Posted on 06/05/2002 12:35:43 PM PDT by Recovering_Democrat
WASHINGTON, June 5 Political note to George W. Bush: The conservative grassroots still supports you, but theyre getting restless. Theyre not so inflamed yet that you are guaranteed a Republican primary opponent in 2004. You arent yet destined to live the political nightmare that your father had to endure in 1992, when, as a sitting president (and erstwhile war leader), he ran into a hard-right hacksaw named Pat Buchanan. But watch out: GOP fundamentalists dont like you tacking to the middle, and theyll try to make you pay.
GIVEN ALL THE other things Bush has to worry about, the vote in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, this week has to rank low on his list of concerns. But Ill bet you that he and, certainly, his political guru, Karl Rove took note of the results from that town and surrounding Linn County in the GOP primary for U.S. Senate. In the summer of 1999, Bush chose that quiet farm community as the site for his first presidential campaign appearance. Two months ago, the president campaigned there for Rep. Greg Ganske, a moderate from Des Moines, who was running for the Senate nomination. The president raised $500,000 in one event.
The electoral bottom line, revealed this week, couldnt have been encouraging to the White House. On Tuesday, Ganske won the primary, beating Bill Salier, 33, a hard-charging, pure-bred conservative whod never run for office before. But Ganskes victory came by a surprisingly anemic 59-41 percent statewide. More unsettling to Bush and Rove, Ganske lost Linn County in recent years, a hotbed of social conservatism outright.
Now, a few caveats. Ganske, a plastic surgeon, is no Marcus Welby, MD. Hes a smart guy but a prickly character and a diffident campaigner. Hes from Des Moines, not always an impressive calling card elsewhere in the state. He has a maverick streak that annoys party insiders, including those in Washington, who consider him a royal pain the butt. And the Democrats, eager to defeat a moderate and sow dissension in the GOP, attacked Ganske ferociously, taking a page from a tactic perfected this year by California Gov. Gray Davis.
Still, the Ganske-Salier race was a revealing glimpse of rising intra-party tensions that, for the most part, remain submerged by Bushs overall popularity and early success in leading the war on terrorism. There was, and is, a schism in the GOP, a San Andreas fault that could still reduce a Republican presidency to rubble just as it did to Daddy Bush in 1992.
The divisions were clearly shown in the issue positions of the candidates. Ganske, a Catholic, is pro-life, but would allow abortions under certain circumstances rape, incest, threat to life of the mother. Salier took a stricter, absolutist position. Ganske got on the wrong side of the National Rifle Association, refusing to vote to lift a ban on handguns in the District of Columbia. Salier was pro-NRA, and anti-gun-control, all the way. Ganske is for expanding federal medical programs to include a prescription drug benefit and a patients bill of rights. Salier opposed both. Ganske voted to give the president fast track authority to negotiate new global trade agreements a key goal of corporate America. Salier was opposed. Ganskes most obvious act of anti-conservative apostasy: He voted for Sen. John McCains hated campaign finance reform bill, which real-right activists see as an unconstitutional attack on free speech, not to mention their ability to collect from influential issue groups such as the National Rifle Association and the National Right-to-Life Committee.
No matter what happens with the war and no matter how tightly Rove wraps Bush in the flag the conservative grassroots activists in the party arent likely to let go of their obsessions.
Even if they didnt want to back him, Rove and Bush had no choice but to back Ganske. He was, after all, a GOP House member, and they need his vote in the House even while runs for the Senate. Though he has allied himself on several issues with the White Houses least favorite member of Congress McCain Ganske supported Bush in 2000.
But backing Ganske was only one of a series of Bush betrayals the conservatives now see. Others include: Bush signing campaign-finance reform, signing a profligate, pork-filled farm bill and, this week, allowing his EPA to tell the U.N. that human activity is likely the chief cause of global warming. That conclusion is painfully obvious to environmentalists, but heresy to the right. The president backed away from the EPA report, saying dismissively that he had read what the bureaucracy had produced as if it wasnt his bureaucracy but nevertheless remained opposed to the U.N.s idea of a global warming treaty. This long train of abuses has gotten the attention of conservative opinion leaders, not least among them Radio Rajah Rush Limbaugh, who say theyre worried Bush is becoming his dad: a too-eager-to-please politician with no conservative moorings.
In an effort to help Republicans recapture the Senate, and keep control of the House this year and woo swing centrists for 2004 Bush and Rove clearly have tacked to the center on a number of key issues. Iowa is crucial to both crusades: Bush lost the state to Al Gore by a mere 4,000 votes, and the president has made five trips there since early 2001.
