Bush decisions rankle conservatives

Washington Times ^ | 3/27/02 | Donald Lambro

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

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.

Mr. Bush has made several decisions in recent weeks that have infuriated conservative leaders here and out in the grass roots. He is pushing for amnesty to illegal immigrants in the border-security bill in an attempt to appeal to Hispanic voters. He imposed higher tariffs on imported steel sought by the industry in West Virginia and Pennsylvania. He said he would sign the campaign finance reform bill that he opposed in his campaign. And he wants a 50 percent increase in foreign aid, a program that conservatives have been fighting for decades.

[upchuck]

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..... Yet with an overall 80 percent job-approval rating in the polls - including 90 percent of all Republicans - there is no evidence thus far that these and other departures from party positions have weakened the president's broad support among voters.

Oh, this article is about Dubya? I thought for a minute there it was about his Dad.

Hey Jim, how come the dashes in the quotes got turned into question marks? I fixed this by manually changing the question marks back to dashes. I've also noticed apostrophies being turned into a question mark or a space. FYI

[shrinkermd]

"Within that context, as long as he is staying true on these core areas, he's not going to have any major problems with his political base. Everything I've seen says he is still the catalyst of strength for the Republicans in this election cycle," Mr. Franc said"

This fellow is dead wrong. The worst thing for a leader is to lose his loyal cadre. Masses do not make good soldiers. The President disses his base much like his father did. The outcome will be the same.

[log_cabin_gop_boy]

You got to love the irony of the 2000 Elections in which Democrats claim their man and ideas won. Not only does it seem that the Democrats won the 2000 Elction but Dubya is signing, proposing, supporting an agenda to the Left of Bill Clinton or Al Gore.

Steel Tariffs

Education Spending

Aministy CFR

ETC, ETC. Al Gore should make his victory speech tonight.

[gorush]

So THIS is what rankled feels like.

[Boucheau]

Campaign Finance Reform is a sham and completely unconstitutional.

What is happening to Republicans?

I never would have predicted that the NRA would be suing the Bush Administration over a bill that so obviously restricts free speech.

I know most of you believe you're not rich enough for this to affect but what is next? Do you doubt that one inch down the road of restricting free speech is a terrible thing and likely to lead to further infringements in the future? This bill puts forth that if you, or your group, have money your civil rights mean a little less than those with less money.

My God, Repubs, who do suppose this will benefit? The leftists that's who. They have the media squarely behind them. Your sorry butts won't have anything to say about politicians close to election time!

Sheer lunacy on the part of the American people.

I campaigned hard for Bush but he has lost my vote.

At this point I'd almost rather have a Democrat as President. At least then people on the right are paying attention.

But you all can go ahead and return to your slumber - convince yourself that the administration is "doing the right thing", or playing a great "game of chess."

When he's not giving amnesty to ILLEGALS, growing the government, backing-down from Democrats, he's on to restricting free speech.

[snopercod]

If Bush is a conservative, then I'm Santa Claus.

republicans [lower case intentional] like him are why I left the party.

Considering the lack of comment on Bush's treachery against the Constitution this morning, I'm gusssing that many people feel the same.

I hit the streets in Asheville, NC for him during the election. Now, I just feel like a sap.

[TLBSHOW]

No you don't want a demorat as President. Believe me.

[TLBSHOW]

You did good and will be very pleased with what W. has done in reguards to this Free Speech issue. Very pleased.

[Boucheau]

"I hit the streets in Asheville, NC for him during the election. Now, I just feel like a sap."

Ditto

[Boucheau]

I just hope the Supreme Court takes care of it.

Politicians suck! ALL of them!

[NittanyLion]

You did good and will be very pleased with what W. has done in reguards to this Free Speech issue. Very pleased.

Weren't you on this board 24 hours ago decrying Bush's decision to sign the bill? Change of heart?

[log_cabin_gop_boy]

I don't even think Al Gore could would have enacted steel tariffs, signed a record education bill, passed CFR, and granted amnisty to illegals. George Bush is a bigger liberal than his dad or Bill Clinton.

[Dog Gone]

I never would have predicted that the NRA would be suing the Bush Administration over a bill that so obviously restricts free speech.

Think about that. Would you rather have the NRA suing the Gore Administration which fervently believes in it? This is about as friendly a suit as I can think of.

[RAT Patrol]

and will be very pleased with what W. has done in reguards to this Free Speech issue. Very pleased.

uh, yeah, righ!

[RAT Patrol]

It's like a bunch of sheep following each other one by one over the cliff. Think, people, this is not a good thing!

[Boucheau]

"This is about as friendly a suit as I can think of."

Friendly? I don't hardly think so. The fact that this has to happen should clue you in.

I would sooner be friendly to Beelzebub than an entity attempting to weaken the US Constitution.

