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 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 821-834 next last
To: LS
Bush seems to have done a good job overall going after Bin Laden's crews, except for that monstrocity called the Patriot Act, and that little tidbit is all but lost on the American people. Most don't know anything about it, the rest don't know enough to care.

After that it is hard to tell where people would really stand.

But quite frankly, I was taught to stand for what I think is right regardless of what the polls say. Didn't you ever get lessons like that as a kid, or did your parents tell you to go do whatever makes/keeps you popular.

Compromise isn't a dirty word when one is trying to work out the details of how to do the right thing, but the Right Thing shouldn't be negotiable. Signing bills that step on the Constitution is NEVER the Right Thing.

When one has Conservatives as opposition, as the title suggests, one should realize that he is totally out of step with them. Totally.

81 posted on 03/29/2002 4:30:00 PM PST by Eagle Eye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
In return for doing what? The tax code was simplified by Reagan so that only two income tax rates applied (i.e. 15% and 28%). That seems like a pretty good reform and I, for one, would be very happy if we want back to those two tax rates before the Code was further monkeyed with by Bush, Sr. and Clinton.

By the way, since when did it become acceptable for you to criticize fellow Republicans?;-)

Just kidding. Not trying to start another thread war.

82 posted on 03/29/2002 4:30:27 PM PST by vbmoneyspender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: RAT Patrol
Let me say that I fully agree with them, and you, on so-called "foreign aid," which is little more than bribery.

Bush has at least had the honesty to tell these people they were not getting "loans" anymore, but "grants,"---but only if they met certain conditions (which none of them will meet.) At that point, we'll see if he intends to hold them accountable.

However, are you going to say that all foreign aid is wrong? I think that the money we gave to France and Greece and Turkey and Italy from 1947-1949 basically saved Europe from internal communist revolutions at the polls.

83 posted on 03/29/2002 4:30:34 PM PST by LS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: LS
People who criticize Bush are not anti-conservative. Being a conservative doesn't mean falling dead faint at a leader's feet no matter what political label he/she has. Remember, we have a representative government and those we elect are there to serve us and uphold the law. We should not be washing the feet of our leaders as they are servants of the people. The only leader I would fall at the feet of is the King of Kings. Even the Savior of the World became a servant by washing the feet of the apostles.
84 posted on 03/29/2002 4:32:16 PM PST by RamsNo1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: ex-snook
I do not, nor have ever, believed in "fortress America." The last guy who did so---Thomas Jefferson---eschewed a "big navy" in lieu of 200 coastal defense gunboats. In the War of 1812, all 200 were sunk. But none of the big 56-gun frigates of the Federalists were sunk. Madison had to pay the price for 8 years of Jefferson's "fortress America" nonsense.

Now, I agree that you can easily get too involved. But we are paying the price for not getting INVOLVED enough in the Clinton years. Meanwhile, the Brigadiers' notion of a "fortress America" in an age of jets, rockets, and nukes, is pure idiocy.

85 posted on 03/29/2002 4:33:33 PM PST by LS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: vbmoneyspender
By the way, since when did it become acceptable for you to criticize fellow Republicans?;-)

I know you are kidding but I am sick of this conservative president being held to a mythological standard of Ronald Reagan that is both historically inaccurate and is being perpetrated by the same John Birch Society wing of the political right that demonized Reagan.

86 posted on 03/29/2002 4:34:38 PM PST by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: LS
No, I don't think all foreign aid is wrong at all. I think it is the same concept as Welfare, give them a help up, not a hand out. Otherwise, they become dependent and never realize the tremendous satisfaction of self-sufficiency.
87 posted on 03/29/2002 4:36:07 PM PST by RAT Patrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
If the market was rigged as they say then how the heck to Enron fail ?
88 posted on 03/29/2002 4:36:17 PM PST by VRWC_minion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: LS
Just to repeat, here is what Moore testified to under oath:

In 1986 Congress passed and President Reagan signed a landmark and heroic piece of legislation: the 1986 Tax Reform Act. The 1986 TRA closed economically inefficient tax loopholes and dramatically reduced income tax rates for all Americans.

Now with regard to what the 1986 TRA was supposed to accomplish, wasn't it supposed to be revenue neutral with business taxes being increased in return for "dramatically reduc[ing] income tax rates for all Americans."

