| 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
God bless my Senator, Pat Roberts!
He isn't Clinton or Gore, which is all that is required by his supporters.
It seems Mr. Bush stands in the center along with most Americans. That's why he appears too liberal for most conservatives and too conservative for most liberals.
By the way, I stand with the conservatives who think he is too liberal but I'm not willing to give up on Bush for now.
More importantly, the majority of people who are eligible to vote,, do not vote.
If they ever start to vote, and vote for freedom minded people, the country will turn in the right direction. If they do not, it is curtains.
What would it take?
And how much liberalism is the right amount?
Don't get me wrong. You are not the only one who does this-- so don't take it personally when I say that is the most absurd statememt one can find on Free Republic.
Right is right,wrong is wrong, no matter who does it!!!There are some posters on this site that think one is beyond criticism because they have an "R" in front of their name!
That will prove to be the death of our party!!!
1.) If thousands of Tom Daschle and Hillary klinton clones decided to sabotage the party by switching to the Republican party, would you vote for them?
2.)And if elected, would you think it inappropriate to criticize them?
3.)Isn't that what is going on now to the Republican party--and...
4.) shouldn't we be trying to destroy (or at least shine the spotlight of truth on) those atempting to destroy us?
Too many of us have some sort of emotional attachment to this President. This is unhealthy, and just as disturbing as the klintonoids we battled for the past 8 years. He is just a man. A man who seems to be perpetuating liberalism and klitonism to the tune of a 76-percent favorable rating.
For many here, being more conservative than Al Gore is more than enough to earn their support. Only about 240 million Americans can cross that high bar.
If you look objectively, at George W.Bushes short time as President, you would see a solid record overall. While some conservatives have disagreed with Bushes decisions on education, provision 245i, farm subsidies and CFR, Bush has given America, the most conservative leadership since President Reagan was in power.
Remember, we've had basic political gridlock in Wash-DC over the last 20 years. Accomplishments for conservatives, have been, few and far between. Conservatism has had some success with the Reagan Revolution and the Contract with America. The latter, enabled Republicans, to win control of the Congress, for the first time in forty years.
Bushes accomplishments in his first 16 months as POTUS:
* secured passage through Congress of a $1.35 trillion tax cut
* gave working American's a stimulus tax cut
* proposed the largest increases in military spending since Reagan
* singed two military two pay raises & increased medical/housing benefits
* threw out the Kyoto protocol
* disposed of the ABM Treaty
* eliminated taxpayer funding of overseas abortions
* has openly and strongly supported Taiwan
* made no deal for release of the EP-3 plane crew from Red China
* secured initial funding for a NMDS (SDI)
* promoted increases for off shore oil drilling
* has strongly advocated drilling in ANWR
* pushed for building more nuclear power plants
* campaigned to reduce our dependency on oil imports
* repealed many last minute Clinton EO`s
* campaigned for partial privatization of Social Security
* offered faith-based alternatives to traditional welfare
* stopped gov't funding for further destruction of human embryo's
* nominated conservative judges to the federal bench
* returned honor, dignity and trust to the Presidency
* recognized 2ND amendment/RKBA as individual right, fully constitutional
* told Cuba/Castro trade embargo stays
President Bush also signed four executive orders based on the principles of fair and open competition, neutrality in government contracting, effective and efficient use of tax dollars and the legal right of workers to be notified of how their dues may be used. In other words, stopped favoring union shops in government contracting.
Along with winning the war on terrorism, Bush is doing a very good job for the American people. I'd call Bushes short time in office, a qualified success.
This is along the lines of the Berlin Wall coming down, though not so weighty. If Slick had done it, it would have been trumpeted far and wide. But a Republican President did it, so it's just yesterday's old news.
Michael
My money is supporting Shallenburger. I even received a personal thank you for my donation. That has NEVER happened before.
The Wichita Eagle, God bless 'em, tend to be collectively moderate, though I'd say a little left leaning lately. They are salivating at the new entry, Kerr. I think, for a couple of them, it all boils down to abortion. Unless candidates are for it clear till birth they are far right radicals not worthy of political office. The Kansas City Star has yet to support anything right of Hillary Clinton ideology. I can't stand them, though they carry some decent syndicated folks, they are collectively hard, socialistic left.
It gets difficult to campaign anywhere when the local media is against you. These are the same folks who have zero tolerance for "sham" political advertising yet "leveling the playing field" in the media violates their First Amendment rights. Hypocrites! Residents in the state should police their media better.
Who do I think will win the GOP Primary? It is anybody's guess but I hope it's Shallenburger. I think the Dem, I can't spell her name so I'll just say Kathleen, will not win no matter what. We are Republican first, moderate second (not me). (Democrats have artfully learned how to play the GOP primary in their favor so it is tough for a Conservative to win.) The only Dem that has a chance is a pro-life Dem against a pro-abortion Pub. That changes the mix in an odd way. I could be wrong but that's my best guess.
Actions speak louder than words.
Nearly every action elected conservatives take makes government bigger, more intrusive and more expensive.
By deed, conservatives have shown for decades that they like big government just fine, so long as it is doing their bidding.
Save Reagan, there hasn't been a genuine small government Republican since Goldwater. Maybe Republicans should update their campaign message from one that hasn't been accurate for almost 40 years.
