A Concerned Bloc of Republicans Wonders Whether Bush Is Conservative Enough

NY Times ^ | January 25, 2004 | DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK

[neverdem]

Shows what bad political trouble the USA is in, a true conservative cant rise to the presidency..

What do you think of Owens in Colorado for 2008? I have no problems with Jeb Bush, but it will strike too many as being a dynasty.

[deport]

Just a nick from back many many moons ago...

[MJY1288]

Lets hope so, because if we have a repeat of 1992, God help us

[neverdem]

I read something the other day that said that at the present time some 62% of the 18 to 29 year old group supported President Bush.... It went on to state that no democrat had been elected President without winning that group.... Interesting and I wish I have bookmarked it for reference......

I believe I read the same story or a very similar one.

[deport]

Lets hope so, because if we have a repeat of 1992, God help us

---

Remember..... the democrats have had center stage most of the time in the run up to their Primaries...... Free media coverage almost daily from some campaign event, what some 10 televised debates, trail reporters writing articles daily on the continued bashing of the President and his policies, etc. etc. etc. by their assigned candidate.

The Bush/Cheney re-election campaign has yet to fire the first official volley...... and most likely won't until it is more defined as to the democrat opponent. Then.....

$100+ million gets unleashed.... media buys, campaign events across the fruited plains, stops to support local/statewide candidates, etc. etc. All which will then reverse the daily flood of democrat only propoganda

[supercat]

What galls me most is that the Republican Party often refuses to have people actually articulate conservative principles. If the Democrats propose to spend $100 billion on something, the Republicans will suggest spending $50 billion, rather than articulating why they should instead spend $zero. Unfortunately, that is a guaranteed losing strategy, since it's very good to formulate a rationale why, if $50b is good, $100b wouldn't be better. Further, if the program is funded for $50b and is a disaster, the Republicans will get the blame for not funding it enough.

I'm tired of the good-cop/bad-cop game the Republicans and Democrats play. I wish there were some alternative.

[neverdem]

Remember..... the democrats have had center stage most of the time in the run up to their Primaries...... Free media coverage almost daily from some campaign event,

I don't rat coverage is causing the wailing on this thread. It's all Bush/Rove strategerizing and stealing rat issues that causing the divisions.

[Ophiucus]

every other fringer who will be more than willing to sit out the next election because (as said in this article) Bush isn't conservative enough for them

Frustrating isn't it?

[gatorbait]

"Bush Sr. jumped over the line and we had to whack him," said Grover G. Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform and a strategist of the conservative movement. This guy calls himself a strategist? What a laugh.

An aside, but wasn't Norquist involved in a pro Arabist oranization? I am not certain but it may well have been posted here. Bob Barr? Let's see, is he not up to his elbows with the ACLU now? You know, the Patiot Act has yet to result in anyone's free speech rights being abridged, nor anyone dragged into Ashcroft's prayer meeting/torture chamber. Ah well, snivel rights panderers seem to like having an enemy to whine about. Whingers(Whining fringers) seem to love this kind of thing, and the NYT is happy to give them a megaphone to shout out their deluded rantings.

[PhiKapMom]

I am past frustrated and on to disgusted with these "purist" or "true" conservatives as they call themselves whatever that means. Norquist as far as I am concerned after making that statement will get his letter to me wanting money sent back -- REFUSED!

Have had it with wanting to teach the rest of us a lesson! All the "purist" do is whine if their one issue, whatever that issue is, doesn't get center stage or the bill isn't word for word what they want.

They forget one key factor -- President Bush is President of all Americans not just the "purist" and he has to do what he thinks is best for ALL Americans. I, for one, think he is doing a great job and will spend all my time working for his reelection and challenging the naysayers on here.

There have been so many negative articles on here including vanities against the President that I cannot believe. As for CPAC, don't get me started what I think of some of their speakers. One was mentioned above. The "purist" almost cost Republicans the election in 2000 with staying home so we have had to reach out to other communities of voters because the "purist" cannot be counted on when the chips are down to even go vote but they can sure whine when they don't get their way!

[TaxRelief]

I'm here at this event. Surprisingly, I see no inaccuracies in this report.

[Ophiucus]

Agreed.

You have a good point - a wider base of commonalities that would be more reliable would help the Republican Party in the long run. It would also avoid the Democrat mess of a loose coalition of extreme Left groups.

[HateBill]

The New York Times has a template every year to report on from CPAC -- dissension in the ranks of conservatives.

In 1999, they interviewed me and I was quoted in a Rick Berke piece.

