| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
Posted on 05/29/2002 10:02:01 AM PDT by Stand Watch Listen
Is George W. Bush becoming the president who just can't say no? Democrats like to paint him in dyed-in-the-wool conservative colors and portray him as even more of an ideological warrior than was Ronald Reagan.
Few would disagree that he is more conservative than was his father, but saying that leaves out a lot. In short, it lacks a recognition of President Bush's highly developed sense of pragmatism and his readiness to compromise —which is infuriating some conservative luminaries who argue his presidency so far is shaping up to be a disappointment when it comes to domestic policy.
Frustration was evident earlier in the year when the White House started backing moderate Republicans over conservatives in GOP primary races around the country. With spending on government programs set to increase by 22 percent from 1999 to 2003 in inflation-adjusted dollars, according to some analyses, grumbling about Bush is mounting within the Republican Party's conservative wing.
Spending on annually funded programs increased about 9 percent in the last two years of the Clinton administration. In the first two years of the Bush administration it is scheduled to grow nearly 15 percent.
Administration officials say they'll control spending once the current terrorist emergency has passed. But conservative critics say the boost in federal spending under Bush isn't just connected with Sept. 11, nor has there been a White House effort to offset additional dollars for defense and national security with reductions elsewhere.
The irate conservatives point to the president's May signing of the most expensive farm-subsidy package in U.S. history, despite objections even by some Republicans who called it a "protectionist boondoggle." Conservative critics say the measures will make U.S. farmers dependent on federal subsidies and that it represents a reversal in the congressional effort since the mid-1990s to curb a trend toward farm price supports. "We seem to have done a U-turn," said Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) when the bill was passed.
The chorus of conservative disapproval is most high-pitched when it comes to the president's failure so far to veto any legislation that has come his way from Congress, including the recent farm legislation. From libertarians at the Cato Institute to conservatives at the Progress and Freedom Foundation, concern is growing at Bush's reluctance to use his veto powers to curb the free-spending ways of Congress.
Conservatives, including some within his administration, fear Bush fails to appreciate that Congress will be brought to heel only when the White House fires off a veto or two. "Since the fall his aides have kept telling us that they will veto this bill and veto that bill but, when push comes to shove, nothing happens," says a prominent conservative leader.
So far, after nearly 16 months in office, Bush has not exercised a single veto. That contrasts with Reagan, who used to enjoy taunting the then Democrat-controlled Congress by urging Capitol Hill to "make my day" and approve bills he didn't like. Reagan vetoed 70 bills during his first term. Even the "kinder, gentler" George H.W. Bush was tougher than his son — he issued 44 vetoes.
The president's legislative-affairs director, Nick Calio, maintains that Bush often has been able to get his way just by calling attention to his veto power. He has cited a post-9/11 spending bill as an example of where Bush managed to secure some changes as a result of raising the specter of a veto.
But conservative critics are not persuaded. At a private strategy session in the winter, Bush tried to pre-empt complaints by assuring Republican senators that he wouldn't flinch from exercising his veto power. But he was careful not to provide any hostages to fortune by offering examples of what he would strike down.
One of the biggest conservative fears is that the president has bought into the notion that Sept. 11 prompted a sea change in the political outlook of ordinary Americans, causing them to be more willing to tolerate big government and increased government expenditures. Worse still, some argue, Bush is using the terrorism emergency to justify expenditures that have nothing to do with national security.
Cato senior fellow Tom Palmer recently bewailed Bush for justifying farm subsidies on defense grounds. "A national-security crisis provides countless opportunities to camouflage expansions of government power or spending as necessary for the common defense," Palmer cautioned in a Cato policy paper.
The Cato critic also cited the president's State of the Union address, in which Bush promised to increase the funding of police and fire departments, something previously considered to be the responsibility of local governments.
