BUSH'S REAL OPPOSITION: REPUBLICAN CONSERVATIVES

news/op/ed ^ | 3/28/2002 | Richard Reeves

[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.

[nopardons]

Yes, I was reminded of that, last night. SORRY !

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

FR has become far worse, than anything that any Liberal has ever accused it of being. : - (

Buck up nopardons, don't confuse the thread you are on with all of FreeRepublic. The upcoming moderated threads will solve this problem, at least.

[LS]

Here is what we have established, based on your comments, which get more confused with every post:

The people will "do what is right" IF they are informed.

But they won't be informed unless the administration investigates crimes that the people don't care about.

But FOX to the rescue. FOX has gotten people all worked up over pardongate . . . so energized that . . . nobody cares. Which is why it's Bush's job to do something.?

But this is totally circular. If FOX was so powerful it could get the media all jazzed about pardongate, then why didn't the people demand something be done? Obviously there was a great deal of sentiment for SOMETHING to be done about airport security---I think the wrong thing, but something was done in response to a genuine concern.

But this ends it for me. Label me a "move on-er." But do let me know when you get ready to investigate Teapot Dome again, or maybe the Jackson crimes. Andrew, not Jesse.

[LS]

The U.S. is a two-party system. Always has been---except for that brief aberration called the "era of good feelings"---and always will be. There is a simple reason for this: the winner take all/single member district system for electing the House. Since the Libertarians/Greenies/Brigadiers might only win, at most, 5% of the vote in a given election, and since they have zero (repeat, zero) representation for their specific views among the winners, the system drives the extremes to, well, the extremes. Only the most ideological radicals (such as the communists for the last century, or the Libertarians) will support a loser election after election. After a while, most people (and history proves this out with the Populists, the Know-Nothings, and all other "third" parties) will quickly gravitate to one of the two parties.

Now, is it possible for one party to completely die out and be replaced? Well, it happened with the Federalists, who held a monarchical view of government; and it happened with the Whigs, who died out precisely because as the "alternative" to the Democrats they refused to address slavery, and thus lost the entire abolitionist/anti-slave vote.

So theoretically it is possible for so many people to become disenchanted with the Republicans that they could kill it and "open the door" for a "real conservative" party. Here is the catch: in 1850, the Whigs died because they would not address the most important issue on the national scene, to virtually all Americans on one side of the issue or the other. Want to take a guess as to what the most important issue in 2002 is? It isn't CFR. It isn't immigration. It's the war on terror. Guess where the public is on that.

So until one party or the other is ignoring a CLEAR issue that dominates public debate, there are only two viable parties. Get used to it.

[LS]

First, I now see what you mean on the tax rate on wage income. As I said before, something is odd with these numbers. For ex., the tax rate on $300,000 is HIGHER than the tax rate on $400,000, but $400,000 is lower than $1 mil.

Second, I have reprinted in my book the actual tax page ---the government's own document from 1913 and it doesn't jibe with the stats you've given here.

Now, I can't explain why Moore says what he does, any more than I can explain why Reagan said it was a tax increase. Can you?

[LS]

I don't know. Hit me again. Kinda feels good.

[nopardons]

Since the new and UNIMPROVED FR, I won't have to worry at all. The loadin time is now sooooooooooooooooooooo long, that by the time I get to post a reply, the other poster will have finally become an adult, or if an adult, will have died.

[Buckeroo]

I am not a nice person; the concept that people make friends upon the internet is ludicrous; I am here to make a few conjectural remarks with political context is all. I live under a bridge waiting for new bait attempting to pass pass my territory while sucking upon my cheap bottle of wine. Don't sell me short again, ok?

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

Don't sell me short again, ok?

I promise to be no nicer to you than businesslike, is that OK?

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

You're kidding me.

It will improve things then, is that acceptable. When cornered rats have a place to go and den in peace, this makes them less aggressive. Works for them, it should help out here.

[BeAChooser]

Here is what we have established, based on your comments, which get more confused with every post:

Nice try. The only one confused about his position in this debate is the one who initially agreed that the Clinton administration committed all sorts of horrible crimes but still wants to just "move on". The only one confused is the one who thinks Republicans can gain long term political advantage by ignoring credible evidence of serious crimes like election tampering, blackmail of politicians and murder to keep the crimes hidden by democRATS. The only one confused is the one who thinks the GOP can win by FEARING the media, the courts and even what democRAT voters might think. The only one confused is the one who thinks voters can decide what they want without knowing the facts.