89 posted on 03/29/2002 4:36:18 PM PST by vbmoneyspender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: vbmoneyspender
I don't know how anyone can write this when the top rate in 1985 was 25%. Care to explain to me how an increase from 25% to 28% is a cut? I don't know where they get the 44%. That was the rate prior to the 1982 Economic Recovery Act, but NOT prior to 1986.

Also, the more you keep posting on this, the more I keep recalling the other "hikes" involved. Note the end of the investment tax credits, which DRAMATICALLY increased the real tax in investments.

90 posted on 03/29/2002 4:36:38 PM PST by LS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: LS
is the end to AFDC

I consider all the handout programs ---SSI, foodstamps, WIC, Medicaid, free health clinics and hospitals, CHIPS, Headstart, free daycare, TANF and all the many others welfare. Just ending or renaming them doesn't get the people out there working or have girls stop having babies out of wedlock. It seems now we're going to be taxed to provide a 50% increase in global welfare programs.

91 posted on 03/29/2002 4:36:51 PM PST by FITZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
this conservative president

We have a conservative President? What happened to GWB?

92 posted on 03/29/2002 4:36:54 PM PST by otterpond
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
"These are, it must be mentioned, impossible people who, more often than not, prefer to lose on principle than win through compromise."

Very well stated. Thank You. Unlike numb minds that believe "compromise" is the way to achieve a more Constitutional Republic, I prefer to Stand on Principle. Many more "compromises" and we can label the U.S. "Gone" and replaced by the Party that Lies the best.

In the Words of Our Presidente' (father, son, no difference) -----

"Please don't ask me to do that which I've just said I'm not going to do, because you're burning up time. The meter is running through the sand on you, and I am now filibustering." —George Bush Sr., in 1989

"The senator has got to understand if he's going to have — he can't have it both ways. He can't take the high horse and then claim the low road." —George W. Bush, in Feb. 2000"

93 posted on 03/29/2002 4:37:18 PM PST by rdavis84
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Walkin Man
Bye.
94 posted on 03/29/2002 4:37:23 PM PST by LS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
Truth hurts and the rats are playing the conservatives for fools.

Hardly necessary, when so many master strategists in the White House are perfectly capable of doing it themselves.




95 posted on 03/29/2002 4:39:30 PM PST by Sabertooth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: cva66snipe
I didn't say that politicians didn't want it. He asked what have been the ACCOMPLISHMENTS of the last 35 years. My point is that there is now a conservative climate (at least on taxes) that you CANNOT put in any new taxes, anywhere, without a near rebellion. I recall in 1998 there were 15 major bond/tax hike issues on state ballots, and only one passed (San Antonio's, for a new stadium---the Spurs had just won the NBA championship). I understand that Houston got one passed recently, also. Still the climate (Dem, Republican, "Rhino," whatever) is more markedly anti-tax than at any time in the last 30 years.
96 posted on 03/29/2002 4:40:05 PM PST by LS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: rdavis84
A principled loser is still a loser.

And losers have no effect on policy or legislation.

97 posted on 03/29/2002 4:40:46 PM PST by hchutch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
He should have turned around all those EO's signed by Clinton in those last days. He should get the US out of the UN and stop promising more American taxpayer money to losing ideologies. They can fix themselves if they just change their own governments and cultures.
98 posted on 03/29/2002 4:41:17 PM PST by FITZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
LOL!
99 posted on 03/29/2002 4:42:38 PM PST by RAT Patrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: FITZ
Fitz here is the welfare situation in Texas at the end of Bush's time as govenor. In a state of 22 million people

TEXAS

WELFARE REFORM (TANF) PROGRESS STATUS

  • Texas's welfare caseload (TANF/AFDC families) has dropped 61.6% in the last six years, from 278,146 cases in January 1993 to 106,805 cases in September 1999.
  • This decrease is significantly higher than the 50.2% U.S. average caseload reduction during this period.
  • Texas ranks 15th among all states and the District of Columbia in welfare caseload reduction in the last six years.
  • On a positive note, since October 1996, the start of the PRWORA Welfare Reform, Texas's welfare caseload has decreased by 55.3%, which ranks 11th among all states and the District of Columbia.
  • For the last three months for which comparable data are available (July 1999–September 1999), Texas ranks 37th among all states in TANF reduction, with a three-month caseload percentage decrease of 0.6%.

100 posted on 03/29/2002 4:43:09 PM PST by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 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