[WhatNot]

Why is bush a surprise to so many people, his whole campaign was about reaching out to democrats. remember "I'm a uniter not a divider" Being Conservative on some things and liberal on others is what he has always stood for. At most he's a good politician, he is not the savior of the world!

[Dog Gone]

You don't get it. The Bush Administration doesn't like this law, either. How better to get the objectionable parts eliminated than having to put up a "defense" of them?

[NittanyLion]

TLBSHOW ON 3/26/02: I am a Bush supporter but we should stand up to utter our thoughts before we are outlawed next. This is a bad law and needs to be stopped and we cannot depend on the Court to do it.

TLBSHOW ON 3/27/02: Wrong, Bush did just what was needed.

What gives?

[Boucheau]

"You don't get it. The Bush Administration doesn't like this law, either. How better to get the objectionable parts eliminated than having to put up a "defense" of them?"

Perhaps. We'll see how it all comes down. I'm sick of all the games-the blurring of the lines. This will ultimately weaken the country.

[Theodore R.]

So, are now on board then, snopercod, for E.D., B.D.'s other half?

[Boucheau]

"I wouldn't have signed it if I was really unhappy with it. I think it improves the system," Bush told reporters during a stop at Greenville firehouse."

This doesn't support what your analysis, though.

[rbmillerjr]

HILARIOUS......Cybil or a wifey in the midst?? oops the talking points just got faxed in.

[snopercod]

With all due respect, no, I will not be pleased. An opportunity has been missed...again. Issue after issue, Bush has failed to stand on the side of freedom. Klamath Basin. Airport Security. Arsenic in the Water. Immigration. The list is already long, and getting longer.

Once again, we have a nation of people still in the dark regarding the proper role of government in their lives. Historically, only informed discussion or a hail of bullets have been able to settle such things. Bush chose not to have any discussion (I listened to his words on Rush. He was pathetic, IMO)

Once again, the American form of government has been betrayed.

[snopercod]

I'm sorry. I don't understand your question in #22.

[NittanyLion]

I'm sorry. I don't understand your question in #22.

My guess is, think Viagra and RINOs.

[snopercod]

How better to get the objectionable parts eliminated than having to put up a "defense" of them?

That's the point, isn't it. Bush's time came to uphold his oath of office and actually DEFEND the constution, and he wimped out.

You know, liberals think they are "above" everyone else and therefore they don't need to explain what they are doing to us little people. After all, they know what is best for us.

Bush had an opportunity to differentiate himself from the liberals - to explain to the American people why he was going to veto the bill because Freedom of Speech is a basic right in America - but he chose to act like a liberal politician, instead.

[snopercod]

Oh, am I for Elizabeth Dole???

Not only no, but Hell No!

[borntodiefree]

LIAR

Now I'll just sit back and watch the Bush appologizers come a runnin...I can hear it now..

He's done good in a lot of other areas...

You don't understand politics...

He had to compromise to get reelected...

Let's see what they come back with to complete my list

[skcomp]

The only difference between the wimp Bush and Clinton is that the wimp keeps his zipper zipped...

[Dog Gone]

As a short term solution, I agree with that. And I think I would have vetoed it if I were President.

But a case can also be made that a veto would have cost him and the Republicans plenty. By signing it, they escape the political consequences and get the opportunity to control the defense of the parts of the bill they don't like. A Supreme Court rejection of those parts carries FAR MORE weight with the public and the media than a Bush veto, no matter how well he explains it. It also puts the issue away for at least a decade, which is longer than John McCain will probably live.

Rather than alienating the McCainiacs and suffering the political damage from a veto, Bush appears "moderate" to the stupid public. The result is rather Machiavellian, however. The remaining parts of CFR greatly favor the Republicans, and the unconstitutional parts are dead forever.

Maybe we don't think Bush plays those kinds of strategies, but I can assure you that he always thinks in the long term, not the short term.

[shrinkermd]

The proof of the pudding here is how they signed it. Quietly, no fan-fare and no McCain or Feingold. The signing could be predicted. If CFR is nothing but an abortion of the constitution, who celebrates an abortion? All foul deeds are best carried out in secret.

[Theodore R.]

Oh, snopercod, I meant now that you are disillusioned with G.W., will you still stand with Elizabeth Dole? I understand she is already proving ONCE AGAIN to be a terrible campaigner. It's too bad Jesse didn't find a suitable heir to recommend, isn't it?

[NittanyLion]

Hey TLB, I never did get an answer to Post #20 on this thread. What changed your mind?

[Quicksilver]

Enlightenment.

[NittanyLion]

Enlightenment.

Pretty quick process, I guess. From one pole to the other, all in the span of 24 hours.