But they won't be informed unless the administration investigates crimes that the people don't care about.

You got the first part right but that last part is ONLY your democRATically BIASED opinion. Are you honestly trying to suggest that voters wouldn't care about election tampering, blackmail of Congress and murder of government officials IF they knew about it? I think ONLY a democRAT would think that and I'm beginning to think that is what you really are.

But FOX to the rescue. FOX has gotten people all worked up over pardongate . . . so energized that . . . nobody cares.

A distortion ... like we've come to expect from democRATS. The fact is FOX did work people up ... enough to insist that Bush, the GOP and even democRATS investigate Pardongate. FOX embarrassed several other networks and their anchors over having not reported many of the things Pargongate entailed. They TOO were soon demanding an investigation. The problem is that the Bush administration DROPPED THE BALL. They passed the matter off to a CORRUPT judge appointed by CLINTON ... a judge they KNEW was corrupt. That judge hasn't even followed up on many of the most promising leads. That judge is going to let people get away with LYING in her court. After Bush DROPPED THE BALL, FOX did what ENTERTAINMENT companies do ... move on to the next "fad". But make no mistake, FOX did have an impact on the reporting of Pardongate and DID cause even the GOP to do SOMETHING when most of them CLEARLY did not want to.

If FOX was so powerful it could get the media all jazzed about pardongate, then why didn't the people demand something be done?

But SOMETHING did happen as a result. But ULTIMATELY, the ball is in Ashcroft's court. If Ashcroft and Bush ignore even the more conservative voices and conduct a SHAM investigation, then obviously nothing is going to REALLY happen. Which makes Bush and company CULPABLE, wouldn't you say?

But this ends it for me. Label me a "move on-er."

I intend to. Wear the badge with shame.

But do let me know when you get ready to investigate Teapot Dome again, or maybe the Jackson crimes. Andrew, not Jesse.

And you can continue making ridiculous links between past crimes and now. That is NOT a valid excuse for the republican party SANCTIONING the murder of US government officials by ignoring it. That is not a valid excuse for the republican party SANCTIONING the use of foreign money by democRAT campaign organizations by ignoring it. And that is NOT a valid EXCUSE for the republican party SANCTIONING the blackmail of its members by ignoring it. NO EXCUSES.

[BeAChooser]

What's the problem? Afraid to challenge the two facts I mentioned? Well be afraid because I've PLENTY more. How curious that you are more afraid of discussing facts than being PROVEN to be a move-on'er with nothing but hot air to defend your position. That's a characteristic of democRATS.

[BeAChooser]

How the heck did this turn into a Ron Brown thread ...

Because we are wondering how conservative one has to be before one does NOT ignore credible evidence that a government official was MURDERED.

Because the Ron Brown case invariably exposes those who espouse the move-on philosophy for what they are ... closet democRATS.

[vbmoneyspender]

4 separate sources have said that the top marginal tax rate was 50% from 1982 to 1986 and that Reagan dropped it down to 28% via the 1986 Tax Reform Act. Them's the facts. If you have laid it out differently in your book, you may want to issue a corrected edition.

[BeAChooser]

It always does with that one.

cluck cluck cluck

[BeAChooser]

You would rather GWB gravitate toward *more* conservative principles

But does upholding the law where democRATS are concerned, in serious matters like election tampering, blackmail and mass murder, require *more* conservative principles than Bush or you move-on'ers have? Where do you draw the line? Would you allow Bush and company to do the same thing?

[BeAChooser]

This Country meant something to our founding fathers

Yes ... that our leaders wouldn't be above the law. Guess that has no longer true ... with the BLESSING of Bush and the move-on'ers.

[185JHP]

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. IIRC J.C. Watts popped off about affimative action being a good thing. I saw Alan a couple of times last week on cable - and he can't control his egotism - its so obvious and inappropriate considering how little he's done and how little he's accomplished - a black conservative now is "born on third base." I saw why so many on FR criticize him. IMO times aren't nearly bad enough for enough of the "40% in the middle" to be peeled off by a Goldwater conservative. But if what I believe is going to happen, happens, enough people are gonna love conservatism. FReegards