Conservatives not satisfied with Bush's record

The Washington Times ^ | June 18, 2002 | Ralph Z. Hallow

[finnman69]

If the conservative "base" is guaranteed by people who will mindlessly vote for anyone with an 'R' by his name, why shouldn't the party go as hard left as they can to pick up the moderates?

Bush is not a member of the 'conservative' party. He is a Republican in the Republican Party. The reason Rove IS going left fishing for voters is because of the nitwits who stayed home in 2000.

[Dominic Harr]

The entire Bush defense is, "Politicians have to do bad things to keep their jobs. They can't be expected to do the 'right' thing if it will cost them their job."

Congratulations.

The R party has completely adopted D party ethics.

[hchutch]

Check the URL on my post 90.

[Austin Willard Wright]

P.S. You worry about Hillary imposing socialism but what about Bush? In his one and half years, he has successfully imposed (or will shortly impose) more socialist policies (tariffs, farm subsidies, foreign aid increases, mental health parity, prescription drug socialization, Americorps increases, CFR, etc) than Clinton was ever to accomplish in his whole eight years!

[Palmetto]

Sounds a little too much like DU to me....

old dusty road

member since June 18th, 2002

[Austin Willard Wright]

Gee whiz, if what you are saying is true, Dubya ain't so bad. You appear to be endorsing all the statist things, he is allegedly *not* doing. More seriously, if you are really a welfare-statist (as you seem to be), you should like Bush. He has done more to advance domestic big government social welfare programs in his one and a half years than Clinton was able to get in eight.

[KansasGirl]

and people on the dole( and women) will never vote for a real conservative( unless he lies a lot and pretends to be more liberal). Would you quit saying crap like that? That is simply not true! I hate EVERY liberal, socialist idea in existence.

[GraniteStateConservative]

I bet that history will repeat itself as it did during Reagan's 1st term, too, and Bush will lose seats during his first midterm (only FDR escaped the jinx). Same outcome, different reason. Bush losing seats this fall can't be attributed to his moderation.

[Roscoe]

old DUsty road

[Austin Willard Wright]

Gee Whiz, the Dubyaites keep telling us that all this me tooism is necessary to "win back the Senate." I'm glad you reject that nonsense. This, of course, undermines the key defense argument of the Dubyaites, doesn't it?

[jimkress]

Bush is simply signing legislation that Congress is sending him.

Oh, the "I was only following orders" excuse.

It didn't wash after WWII and it doesn't wash now.

Even Limbaugh has pointed out that Bush has been AWOL during discussions and development of legislation like CFR, the Farm Bill, the Education Bill, etc.

Bush has refused to engage the Left on these and other issues. He has sat quietly while the legislation was formulated and then presented to him. If he had the 'courage of conviction' he would have taken an active, public role in the formulation of the legislation to ensure the 'principles' he espoused during the campaign were present in the final legislative result. He has refused to do so.

IMHO, it is Bush's refusal to fight for what he preached during the campaign which is most disturbing to Conservatives.

[technochick99]

I voted for him since I was terrified that Gore would win. Two things were highly important in my mind - the appointment of future judges to the SC and the protection of gun rights. My hope was that gun rights would not further decline under Bush. So far, I think he is doing okay in that arena. Not great, but okay. His (via Ashcroft) position that the 2nd applies to individuals was a major symbolic victory. The next step is getting at the CongressCritters Rs that keep sending him anti legislation.

On other issues of conservatism, I am not surprised. Not pleased, but not surprised.

[Ben Ficklin]

I always get a kick out of counting the Bush Bashers.

Through 200 replies there are 35 of you.

If you type faster, it might seem like there are more of you.

You people didn't vote for Bush in 2000 and you are not going to vote for him in 2004 so who cares what you think.

[Roscoe]

You people didn't vote for Bush in 2000

I believe that Laz did.

[Lazamataz]

You people didn't vote for Bush in 2000

Incorrect.

and you are not going to vote for him in 2004

Undecided.

so who cares what you think.

You

Or you would not have responded.

[varon]

Bush is betraying the 'principles' for which he claimed to stand.

Right on. Bush is not doing things that are right but things that make him popular. He wants to be liked. ( re-elected )

[Lazamataz]

I believe that Laz did.

Shh. ;^)

[Poohbah]

He is probably the ONLY guy who voted for Bush in 2000 who won't vote for him in 2004.

[willgetsome]

I'm beginning to think that inflexible and short-term thinking Conservatives will be more effective in foiling GWB than Tom Daschle or any of his friends.

[Palmetto]

You people didn't vote for Bush in 2000

Wrong again.

and you are not going to vote for him in 2004

Depends.