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.
Are you afraid of the facts? Why don't you want to talk about the statements of the MILITARY EXPERTS ... the PATHOLOGISTS and the photographer ... who say there might have been a bullet wound in Browns head? WHy don't you want to talk about the x-rays and photographs that seem to support that suspicion? Why do you want the cart before the horse? Usually, REAL INVESTIGATORS, try to find out IF a murder took place before asking HOW it took place. Why do you move-on'ers fear a little exhumation and autopsy?
And by the way, the theory I think the facts support (Remember those? Want to debate them?) is that the plane was spoofed into crashing into the ground in a location where a cleanup crew was waiting. They just made sure Brown was dead. Would you like to argue the facts that suggest that ... or do you want to RUN ... like democRATS ALWAYS do. Would you like to explain why both transponder and radio contact was lost with the plane when it was still 8 MILES from the crash site. Care to explain the missing beacon or the suicide of the man in charge of it? Care to explain reports of the first rescuers being met by 3 Americans, even though the Air Force insists the Croatians got there first? Hummm? And I have plenty more facts after you get done with those.
Or would you prefer to debate the facts in the Riady non-refund ... or Filegate? No? I wonder why.
No but I live just outside of DC where your boy lives.IF YOU REALLY WANT TO MEET ME COME UP AND VISIT THE PRES. ILL BE GLAD TO MEET YOU ,,,,,,I'LL EVEN PAY FOR YOUR TICKET ONCE YOU GET HERE ONE WAY.
What does that have to do with you going to jail for buying an ad? The fact is, that punishment used to be for contributing over $1000 now it is for over $2000. Still looking for your corner in the round room.
Oh the horror of it all. If you want to expend the resources to search for, round up, process, and deport each and every being that is in the US, and should not be, why just run for office on that platform, and get elected. Simple really.
You seem to REALLY have a comprehension problem.
The truth that you are a troll, and a jerk. You can't discuss the issue with me, instead want to talk about my motivation when I left Cuba.
I was twelve years old at the time you jerk, my motivation was the fact that my parents took me out of the country. They did it because theor lives were in danger.
Now, what's your motivation for being an a-hole?
When you present some but then damn, that takes all the fun out of conspiracies now doesn't it?
And you call us dim wits??? ... HELLO
It's just not that hard to connect the dots.
My guess ... He was born that way
CLUE #1: that one is is afraid to cc me when she makes her SLURS.
CLUE #2: that one says she believes Brown wasn't murdered but won't tell any of us specifically why (other than to latch onto an AirForce report that I FIRST mentioned ... a report which doesn't even mention most of the pertinent facts in the case ... like those I just mentioned to you in the post above). Actually ... she did give a reason once (or was it twice). She said she believed Starr's conclusions ... even though Starr had NOTHING to do with the Ron Brown case.
BY ALL MEANS, GET A CLUE.
I think that would be a good idea. I'll instruct you on the Texas concept of respecting women. I'll be in touch.
What you seem to be supporting is balkanization.
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.