Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bush's tack to the middle holds risks (Liberal "warns" Bush he's too reasonable)
PMSNBC ^ | Howard Fineman

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 they’re getting restless. They’re not so inflamed — yet — that you are guaranteed a Republican primary opponent in 2004. You aren’t — 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 don’t like you tacking to the middle, and they’ll 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 I’ll 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, couldn’t have been encouraging to the White House. On Tuesday, Ganske won the primary, beating Bill Salier, 33, a hard-charging, pure-bred conservative who’d never run for office before. But Ganske’s 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. He’s a smart guy but a prickly character and a diffident campaigner. He’s 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 Bush’s 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. Ganske’s most obvious act of anti-conservative apostasy: He voted for Sen. John McCain’s 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 aren’t likely to let go of their obsessions.

Even if they didn’t 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 House’s 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 wasn’t 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 they’re 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 president’s 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 I’m 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.


TOPICS: News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2002; 2004; bush; conservative; election; fineman; liberal; moderate
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-29 next last
Oh, God, where do I start with this HACK PIECE from the liberal Fineman?? Here we go:

GOP fundamentalists don’t like you tacking to the middle, and they’ll 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, couldn’t have been encouraging to the White House. On Tuesday, Ganske won the primary, beating Bill Salier, 33, a hard-charging, pure-bred conservative who’d never run for office before. But Ganske’s 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 McCain’s 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 I’m 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.

REMEMBER
CONSERVATIVES:
Liberals would love to divide us, watch us cannibalize each other. Endure the night, for the dawn is coming---vote CONSERVATIVE in 2002, and see what can be done!

1 posted on 06/05/2002 12:35:46 PM PDT by Recovering_Democrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat
I don`t care if Ganske wears a "I Love Hillary" button, he`s better than Harkin...DON`T STAY HOME
2 posted on 06/05/2002 12:48:15 PM PDT by bybybill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat
So you're recommending a write in?
3 posted on 06/05/2002 12:49:37 PM PDT by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat
Conservatives want smaller, less intrusive government (at least they used to...remember Newt?).

Please provide ANY evidence that Bush advocates smaller government.
4 posted on 06/05/2002 12:50:26 PM PDT by axxmann
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat
I don`t care if Ganske wears a "I Love Hillary" button, he`s better than Harkin...DON`T STAY HOME
5 posted on 06/05/2002 12:52:06 PM PDT by bybybill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat
Wonderful article.
6 posted on 06/05/2002 12:53:56 PM PDT by Scholastic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat
Bush...or Rove...[whichever one is running the show]..is walking on thin ice, and it's cracking. Bush pushes through 245(i)-Amnesty for Illegal- now or after the November elections, compounded with his other disappointing stands and bills signed, and he won't see a second term. HillC will come to the rescue of America, and we will see a repeat Bush-Clinton, Bush-Clinton. She's dangerous and motivated. GWB needs to realize the liberalization isn't gaining him liberal votes, but it sure is losing him conservative votes. After all, some 4 million staunch conservatives sat out 2000, and GWB just barely won.
7 posted on 06/05/2002 12:58:31 PM PDT by TomGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat
I never thought I would see Fineman and the media establishment cheering Rush on. They are really hoping for a split in the GOP - it's their only hope for 2002 and probably 2004. And Rush has been running with these dogs, this week pursuing the agenda of the New York Times, NBC News and Howard Fineman. Rush has been a rock for conservatives, an antidote to the lamestream media. If he keeps this up, as Obi-Wan said, "now matters are worse."
8 posted on 06/05/2002 1:00:24 PM PDT by colorado tanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: colorado tanker
I had similar thoughts, but Rush always has a method to his what sometimes appears to be "madness." No way would he promote the dems in an election.
9 posted on 06/05/2002 1:07:38 PM PDT by Angelique
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat
Liberals would love to divide us

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

10 posted on 06/05/2002 1:09:46 PM PDT by Redcloak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: colorado tanker
Yesterday Rush was quoting Tom Oliphalt, whats next? I wonder if that thing he has in his ear has fried his brain?
11 posted on 06/05/2002 1:12:48 PM PDT by bybybill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Angelique
The Bushies are always being accused of having a secret plan, some "strategery." Now, the Rushies are defending Rush because he must have a secret plan! Well, sometimes he does; I'll be interested to find out what it is.
12 posted on 06/05/2002 1:17:42 PM PDT by colorado tanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat
That is an excellent analysis. All I have ever seen Fineman do is slyly attack the president and Republicans in Newsweak and on Chrissy Matthews "Whiffleball". Don't forget that Fineman sits on the Board of McCainiacs in the liberal Press as well.
13 posted on 06/05/2002 1:18:04 PM PDT by KC_Conspirator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #14 Removed by Moderator

To: Recovering_Democrat
But Ganske’s victory came by a surprisingly anemic 59-41 percent statewide.

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.

15 posted on 06/05/2002 1:19:26 PM PDT by Wphile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat
AND WHAT THE HELL is a GOP FUNDAMENTALIST????

Finneman is scum.

16 posted on 06/05/2002 1:20:23 PM PDT by Wphile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat
This is perfect. The dems know that Bush is very very popular. He is showing some centrist leanings which will bring more into the fold. The dems are afraid of his large coattails. If he can win over enough centrists, we win back both houses. Bush is in the White House and they are screwed. They can see the writing on the wall hence the "watch where you tred" piece. There will be more. I love it.
17 posted on 06/05/2002 1:28:00 PM PDT by Bigoleelephant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat
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.

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.

18 posted on 06/05/2002 1:29:42 PM PDT by McGavin999
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bigoleelephant
And once you get your power after selling out everything you believe in, what will you do with it?
19 posted on 06/05/2002 1:35:58 PM PDT by Scholastic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

Comment #20 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-29 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson