Posted on 10/10/2005 12:46:55 PM PDT by Crackingham
Why, all of a sudden, are things going so wrong for the White House? Conservatives up in arms about Harriet Miers and about the president's plans for the Gulf Coast; an anti-war mother camped outside the Crawford ranch dominating the news for a month; the president Bush's approval ratings lower than they've ever been: This is the price of surrendering control of the agenda.
The white flag went up — and Bush's troubles began — unnoticed, months ago.
Shortly after his re-election, the president announced he was prepared to spend political capital winning approval for top priorities like Social Security reform and making the 2003 tax cuts permanent.
For months, he looked as good as his word. In a burst of public activity rarely seen in a chief executive except in election years, he hit the campaign trail, telling the American people that Social Security was broken and had to be fixed. Ignoring the problem, he argued, was not an option.
Despite conventional wisdom in our what-have-you-won-for-me-lately national capital, this campaign scored a complete success. From utter complacency at the new year, before long the public was telling pollsters that, yes, indeed, Social Security was a hospital case and the doctor had better be called in quickly.
But, having won the debate on the need for reform, what did the administration do next? Nothing. To date, not one bill or detailed proposal has gone from the White House to Congress.
It is not hard to imagine superficially shrewd reasons for this silence. Some polls showed that reform wasn't selling well among key GOP groups, in particular red-state men over 50.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
An interesting point you're making there.
The old "DemocRats would be worse!" crap hasn't worked on me since 1991.
So, Republicans, how's that "limited government" thingie you promised us coming along, hmmmmmmm?
Well said. It's why I protest voted with my conscience for Badnarik (ok...it was an easy one...I live in IN and knew Kerry wouldn't win LOL) But still! ;)
You hit the nail on the head
It's not just SS, althought that is a big issue he's done squat on.
I sure hope they do so the nambie's on this site will have something else to bitch about.
The Donner party was a legendary story about survival. Instead of rolling over dead, and giving up, their party survived. I honestly feel both beltway parties are building the platform for a grassroots third party of American conservatism. And they are doing a good job I might add.
I voted Libertarian in 2000. But I voted for GWB in 04. I actually voted for him AFTER seeing how poorly he was doing. (Sorry, I just have not been impressed at all.) But I thought Kerry was worse, and today, I'd probably do the same thing.
Thanks.
THe showdown over judicial nominees didn't happen. That upset a lot of conservatives.
And there was the Shaivo case. That upset a lot of moderates.
That was the beginning of the rift, we saw it here on FR. It derailed work on legislation. Instead, all effort was steered into the Bolton UN nomination. A great nomination, but: Bush refused to back off getting a VOTE after Frist told him they couldn't get the vote. So instead we spent over a month seeing how impotent Bush was in getting action, and the republicans in the Senate were in doing their job.
Roberts was not the choice of conservatives, but Bush had just seen the gang of 14 torpedo his work on nominees, and still had to recess-appoint bolton, so what was he going to do?
Then almost no elected representatives covered his back on the Sheehan thing. Even Senator Allen, beloved by many, said Bush should have met with him (to defuse the issue, he says).
Meanwhile, conservatives didn't like Bush calling the minutemen vigilantes. The republicans are paralyzed on the immigration issue, further demoralizing the base. The fight is waged by bloggers and talk-show hosts, with a couple of brave congressmen, and a lot of local politicians fighting the fight at the wrong level, because it is a national problem.
Conservatives never liked the spending, but at least we had judges. Roberts scared them, and Miers pushed them over the edge. I think we have another split along similar lines to the Shiavo split, only now it is about THE DEFINING ISSUE, the one reason most conservatives put up with "compassionate conservative".
Conservatives don't want to rebuild New Orleans. They don't want a new new deal. They want a conservative, judicially restrained court. They have no faith anymore in the president.
That is just within our ranks. All the while, the MSM and the liberals have launched a daily barrage of vitriol at the president, trying to weaken him at home and abroad. The democrats are trying to throw the war in Iraq, seeing a loss there as critical to their success in 2008.
The republicans were getting tired of spending billions in Iraq, because it meant they couldn't spent billions at home to buy votes. Conservatives buy votes to, because, and I'm sorry conservatives, people are NOT conservative. When it comes down to elections, people are looking at what their congressperson GETS for the community, and what the senator gets for the state.
So Thune torpedoes Bolton to save his outdated useless air force base. Vitter takes out Brown to get billions for LA.
What a crock. It will take a complete disaster for the Republicans to lose either the House or the Senate.
There's been no disaster yet.
Just think about it: what have the Democrats done, over the past five years? Nothing. Nothing, except carp.
The Democrats are becoming increasingly more unelectable, with people like Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean at the head of their party.
"When it comes down to elections, people are looking at what their congressperson GETS for the community, and what the senator gets for the state."
While I agree with almost everything else in your post this line doesn't fly. The only people who are looking for "GETS for the community" are liberal democrats like the ones we saw in Louisiana.
When is the last time you said, "I'm voting for Joe because he's going to bring home the bacon." All of my life I've said, "No more bacon."
But you are a conservative. A majority of the people in the country are more interested in getting something than they are in halting the growth of government.
It is hard to win elections on a "I'm not going to bring home the bacon, and I'm going to make everybody else mad at us by trying in vain to stop them from doing so."