This was right around the time that Pat Robertson had said that the Republicans should give up on impeachment because Clinton had won. So all his questions were "What do you think about Pat Robertson saying Republicans should give up on impeachment?" Naturally, he got quite an earful and the Times got their yearly "dissension in the conservative ranks" story out of CPAC.

The last time I was at CPAC (two years ago) the "dissension in the ranks" story found its genesis in airline searches and how disgruntled conservatives were that grandmothers and preteens were being stripped at airports and this was going to make us turn on President Bush. And Wayne LaPierre was the big instigator at CPAC at that "dissension in the ranks" brouhaha. So this year it's Grover Norquist.

About the only thing President Bush could do now to lose my vote would be to leave Laura and go to Canada to marry Wesley Clark.

[MJY1288]

Great post PhiKapMom, These so called "True" conservatives around here who claim President Bush has betrayed them, must not have paid any attention to his campaign. These are the same people who supported, and voted for, people like Pat Buchanan or some other unelectable pessimist like him. But what's ironic is that say they are principled, but yet they want President Bush to abandon his by ignoring the promises he made that got him elected to begin with.

There is one thing I know for sure, these "purist" and so-called "true" conservatives will never be happy, because anybody with their "principles" will never be elected in this country, their only hope is to purchase an Island somewhere, call it a Country and anoint a Dictator, because the people they support are unelectable in a Free Republic where all voices are heard and represented.

And yes... I'm sick of them as well

[NYCVirago]

About the only thing President Bush could do now to lose my vote would be to leave Laura and go to Canada to marry Wesley Clark.

Great post! Somebody asked me the other day if there was any way I wouldn't vote for W. My response was only if Hillary were the VP candidate!

[MJY1288]

Grover Norquest is a stain on the Republican party, that hair lipped drooling vegetable was responsible for bringing a known terrorist supporter in the White House to meet President Bush shortly after 9/11. He is an appeaser who openly solicits money from any Arab or Muslim with the promise that he can give them access to the White House. Grover Norquest will prostitute himself for any cause for the right amount of money.

As far as Norquest saying "Bush Sr. jumped over the line and we had to whack him," I would say in return.... And look at what that got us you effin moron

[jpsb]

Vote D for an in your face socialist county
Vote R for a behind your back socialist country

Some choice.

[jpsb]

So it cools with you if the feds sneak into your home, when you are not there and look thru all your stuff, make copies take things etc. And you never know about it ever. That's cool with you? That's Constitutional, how would you like it if Hillary Clinton had that power.

[lewislynn]

A Concerned Bloc of Republicans Wonders Whether Bush Is Conservative Enough

Conservative enough? What they won't say out loud is they wonder if he's conservative at all.

Will history accurately remember GW as Karl Rove's puppet?...I wonder.

[neverdem]

An aside, but wasn't Norquist involved in a pro Arabist oranization? I am not certain but it may well have been posted here. Bob Barr? Let's see, is he not up to his elbows with the ACLU now? You know, the Patiot Act has yet to result in anyone's free speech rights being abridged, nor anyone dragged into Ashcroft's prayer meeting/torture chamber.

I have also read that Norquist lobbied for an organization with Arab sympathies.

With the exception of the First Amendment clause mentioning of freedom of religion, turning it into freedom from religion, and the Second Amendment, which they misinterpret for whatever reason, the ACLU almost always goes all the way to uphold the Constitution as they see it. They were on the same side as the NRA opposing the McCain-Fiengold Campaign Finance Reform on the basis of freedom of speech.

U.S. Constitution: Fourth Amendment(Search and Seizure)

Amendment Text

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The Patriot Act seriously infringes on the Fourth Amendment not the First, IIRC. Ashcroft and Co. said it would use its provisions only in cases that involved terrorism, but they have already broken their word. I have read a number of stories about using the Patriot Act as cover for routine criminal cases, in particular, one in Las Vegas, IIRC. The feds have used its provisions to invade privacy and then go to a federal judge after the fact to obtain authorization. That means they can monitor your activities, wait until you have left your house, inspect all of your personal possessions, install bugs to monitor all of your private communications, all before obtaining a warrant. I'm not terribly worried about the Bush administration using this authority, but what do you think a Hillary administration might do with it?

Mr. Cheney took the podium shortly after Representative F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., the Wisconsin Republican who heads the House Judiciary Committee, vowed that extending the act before reviewing its results by 2005 would happen "over my dead body."

Sensenbrenner is no liberal pantywaist.