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.
No, the "far right" is the John Birch Society, the Pitchforkers, The Spotlight/Lew Rockwell readers, and the assorted other forever unhappy slobs that resent and fear anything or anyone that does not fit their image of a "true American or that has achieved some success in life. They are not who built this country those that built this country are just average everyday folks taking care of their families, paying their taxes, going to the polls to vote, going to work every day and many are vets or active duty. I know this will come as a shock, but the vast majority don't give 2 seconds thought to how "bad" this country is, as a matter of fact, a whole lot of them fall to their knees and thank God for this country every day. They are too busy with their own responsibilities to build bunkers, put on camouflage, and fancy themselves the reincarnation of the founding fathers. This country was NOT built by your definition of conservative, however it could be destroyed by them and they appear hell bent on doing just that
Wrong again they even left us with the words to do it with.
WHEN in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.
WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security. Such has been the patient Sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the Necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The History of the present King of Great- Britain is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid World.
Sweet Dreams all you Bushbot Rock Lobster Fans .. Hey is there a club we can join??? .. ping me if there is ..
The unappeasables are the fisherman's wife, in the old fairy tale. They are political naifs, and to a person, think that a president has the powers of an absolute monarch. Of course, even an absolute monarch NEVER had the powers they imagine such a person would have. That's WHY I am tired of trying to have an adult debate, with a bunch of two year olds throwing temper tantrums and why FR has become far worse, than anything that any Liberal has ever accused it of being. : - (
Well then ... do us all a favor
Splitting up this Country .. Destroying everything we are .. all because you have a friggin hissy fit .. GROW UP!!!
He never had the "far right" in the first place. You don't get it, you can't lose something you never had.
You are a real piece of work.
Ahhh...a liberal in sheeps clothing. A MAJOR part of liberism is compromise and incrementalism......slowly get the governement to control 100% of the economy and us. There is no compromise when it comes to indivdual freedoms prescibed by the Founders.
We flat disagree about the press. Yeah, use pardongate as an example. That's perfect. Who got indicted? How many columns did you see in the mainstream press to actually investigate?
It seems like every time the people in this country speak with ANY message that conservatives don't like, you act like Democrats and blame the people. It doesn't work that way, my friend. The voters get what they want, and that is what disturbs you. You can "lead" all you want, but if the public perceives that you aren't leading in the right direction, you are gone. Jimmy Carter "led." He had all sorts of stupid initiatives.
I guess we agree that the Dems and the press will say there are no crimes committed. So that's half the voters (and consumers of news) who are going to turn off this message. How far are you going to go with that rabid 1%?
Now, here is a challenge for you. Think before you respond, and if you start posting about Riady or pardongate again I'll ignore you: name me ONE, ONE administration in American history (let alone any GREAT one) whose primary focus was investigating "crimes" of any other administration.
But by all means, you join the 2% who voted for Buchanan and Browne or the other fringe candidates. Next time, they'll get 2.0000001%.
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.