Bush supporters say the president simply is engaging in smart politics. Columnist Tony Blankley, who was the spokesman for former House speaker Newt Gingrich, argues that Bush and his political advisers have made the conscious decision not to get embroiled in a domestic-policy row with the Democrats this side of the congressional polls in November. The idea is to allow the White House to focus the election on national-security issues, which should benefit the GOP.
The downside, as far as conservatives are concerned, is that once the federal spending juggernaut starts picking up speed it can't easily be slowed.
Jamie Dettmer is a senior editor for Insight magazine.
email the author
Please understand that I think President Bush is an honorable, faithful, and just man. I am delighted that he is leading our war effort. I just don't always agree with him.
Thanks for the ping! Count me in on these articles and ping me anytime for support!
It seems like everytime someone disagrees with a criticism of the president, someone else interprets that as disagreeing with the conclusion that the president should be criticized when criticism is appropriate.
Are there really people who think that millions of us freeper-types would stick by Dubya is he, say, killed someone or had sex with an intern in the Oval Office? Just because someone concludes that a particular criticism of Dubya is not well-founded does not mean that person is a blindly loyal idiot.
We are being betrayed on almost every core principal, because it will always be more expedient politically. My gut feel is that if we had a truly conservative Senate (and with 6 RINOS we are a long way from that) GWB would be chastising it. A truly conservative Senate would have shot down his education bill, the farm bill, the insane unilateral nuclear disarmament treaty with Russia, would be calling for proscecutions of the Clintons & McAulliff et al., not just moving on, and for discipline or removal of Norman ('No Armed Pilots') Maneta, etc.
If Dubya had no backbone, you'd be hunkered down in your basement right now, cleaning your gasmask and taking your anti-anthrax pills, after having snuck out to bury your dead from the latest terrorist attack.
Sorry. You may find things to criticize Bush over, but lack of moral courage is not one of them. He does what he believes is right. You, apparently, just disagree with him on what is "right" is a given situation. Leave it at that.
This is certainly true if you are a liberal democrat. Bush is nothing more than an FDR and LBJ rerun. Use the war as cover to implement a liberal agenda.
Considering he lost the popular vote, and was pilloried in the media as a moron, and took office with millions of people in this country convinced (wrongly of course) that he STOLE the election... and that a "repub" senator took the unprecedented step of defecting to give the Senate away to the dems... Bushie's done pretty damn fine for himself.
Politics is the art of the possible, not Fantasy World. With the unprecedentedly crappy hand Dubya was dealt, I believe he played it about as perfect as anyone ever could have.
Don't forget that Reagan had a 10 point mandate in '80, and a mega-landslide win in '84. Even Bush #41 had a solid 8 point victory in '88.
If we get back the Senate and keep the House, watch how skillfully Bush will push the Conservative agenda.
As other posters have noted here, though, if the Repubs can gain back the Senate majority, we may see the conservative agenda rise from the ashes. No one would be happier to see that than myself. I don't know how well it will counter the damage already done, though, with police-state crap like the "PATRIOT" act, CFR, etc. already enacted.
It should be noted that those terrible laws were enacted with Republicans as confederates of the Democrats. It's not like the Dems did it under the cover of darkness. If people are waiting for a majority in congress and the White House to "save" them from all this BS, they will be waiting a long time.
I for one am no demowit, and have left the big R party for the I party.
Some of us have taken our heads out of the sand.
And just who do you think is going to pay for the 50% increase in foreign aid promised by "W"??? Nice we got a tax cut eh?? I suppose this money for 3rd world countries will just magically appear.. (newly printed probably). Hopefully the color won't rub off on the next batch. Maybe more money to put a new hollogram on it too... gheesh!! wake up pal!
DL
WTF do you know about anything? Obviously not much if you think all of the pissed off conservatives I know very well on this site and in real life are all just playing some kind of strange game.
It couldn't POSSIBLY be that many conservatives take huge exception to a spendthrift, big government loving RINO who doesn't mind signing unconstitutional legislation for political points.
If you want to talk about stupid, look in the effen mirror. Your comment is about the f***ing stupidest I've seen in over 4 years here.
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.