We know as conservatives that if we stopped pork everywhere we would all be happier. But so long as each person thinks they can come out ahead because the rich are going to pay, or some other state is going to pay, or we can simply borrow and when the time comes we can borrow some more, the pressure to "do something for us" will be hard to overcome.
Maybe I'm a little too pessimistic, but I haven't seen conservatives on the federal, state, OR local level show any real ability to cut spending, except when we were already going so broke that it scared people.
As soon as there is a surplus, people want to spend it. Even in Virginia, where people were against tax increases, a year after our biggest tax increase a clear majority APPROVE of the tax increases. Because the majority don't see the taxes hurting them much, but they think they see great benefits they are getting.
Jeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeezzzzzzzzz, what a bunch of short term memory Bush Bashing conservatives are posting on this thread.
Give the brother a break.
The POTUS in only engaged in waging a war across the globe, managing a country out of recession, been hit with "almost" every natural disaster known to man...been constantly insulted by the Press, struggled to against an obstinate ridiculously ill-informed and ill intended minority party (the dems)...I mean, folks, I could go on an on.
Yes, the appointment of Harriet to the SCOTUS seems a bit unwise...but remember Bush is loyal to those close to him. He may decide that this wasnt the best action, but he may...just may...be right that she's a good appointee and more conservative than many have given her credit for.
And, it is the economy stupid...there are no soup lines...even natural disasters havent seemed to stop this economy, which is optimistic because business is optimistic...since there's not a socialist in the whitehouse.
So, let's all take a deep breath...and remember that we understand history, which is why we are not the factless, clueless, democrats.
bookmark.
"Further, both one party systems benefit from having the other one around as a bugaboo. Pissed off at GWB? Would you rather see John Kerry as president? Ready to abandon the GOP? Say hello to President Hillary. And so on."
I'm one of those evil pragmatists, that puts up w/ the Party in order to keep the other guys out. There never will be a perfect conservative for everyone that adhers to the label "conservative". Just open the question, who representives conservativism better--Pat Buchanan, or Winston Churchill?--and you get responses so divided that you'd think Buchanite Conservatives and Churchillian Conservatives were about as similair as a black hole is to a gnat. And because of this, no "conservative" leader is ever going to please every "conservative".
In order to win an election based on majority vote, one must appeal to the lowest common denominator among the most amount of people, which means much of the substantive stuff is going to have to be sacrificed in order to appeal to that broad group. A Presidential candidate is like Britney Spears--popular, inocuous, vapid, substanceless, because the moment Britney Spears goes "indie" and puts some heart, brains, talent, soul in her music, she'll alienate 3/4s of her fanbase who don't like the "stance" she's taken in the sphere of music. She sells a helluva lot of albums as is, though, and a candidate needs a helluva lot of votes.
This is why Pat Buchanan, Steve Forbes, Al Sharpton, Dennis Kucinich won't ever win their respective party nominations--they may have their loyal fanbases who believe their candidate represents the "pure" ideology, but the greater base that disagrees with that notion of "purity" sits and crosses out and erases aspects of the original liberal/conservative platform. "No no no Mr. Buchanan, haven't you read an economics textbook at least once in your life? We're crossing out this stuff about isolationism"..."No no no Mr. Forbes we support a consumption tax not a flat tax, we're crossing off your tax policy"...."No no no Mr. Kucinich, I may be a Democrat but I'm a Truman Democrat and I think we should still have a military, we're crossing off this nonsense about a 'Peace' Department"...and so on and so forth. Pretty soon, you have a neutered candidate, standing for little of importance except maybe grand themes, packaged for public consumption and molded to appeal to as many people as possible. That's just the way it is, and denial won't either fix the political nature of our electoral process (which would lead to doing away with voting), nor does denial do something of importance in the "game" as it is.
Take what the defense gives you. Live to fight another day. Look for what's *better*, not *best*. You can spend a lifetime waiting for the "idealized" best opportunity and miss many avenues that could have lead to better situations. Win when we can and what we can, but don't worry about taking one step back in order to take two steps forward, and whatever you do, don't eat your own and do what's worse, which is put Hilary in power.
I'm not saying pragmatism is evil. I voted for GWB in 04. I'm saying that the current dynamic is advantageous for corrupt and mediocre people, and does not provide much leverage for us, the people. The parties are a problem. Both of them. Because what is good for the party is not the same as what is good for the people, but the people are pretty much unable to act without the party, and so we really can't act on our will. But I agree, you have to make the best of the hand your dealt, no matter how crappy.
I'm laughing re-reading your post. It's very true, all of what you say. I guess what I wish folks would realize is that a system like this produces Britney Spears. They act as if we've got George Washington and give way more credit than what is due. And I am not saying I have a solution, but I think maybe it's time to recognize some systemic problems. Another one is our farm system: how we choose a candidate. It doesn't work. But then, maybe it's just as it's pretty much always been. I still enjoy life, despite these clowns. And you're right, the tower of babel aspect of it makes it even worse.
What is it about my comments that you didn't understand? Do you really think that Social Security should have been Bush's number one priority? If so, then what do you think of his subsequent decision to drop his number one priority?
For Bush's base supporters, who put him over the top in 2004, the most important issues are judicial appointments, tax cuts, and the war on terror. Plus control of the borders, but that's another can of worms I won't get into.
Bush got his priorities wrong, dropped the ball, and now is perceived as a weak politician who can be bullied by congress. That wasn't the case in his first term, or in the first months of his second term.
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.