Only when it comes to the constitution and our rights:
1.)Guns(not yet; let's see what happends in 2004 with the possible renewal of the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban)
2.)Privacy(Stalincroft pushed for the "PATRIOT" Act and bush signed it)
3.)Freedom of Speech(Doesn't look like he will; hope not)
C.H.
That's the gist of their arguments. That's why I skim past the nonsensical criticisms of G.W.
Another conservative black and I were talking yesterday, and she was worried about the voucher programs and Bush's apparent failure to support them even after he said he would during the campaign. I told her that there is a case right now before the Supreme Court concerning the voucher initiatives in Cleveland and Detroit. That decision is paramount to the rest of the issue. If SCOTUS knocks down the issue as "unconstitutional," then, what would be the point in trying to get the issue through Congress?
She, apparently unconvinced, said that I might be spinning for Bush. But she did say that I had a point that the SCOTUS decision weighs heavily on the issue.
I then asked her, "Well, if I have a point about the court, how am I spinning?" To that she could not answer.
She, along with a ton of other conservatives, crumbles whenever conservatism appears to be "sold out." I must remind fellow conservatives that the Presidency is but one of the three branches of our government. The President is not king or queen, and can not govern by fiat. He has to deal with Congress. The Prez sometimes has to give a little in order to get a little. That's just the political game. Don't believe me? Then read Niccolo Machiavelli's The Prince and you'll begin to understand.
CFR? Won't make his desk. Have you all noticed that this issue, which was white hot only a few short weeks ago, has vanished as a topic being discussed on news shows? If you have, have you questioned why this is so?
Steel tarriffs? Pure politics. They make no economic sense, but they sure made political sense. Take Ohio, for instance. Steel workers there are jubilant over the tarriffs. Ohio went for Bush in 2000. And believe you me, those 25 electoral votes the Bush team still wants in 2004.
Immigration and this so-called "amnesty?" Puh-leeze! 245(i) states that those illegals must ASK for amnesty. And, if you think about it, it makes sense as a starting point for reigning in the problem that the INS created decades ago. To wit, it's not right for those illegals who have played by the rules to be thrown out. That's simply unfair. Who knows just how backed up the bureaucracy is in the INS? Give those a fair chance to get their houses in order, THEN you'll have the political cover for an immigration purge. And a purge is definitely needed. 245(i) does NOT just bestow blanket amnesty on ANYONE! But you wouldn't know that by reading FR lately.
Lastly, but most importantly regarding G.W.'s actions, he was thrown a serious monkey wrench by the Jeffords defection. Now, this does not mean that if Jeffords would have stayed that Bush would have everything elementarily easy. The majority was still a majority of one, and we have enough squishes to thwart many conservative initiatives (Spector, Jeffords, Snowe, etc.). But conservatives would have had the important chairs of all Senate committees. Pickering's nomination would have went to the floor and subsequently approved. But, thanks to Jeffords, can't do it. This fact is NOT Bush's fault, and I do cut him some slack on that.
Think I have no criticism of G.W.? Think again. His team politically dropped the ball on Judge Pickering. I mean they blew it, BIG TIME! Bush was late in his vocal support of Pickering. Pickering was not only a great judge, but a political goldmind to boot! Think of it for a sec. Here you had a judge from a Southern state who went against, at his own detriment, Klan members. He had the serious support of American blacks in his district in Mississippi. I mean, what more could you ask for as a conservative? And the thing that irks me the most about this failure is that G.W. and the team could have absolutely hammered the RATS with this nomination. I mean they could have shaken the foundation of the RAT base: American black voters. The bully pulpit could have been the platform with which to spread the truth about Judge Pickering, his true record on the bench, the support he enjoys among blacks in his district, and the strength of the conservative message overall.
All I can do is shake my head over this failure to act upon this fine judge, and along with it spread the message of hope that conservatism truly is.
In closing, President George W. Bush is doing wonderfully well. And just as I will not divorce my wife over one issue in which we disagree, I will not withdraw my support for him if I don't get everything I want for him to accomplish. And don't think I'm a Republican, either. I'm not. I'm a conservative, for sure. But I'm not a Republican. Even so, Bush has my support.