Posted on 03/12/2006 7:51:39 AM PST by SmithL
Washington -- The Republican rebellion that President Bush smacked into with the Dubai ports deal was the tip of an iceberg of Republican discontent that is much deeper and more dangerous to the White House than a talk radio tempest over Arabs running U.S. ports.
A Republican pushback on Capitol Hill and smoldering conservative dissatisfaction have already killed not just the ports deal but key elements of Bush's domestic agenda, and threaten GOP control of Congress if unhappy conservatives sit out the November midterm elections.
The apostasy in some quarters runs to heretofore unthinkable depths.
"If I had a choice and Bush were running today against (Democratic President) Bill Clinton, I'd vote for Bill Clinton," said Bruce Bartlett, a former Reagan administration Treasury Department official whose book, "Impostor: How George Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy," is making the rounds of conservative think tanks and talk shows. "He was clearly a much better president in a great many ways that matter to me."
Bartlett may lie at the extreme, but his critique taps into a strong undertow -- reflected in a sharp drop in Bush's support among his typically solid Republican base, according to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll released Friday.
"Bush's compassionate conservatism has morphed into big government conservatism, and that isn't what the base is looking for," said David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union. "The White House and the congressional leadership have got to reinvigorate the Republican base. In off-year elections ... if your base isn't energized, particularly in a relatively evenly divided electorate, you've got more problems than you think you have."
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Your origional post didn't say anything about the WOT. Plus I find it hard to believe anyone can praise someone who supports killing babies just because they happen to favor some other political position they also favor.
Your revision eliminating Lieberman makes more sense.
"You, and everyone else who unequivocally support everything GWB does, really do understand that conservative principles win politically."
I never said I support everything that Bush has done, but I do support a great deal of what he has done.
"You also understand that the present crop of republicans have thin conserative credentials."
Yes I do, and I am a Conservative. No sense in arguing that point as I damn well know who I am. I can proudly say that I was raised Conservative in the South. We are born with it in out genes!
"Conservatives are conservative."
There does exist a margin for disagreements on certain issues. Some Conservatives are so far right, they meet up with the left.
"Don't bash us for that - give us something to vote for and we'll vote for it."
If you see no difference between dims and pubs, I can't help you. Also, don't be so damned quick to remove me from that "us".
"But if you don't and big-spending republicanism loses in November, don't blame conservatives, blame yourselves for compromising away from what you KNEW would win - conservatism."
No, there will be plenty of guilt to spread around, and it will "come back around" to be sure.
BTW, RF is my hobby. I have been a "ham" for 40 years. I love the smell of RF in the morning!
LLS
You have got to be kidding, and must be a Republican.
"So you praise people who support killing babies as long as they agree with you on some issue?"
NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I think that Joe Lieberman should BURN IN HELL FOR HIS POSITION ON THE KILLING OF UNBORN BABIES! I praise him for his stance on the WOT ONLY!
Happy now???
LLS
Yes, they have a Mohair subsidy and there are lots of prominent politicians and media figures who own "farms" that soak up ag subsidies.
Simple... Read my tagline!
LLS
You mean themselves? Are you that naive?
see post 161
Yeah, sure. Nothing will stop the same old crap from Republicans and 'Rats continuing forever.
I have clairified that statement 4 times.
LLS
Damn Hank, I'm honored that you attacked me!
:-)
LLS
The Republican Party has no principles. There are no nonnegotiable, unyielding, core philosophies on which the party and its candidates will stand or die. Anyone can call himself a Republican, and the party is happy to have them, no matter what they believe, no matter what they do, if it increases the number of "-R"s in Congress. A party of political whores, for whom gaining and holding power is the only value, the only goal.
I'll ask you what I've asked on FR dozens of times. Take your time in replying; I've never gotten an answer, so I'm used to waiting.
What are the core, nonnegotiable principles of the Republican Party? What can we assume from a Republican candidate and/or officeholder? What can we count on?
Smaller government? No. More liberty? No. Balanced budgets? Obviously not. Constitutionally-limited government power? Hell no. Elimination of wasteful spending? Laughable - the Republicans won't even take PBS off the taxpayer teat. How about a reduction in the absurd growth of spending? Of course not. And whatever happened to those promises to kill off the Dept. of Education? It doesn't educate anybody, and was promised to be shut down; instead, Republicans have created more Cabinet departments.
So, Republicans, how's that "limited government" thingie you've been promising us for decades coming along . . . . . . hmmmmmmm?
Go for it. Defend these lying weasels.
The GOP '08 slogan: "We promise we won't piss away another 14 years. Really. Trust us!"
I use the term "you" loosely not meant to disparage, merely to underscore that there is a dichotomy - big-spending republicans, and conservative republicans.
from a pragmatic standpoint, Republicans need to be only as conservative as is necessary to win politically. They aren't there at this moment.
The point is that I think most republicans, whether big-spenders or conservatives, know that conservatism wins. Why not try it? Don't blame conservatives for having core beliefs that they are loathe to compromise. We think gov't is too big and spends too much. Those are political winners.
I'm a 30 year ham, myself!
If you do see an appreciable difference in the result of electing either, perhaps it is you who requires some personal introspection. Just a suggestion.
"If, as you say, small government is dead, then that is the real tragedy of the GWB administration."
No, I am afraid that Federal Spending depicted by a graph looks somwhat like a stare-case climbing higher and higher. It has been this way for many years. If you want to lay the blame on someone in modern times, I think lbj's "Great Society" is as good a place as any to begin the chart.
LLS
Exactly. The way the system is set up, each "representative" (small "r" to include Senators) is going to fight for the most pork (a perfect example is Sheets from WV). That's why it's essential to have a President with restraint.
W campaigned to be irresponsible with our money?
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.