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 ... 581-600601-620621-640 ... 821-834 next last
To: rbmillerjr
Now there you go bringing facts into it

Well, no wonder you have such a comprehension problem. When did posting "facts" leaving some of the "facts" out become the truth?

601 posted on 03/29/2002 10:32:32 PM PST by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 595 | View Replies]

To: rbmillerjr
Sure. You implied that Bush was motivated to kill for political gain. That is beyond the pale. You are a persona non gratia to me.
602 posted on 03/29/2002 10:32:37 PM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 598 | View Replies]

Comment #603 Removed by Moderator

Comment #604 Removed by Moderator

To: FreedomFriend;Yall
There were a lot of good candidates in 2000. Keyes was good, and so was Buchanan. Howard Phillips and Gary Bauer were also good. I even liked Dan Quale a little bit.

I must be really tired ... I think my eyes are blurry .. did I read that right?????

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ... HOHOHOHO ... HHEHEHE ... OH MY .. HAHAHAHA

With that .. I am off to bed .. Good Night Y'all

605 posted on 03/29/2002 10:33:14 PM PST by Mo1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 591 | View Replies]

To: seamole
The first two go together........so that's 56% of the people WHO VOTED think it will make make NO DIFFERENCE or be BETTER FOR HIM.
606 posted on 03/29/2002 10:33:39 PM PST by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 600 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
What he has done is NOT illegal, though you all characterize it as such.

Is it illegal for him to not investigate or direct his Attorney General to investigate obvious criminal activity when he is a President who took an oath to uphold the law? Is helping to coverup serious democRAT crimes ... a crime?

607 posted on 03/29/2002 10:34:41 PM PST by BeAChooser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 398 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
Look don't defeat their only method of debate. If they can't cheat they can't win. How about some "fairness" here.
608 posted on 03/29/2002 10:35:37 PM PST by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 606 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
What? Rush must have been having lunch with Larry Klayman!

Here she goes using Klayman as a distraction. I was wondering how long it would take her.

609 posted on 03/29/2002 10:35:53 PM PST by BeAChooser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 399 | View Replies]

To: Torie
lol, I never said that. I cast the aspersion on to little weasles such as yourself though...good thing your in California ...you are blessed, of course if you ever want to attend a freep in md or dc...i'll be glad to let you back up your cowardly little statements.
610 posted on 03/29/2002 10:36:28 PM PST by rbmillerjr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 602 | View Replies]

To: Mo1
I prefer principled candidates. Unfortunately, I fell for the party line of "Bush is our only chance". I never expected him to be so Liberal. If I would have known that he'd be pushing for the dissolvement of our borders, and the invalidation of our amendments, there would be no way that I would have voted for him.

By the way, he lied on CFR. You don't feel betrayed?

611 posted on 03/29/2002 10:37:03 PM PST by FreedomFriend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 605 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
The first two go together........so that's 56% of the people WHO VOTED think it will make make NO DIFFERENCE or be BETTER FOR HIM.

psssst ... I don't think you were suppose to notice that .. lol

Oh Good Grief .. Harry Browne is on the 2nd airing of Hannity and Colmes ..

Not I am really outta here ..

612 posted on 03/29/2002 10:37:28 PM PST by Mo1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 606 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
a conservative with NO OFFICE is of NO USE to anyone.

But the question being asked here is whether a Republican WITH an office of USE to anyone. If they ignore serious law breaking, I don't think so.

613 posted on 03/29/2002 10:38:32 PM PST by BeAChooser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 405 | View Replies]

To: BeAChooser
Is it illegal for him to not investigate or direct his Attorney General to investigate obvious criminal activity when he is a President who took an oath to uphold the law? Is helping to coverup serious democRAT crimes ... a crime?

What, that a suicide assassin got on a plane with Brown and shot him in the head and then crashed the plane to cover it up? There is a nice John Birch Society thread going on and the conspiracies are in abundance. They need you there.

614 posted on 03/29/2002 10:38:58 PM PST by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 607 | View Replies]

To: rbmillerjr
Yes, you did.

Of course what are a few military guys lives if it means putting King George into office again, right?

615 posted on 03/29/2002 10:39:18 PM PST by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 610 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
CLUE: that one is WAY beyond hope.
616 posted on 03/29/2002 10:39:49 PM PST by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 614 | View Replies]

Comment #617 Removed by Moderator

To: FreedomFriend
NO NO my friend Bush just compromised. Theyll deny tht too, anything to win.....it's all about the win, principles dont matter..............and if i didnt know any better I'd think we were on a DLC website.
618 posted on 03/29/2002 10:40:33 PM PST by rbmillerjr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 611 | View Replies]

To: FreedomFriend
By the way, he lied on CFR. You don't feel betrayed?

Unlike you .. I listen to what he said .. so no I don't feel betrayed

But I am starting to get annoyed ... Take a guess why??

619 posted on 03/29/2002 10:41:09 PM PST by Mo1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 611 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
put it in context of the whole post you simpleton.
620 posted on 03/29/2002 10:41:11 PM PST by rbmillerjr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 615 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 581-600601-620621-640 ... 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