And A better Politician. Look, Reagan played the Part well, (Like Clinton, unfortunately, that's all x42 could do...) But That is the One thing Bush lacks.The aforementioned disagreeable decisions a: pale in acomparison to what has been achieved, and b: are a part of the bigger game. Advancing his parties interests....(getting Himself, and Others Re-elected.)
For those of you that actually follow strategery, This President is a political Animal, like no other. Compare, if you will, the NYTimes Coverage of Reagan, compared to that of Bush. He has the Press relatively Silent, and his enemies bereft of issues.
Another good example of this is Fla. Close Election, Dems using alleged improprieties to stir up voter sentiment....What does he do? Justice Dept, gets ready to sue several Fla. counties, over voting irregularities. Said Counties will enter into Agreements to stay out of court. What do those agreements ALWAYS include? Election Monitoring by....The Justice Dept...
So, when Bush's brother, and Bush run for ofc, in '02, and '04 respectively, the Republican controlled Justice Department will be on hand...lol
The Great ones make it Look easy.
A-men, and your list of accomplishments by our president is true. However prepare to get attacked by a lot of posters here. There are however a lot of us who agree with you and just don't have the time to post as much stuff as a lot of the negative posters. I'm going to follow with interest the reaction to your post.
Ditto the Arms control agreement/as regards legacy...P.S. as a further aside to that, IF slick had done it, we would still be hearing about what a wonderful world it is, with so many less Nukes....But like you said....
That's akin to asking, "How much cancer is the right amount?".
And CFR, the Farm bill, and public admission that official policy is now to ignore the word "illegal" in "illegal immigrants" all aid in the prevention of said war how, exactly?
* secured passage through Congress of a $1.35 trillion tax cut * gave working American's a stimulus tax cut
These are the same and they are not permanent, nor are they matched with government cuts.
* proposed the largest increases in military spending since Reagan * singed two military two pay raises & increased medical/housing benefits
The military pay increase is good, but the court is still out on effectiveness (he has not replaced many of the X42 appointees, so the increases are likely to be wasted. ) Overall, he has proposed the largest increase in federal spending since FDR--hardly a conservative stance.
* threw out the Kyoto protocol
This is good. * disposed of the ABM Treaty
He traded the ABM for NMDS and willingly agreed to LESSER weapons than the most liberal disarmament freaks. This was a no-win political ploy that results in less national security at a time of greater vulnerability.
* eliminated taxpayer funding of overseas abortions
Yep, but didn't rescind military abortions overseas.
* has openly and strongly supported Taiwan
All the while playing the whore with mainland China.
* made no deal for release of the EP-3 plane crew from Red China
And I've got some land in Florida for sale.
* secured initial funding for a NMDS (SDI)
See above.
* promoted increases for off shore oil drilling * has strongly advocated drilling in ANWR * pushed for building more nuclear power plants * campaigned to reduce our dependency on oil imports
All of these have shown no results because he has shown no backbone. We were told he was saving his political capital for later, but he has shown no desire to spend ANYTHING on principle.
* repealed many last minute Clinton EO`s
Name them. He has not rescinded the most flagrant abuses and has shown no desire to do so. He has also shown no interest in rooting out the leftover corruption and treason in federal offices. We are at "war" and no one is willing to lay a glove on the un-American traitors left from X42's regime. How conservative is that?
* campaigned for partial privatization of Social Security
Campaigned, but not delivered, however we'll give you this.
* offered faith-based alternatives to traditional welfare
More government intervention is hardly conservative. Prostituting legitimate charities will not benefit either institution.
* stopped gov't funding for further destruction of human embryo's
Status quo and doesn't really restrict research, just funding. A small victory.
* nominated conservative judges to the federal bench
Nominated, but won't even go to the mat for them. He could have got Pickering onboard if he had fought, but nooooo; don't want to look too partisan.
* returned honor, dignity and trust to the Presidency
Granted, but a billygoat in heat could have done that after X42.
* recognized 2ND amendment/RKBA as individual right, fully constitutional
Big yes. This is really good, but it has no legal status. A brief is not binding.
* told Cuba/Castro trade embargo stays
Good again.
President Bush also signed four executive orders based on the principles of fair and open competition, neutrality in government contracting, effective and efficient use of tax dollars and the legal right of workers to be notified of how their dues may be used. In other words, stopped favoring union shops in government contracting. Along with winning the war on terrorism, Bush is doing a very good job for the American people. I'd call Bushes short time in office, a qualified success.
Executive orders are hardly a conservative ideal. All Executive Orders that affect anything beyond the direct administration of the executive branch should be rescinded and proper legislation should pass through Congress. The war on terrorism is still ongoing, so don't count chickens.
Overall, I'd say it's all we can expect. Bush is not the Anti-Christ, but he's no savior either. He's a man with a lot of political savvy, and he may turn it around after regaining Congress. If not, we are in for a long, hard row.
Currently, he is the Grand Master of Political Jiu Jitsu.
My point precisely. GWB and the current crop of Republicans might be compared to that dread disease and the country to the victim of it.
One way to cure cancer is to cut it out. The question is, will the patient figure that out?
Klintoon would have killed for 1/100th of the legacy that will become apparent as history digests the change Dubya and Vlad have wrought.
Too bad for Klintoon: no matter what he does now, the first line of the ol' obit is always going to be to include the word "impeached."
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.
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.