor. WE have a majority of the Governorships.

Why the heck do they keep saying we need to be bigger SNAKES just like the Dems?

80 posted on 03/29/2002 4:28:14 PM PST by RAT Patrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 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