Another One Term Bush in the Making

Sierra Times ^ | Colonel Dan

[Sir Gawain]

	The View from the Colonel's Saddle Another One Term Bush in the Making By Colonel Dan Published 05. 8. 02 at 12:00 Sierra Time

xxx

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. ~ Winston Churchill ~ If this administration continues riding the rail of political appeasement, ulterior motives, thinly veiled socialism, broken commitments and forsaken values, I think George 43 might well follow in the footsteps of George 41 and become another "one term Bush" and it won't be due to an outstanding Democrat opponent. The reason I see this coming is not because the Democrats have anything better to offer or that they have a slick game plan. Bush is bringing this on himself by doing his level best to appease the left while alienating a previously loyal conservative base and taking their support and votes for granted. He has turned his back on many long held conservative values such as free trade, the primacy of individual liberty over perceived security, smaller, less intrusive government, unfathomable coddling of the socialist agenda and liberal Democrats—including Bill Clinton. He even turned his back on the Constitution when he signed Campaign Finance Reform and seems unwilling to stand firm in defense of US sovereignty where our own borders are concerned! All this is simply very disturbing to many long time traditional conservatives and it will and should come back to haunt him in November. Don't let Bush's current high approval ratings fool you. High ratings are generally the case with wartime presidents. Bush the elder's approval was riding high during and immediately following the Gulf War of 1991 but look what happened in 1992. When the fundamental values of truth, sovereignty, conviction, freedom and independence are sacrificed for the sake of appeasement and referred to as a "new tone", sincere traditionalists get angry over such an insidious sell out. I think even semiconscious conservatives knew going in that Bush's "new tone" of pandering to the left was terminally dangerous for conservative values and would never win over liberals. Liberals are on an irreversible, ideological crusade to turn America completely socialist—even Marxist—and nothing will ever stop them from that "calling." The only thing this approach has done for Bush is to display a fatal weakness to the liberals and elicit feelings of anger, disappointment and disgust in previously loyal conservatives. If he thinks his followers will blindly and enthusiastically support the GOP over Democrats no matter what, he and the Republicans may be surprised. Even if this conservative base doesn't desert him en masse, they certainly won't work as fervently for him and the GOP during the campaign and it will be that lack of fire in the conservative soul that will ultimately sink him at the polls. The Democrats will jump on this and Bush will risk losing due to the double whammy of an unprincipled attack from the left and an unenthusiastic commitment from the right. Since his inauguration, Bush has straddled the political fence in favor of his "new tone" and for the umpteenth time, we've seen that approach just doesn't work with those truly committed to either the left or the right — which combined, makes up 80% of the total voting population -- so why continue to ride that fence? If Bush doesn't realize this already, he'll soon find out that when you straddle any fence long enough, the rail eventually crushes sensitive body parts—sometimes permanently. What then does this predict for America? It's simple; Hillary could become number 44 and Bush would be back on his ranch clearing brush while America suffers even more. Perhaps a President Hillary and her vindictively dictatorial ways is what it will finally take to awaken America from its lethargy—that appears to be the way history writes its saga anyway. It seems the human condition must first hit rock bottom before folks are sufficiently motivated to start clawing their way back to the top. A Hillary Clinton administration would certainly be just such a rock bottom event for America and even if I'm not on target about Bush's political future in 2004, I have no doubt whatsoever of the severe consequences were Hillary to become president—whatever the year. Just the view from my saddle…

The

Colonel

DON'T TREAD ON ME

[Sir Gawain]

-

[Clemenza]

The farm bill and CFR REALLY PISSED ME OFF!!!

[Diogenesis]

Sadly, President Bush first adopted Hillary's demand for a Palestinian State.

Then he adopted proterrorist demands.

[SoDak]

Actually, I'm hoping the tide turns the other way after the mid-term elections, and that these early forays into the dem policy book are long term aberrations. It seems as though conventional thinking in the oval office has changed. The thinking now is that you remain in office by co-opting the opponents issues and making them your own.

[Alberta's Child]

The author's premise is all wrong. Straddling the political fence is the kind of thing that should result in a one-term presidency. What we have learned over the last 12 years, though, is that so many American voters are so lacking in principle that fence-straddling is rewarded at the voting booth.

Many conservatives complain that President Bush is "just like Bill Clinton." Maybe he's just like post-1994 Bill Clinton, but if you look back at Clinton's last six years in office from a purely political standpoint and neglect his legal troubles, you'd think the guy was a Republican president. His "Democratic" hat is what gave him the cover to do things that Republican presidents never would have gotten away with from a PR-standpoint (e.g. welfare reform, capital gains tax cuts, etc.)

[Sir Gawain]

so many American voters are so lacking in principle

Sadly, I think you're correct.

[w_over_w]

IMHO, if GWB can concede "something’s" now in exchange for retaking the Senate . . . much of what has been passed with CFR and the Farm Bill can be either be tabled or changed. However, if the DemoRATS keep the Senate . . . God help us. It's politics, it's ugly and it's often what needs to be done in order to achieve the greater good.

BTW, it's strange posting a "serious" reply to Sir Gawain . . . I mean you're one of the original "funny guys".

[Smedley]

His "Democratic" hat is what gave him the cover to do things that Republican presidents never would have gotten away with from a PR-standpoint (e.g. welfare reform, capital gains tax cuts, etc.)

Bill Clinton fought those measures tooth and nail. Bad examples, but I understand what you mean. NAFTA and GATT would be better examples.

[txzman]

"Straddling the political fence is the kind of thing that should result in a one-term presidency. What we have learned over the last 12 years, though, is that so many American voters are so lacking in principle that fence-straddling is rewarded at the voting booth.

Yeah but the problem in American Politics from the conservative side is that we stay home on principal when we are left behind - that is what loses elections for the Republicans. This article is right on target - Bush has already lost my parent's vote in the next election, and he will have to work hard to get it back.

My Dad still votes on what a man does, not what he says he believes in or what he will do. I like Bush, but his appeasement policies are very troubling for me as well.

[JFoxbear]

The simple truth can sometimes be quite distatefull.

However sickening... Colonel Dan is an honest man on this one, as usual.

[pgkdan]

The Fram Bill, CFR, Mental health parity for insurance, steel tarriffs, failing to fight for Judicial nominees, failure to close the borders, "Islam is Peace", The Education Bill, the failure to get vouchers passed...the list goes on and on. He's a complete disappointment so far. The only good thing about this administration as far as I can see are Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld and Condi Rice...the rest, including W, can fade into the sunset for all I care.

[Digger]

I agree.

[alpowolf]

It's politics, it's ugly and it's often what needs to be done in order to achieve the greater good

This is always said when a Republican abandons principles. I don't think it's at all unfair to ask: what greater good are we going to get, and when are we going to get it?

As House elections occur every two years we're always told "well we have to compromise now, elections are coming up." Elections are always coming up...so we keep hearing "tactics, comrades, tactics!"

[rdavis84]

"What then does this predict for America? It's simple; Hillary could become number 44 and Bush would be back on his ranch clearing brush while America suffers even more."

It's obvious to some of us that jr. really doesn't care. He's doing his part to usher in his daddy's NWO/World Rearrangement and most are giving him a pass on it.

Hillary will do the Heavy Lifting just like Slick did, then it's done. But that won't stop the bandwagon riders from yelling "lesser of two evils", "better than Gore (Hillary)", and continuing to delude themselves that there's a difference in the two/one Party.

[lormand]

"The farm bill and CFR REALLY PISSED ME OFF!!!"

Don't forget his massive Teddy Kennedy approved Education bill, the Airport/Union Security Act, and his continuted support for granting illegal aliens amnesty, which is pure racial pandering.

I will gladly vote for a better choice in the Republican primaries in 04'.

[GraniteStateConservative]

What-- is GWB going to get even less of the popular vote in 2004 because conservatives stay home? Conservatives should be doing backflips for any attention paid to us. Millions stayed home on Election Day and almost delivered the presidency to Gore. I wouldn't blame Bush at all for wanting to develop a more loyal base.

Conservatives can be pig-headed and stubborn and think nothing of cutting off their noses to spite their faces. Had we given Bush a landslide victory, he'd be beholden to us. What do we have to hold over his head? Nothing. We decided to play checkers on Election Day-- rather than crawl over broken glass [to rebuke Clinton with our last opportunity] as some commentators predicted in 2000.

Bush shouldn't view conservatives as vital to him until we actually accomplish something. Since 1994, it's been downhill all the way-- re-electing Clinton and vanishing numbers in the House and Senate (which we lost after having owned it), and giving the Democrats the popular vote for the third straight presidential election.

[lormand]

"The Fram Bill, CFR, Mental health parity for insurance, steel tarriffs, failing to fight for Judicial nominees, failure to close the borders, "Islam is Peace", The Education Bill, the failure to get vouchers passed...the list goes on and on. He's a complete disappointment so far. The only good thing about this administration as far as I can see are Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld and Condi Rice...the rest, including W, can fade into the sunset for all I care."

You know, it is just dawning on me that Dubya IS John McCain! We have in effect, John McCain as POTUS! What is the difference?

[Timesink]

This is always said when a Republican abandons principles. I don't think it's at all unfair to ask: what greater good are we going to get, and when are we going to get it?

Never, if the RATs get back into power. Let Bush play the game, and come January the RATs will be completely out of power on the federal level for the first time since 1933. Let him not play the game and the Dems will keep the Senate and just possibly (though probably not) win the House too. Then we'll REALLY be getting no greater good.

[Charlotte Corday]

First time around, I voted for Bush based on what he said he was going to do.

Second time around, it depends on what he has done, which amounts to:

Taking out the Taliban - very big plus item on the ledger.
The rest of the "war on terror" is basically ineffectual or downright harmful to our freedoms. Medium size minus.
Drunken-sailor domestic spending - medium size minus.
CFR - Big minus.
Tax cut - accomplished but trivial in size and scope. Very small plus.
Fighting for his judicial nominees - effort too small to grade.

Jury's still out, and there are over two years to go, but I suspect that had it not been for 9/11 it would be awfully hard to tell the difference between Bush's "achievements" and what Gore would have been able to do (given a Republican House (possibly) Senate).