[TLBSHOW]

I took some more time to think about it and research my notes. I came to the conclusion this would be best, finished off in the courts. The democrats are into plan B, which is to snooker everyone here. I will repeat what I have said on other threads. Never elect a DemoRat! The President does not and I will repeat does not have time to play this rat game right now. This is about to become one of the most dangeous times in our history. I would much rather having him stop a nuclear attack or any other attack for that matter and not waste time with McCain and his stupid bill.

[TLBSHOW]

The rats plan

How can Enron best be used by the left in the forthcoming general election? In two ways. First, to lend a generally criminal air to Republican fundraising, and fundraising by Bush in particular.

Second, to depress turnout by rightist voters, by inducing apathy through disillusion.

[gunshy]

A question for you. If GWB should be re-elected in 2004 will he take the oath of office again and if so, why?

[linn37]

yes you use his base to attack him from the inside,and guess what it works. I want to know where anti-bushies will stand when they run a Kerry or a Edwards against Bush?

[hchutch]

People calm down, they get new information, and often re-evaluate their previous position based on that new information.

As more details emerge, it looks as if there is going to be neutrality from Ashcroft and Olson on a lot of this stuff. The heavy lifting on the defense will be done by the Common Cause crowd. And there are about two dozen court decisions that make the ultimate result of the expedited handling of the case pretty easy to guess.

Congressman Billybob has a lot of expertise on this issue, and listening to his discussion of this matter leads me to believe that Bush decided to kill this issue PERMANENTLY. The only way to do that, though was for this bill to become law. SCOTUS cannot give advisory opinions.

Quite frankly, I can see the logic. I'd have preferred a veto, but things look like they will work out even better. What's left of this law will benefit our side, and the Dems will be toast.

[TLBSHOW]

President slams McCain and CFR/WP Slams Bush and the Right Wingers

McCain-Feingold Follies

Who says he's a sore loser? Who says he just couldn't give John McCain his moment in the Rose Garden, a ceremonial signing of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill? Who says he would rather look petty than go through the gripping and grinning and pen-handling that a White House ceremony entails?

Who? Just about everybody, after George Bush dashed off his signature between bouts on Iraq with Condoleezza Rice and the vice president. Then he dashed off to raise funds.

McCain got a call at 7 a.m. at his Arizona home from a junior White House aide whose name he didn't know, telling him the bill had been signed. Later, a White House emissary brought to his office a commemorative pen and a note of congratulation. McCain issued a statement striking for its terseness: "I'm pleased that President Bush has signed campaign reform legislation into law."

Perhaps Bush was playing, as he so often does, to his right wing, which hates McCain, foams at his bill and deplores his lack of deference to Bush. They attribute McCain's insubordination to the fact that he "never got over South Carolina" -- the state where Bush effectively ended McCain's White House hopes.

The right wing is not moved by the sight of magnanimity and bipartisanship. Right-wingers thought Bush was right to call the bill "flawed" the day it passed the Senate.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28653-2002Mar27.html

[hchutch]

As I said, this is looking more like a well-crafted plan to quietly grease the skids for McConnell's legal team and the NRA.

[snopercod]

With "conservatives" like Elizabeth Dole running for office, the rats don't need a plan.

[joanie-f]

Thanks for the ping, John. And for the, as usual, spot-on commentary.

Bush has not only failed to defend our beleaguered Constitution. He has added to the already backbreaking list of unconstitutional legislation that has (sometimes surreptitiously, sometime flagrantly) forced its way into our daily lives.

Bush's philosophy of reaching out stinks.

Reaching out (especially to the left) in America 2001 almost always results in one thing: capitulation to those who hold the Constitution in about as high regard as they do their morning newspaper (if that). And if uniting America (Bush's apparent domestic theme) is defined as capitulating to special interest groups, or surrendering more of our Constitutional liberties (especially the freedom of personal choice, as opposed to obedience to unconstitutional government dictates), then there is something to be said for divisiveness. Unity, at the sacrifice of liberty (as embodied in Constitutional tenets) provides a fleeting sense of communal well-being, at best. Our founders were not concerned with our sense of well-being as defined by our ability to afford prescription drugs, or buy steel-based products at a certain government-prescribed price. They were concerned with our sense of well-being as defined by our ability to make our own decisions, and enjoy the fruits of our own labors.

Unfortunately, revisionist historians, and modern-day brainwashers philosophers/pundits have taught us to believe that our well-being (pursuit of happiness?) is based on physical/temporal things, rather than timeless, priceless, intangible, God-given possessions (life, liberty). And we have (unfortunately) learned their (perverted) lessons well. And with each new, 'well-intentioned' legislative attempt to make life a little more physically comfortable for us all, the Constitution (the most brilliant blueprint for governance ever conceived by the mind of man) is one step closer to residing in the dustbin of history.

Once again, the American form of government has been betrayed....snopercod