The question is whether, in moving to the middle, Bush is inviting attack from within, from the right. Maybe the better question is whether there is any way for him to avoid such an attack. Rove seems confident that he can still mollify conservatives on a host of other issues, and that the presidents handling of the war will speak directly to the hearts of conservative voters over the heads of the Beltway-based professional agitators of the Right.
Rove may be right, in the end, but Im willing to bet that, come primary season in 2004, conservatives in Iowa and probably New Hampshire, too will again try to make life miserable for a president named Bush.
GOP fundamentalists dont like you tacking to the middle, and theyll try to make you pay.
Interesting use of the word "fundamentalists", Fineman. Kinda like "Islamic fundamentalists", isn't it? You add the caveat at the top of your piece that conservative aren't "yet" throwing Bush out. Hmm. Last I checked, his approval among Republicans was around 90%. What polls are you looking at to purport such a bubbling under revolt??
The electoral bottom line, revealed this week, couldnt have been encouraging to the White House. On Tuesday, Ganske won the primary, beating Bill Salier, 33, a hard-charging, pure-bred conservative whod never run for office before. But Ganskes victory came by a surprisingly anemic 59-41 percent statewide.
18% WIN IS ANEMIC?????Fineman, though, probably was one of those people who attested to Bill Clinton's WONDERFUL 43% plurality win in 1992.
More unsettling to Bush and Rove, Ganske lost Linn County in recent years, a hotbed of social conservatism outright.
FINAL LINN COUNTY RESULTS ARE HERE:(I made a call to the County auditor's office to find out)
Ganske: 5,083
Salier: 5,497
Oh, yeah, Howard, an OUTRIGHT win of 314 votes. A real revolt. < /sarcasm>
Still, the Ganske-Salier race was a revealing glimpse of rising intra-party tensions...
No evidence of it: an 18 point win, and a squeaker in a conservative county are what Fineman uses as bellweather evidence of Republican splits.
Ganske, a Catholic, is pro-life, but would allow abortions under certain circumstances rape, incest, threat to life of the mother. Salier took a stricter, absolutist position.
Many reasonable pro-lifers take the position of Ganske, and Fineman knows it. Again, he tries to paint conservatives as "fundamentalist" Neanderthals.
Ganske voted to give the president fast track authority to negotiate new global trade agreements ...
Again, something many reasonable conservatives believe is essential to FREE TRADE.
He voted for Sen. John McCains hated campaign finance reform bill, which real-right activists see as an unconstitutional attack on free speech...
Heh. Fineman fails to acknowledge the ACLU, his leftist heros, also oppose CFR. But this is the one anti-Conservative action Ganske has done that Fineman can credibly point out. Fineman seems reluctant to mention it, though, mentioning it last, no doubt because this action is appreciated by the left.
Rove may be right, in the end, but Im willing to bet that, come primary season in 2004, conservatives in Iowa and probably New Hampshire, too will again try to make life miserable for a president named Bush.
I'll take that bet, Howie: we conservatives remember the eight years of Clinton, and we never ever ever ever want that kind of refuse again in our Oval Office. Bush will be re-elected despite your best attempts to divide the Republicans and conservatives.
They don't need to; the White House is doing a lovely job of that all on their own.
"Dance with the one what brung ya." -An ancient Texan proverb
This is such rubbish. Almost 60% is ANEMIC???? Give me a frickin' break Finneman!
As for the abortion issue, Ganske is pro-life except in the case of rape, incest or threat to the life of the mother. Well, that pretty much sums up my position. I would be hard pressed to vote for someone who opposed abortion even in the case of rape or incest - sorry, that is just sickening.
Finneman is digging for disgruntlement here. What a moron.
Sheesh...he even uses the right 'buzz' words as in "the president saying dismissively...." Blah, blah, blah. Lots of original reporters out there, eh? Can't just one of them come up with another word for dismissively? Pathetic.
Finneman is scum.
There are a LOT of "conservatives" posting on this board who have come directly from DU. They took out dozens of screen names over the years so checking on their registration date doesn't help a lot. Most of us who come here every day can recognize them, if not from the name, at least by the writing style. Those Freepers who are easily swayed fall for their tactics. And that's exactly what they are....tactics.
It is the number 1 priority of the democrats to weaken Bush's support with his base. The easiest way to accomplish that is to pose as an outraged conservative on this board and get as many people to follow you as possible by twisting the truth.
The other thing they accomplish with these attacks is chasing away a lot of posters and lurkers thus weakening FR as an effective tool.
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.