Thread: Bush-bashing on the rise within GOP

Bush-bashing on the rise within GOP
The Seattle Times
By: Dick Polman
02/13/2006

WASHINGTON — Conservatives love to quote Ronald Reagan at every opportunity, to invoke him as the exemplar of their ideology. But in their winter of discontent, many on the right are breaching Reagan's 11th commandment, which decrees that no Republican shall ever speak ill of another.

And the target of their ire is President Bush.

At the dawn of a crucial election year — and with all the polls indicating that the Democrats are poised to make gains in the House and Senate — the Bush White House is banking on a big, enthusiastic conservative turnout in November. But that will happen only if the Bush base calls a halt to its Bush bashing.

The bashing has been intense in recent days. Commentator Jonah Goldberg, miffed that Bush has piled up record deficits and boosted the size of government, writes that Bush "is spending money like a pimp with a week to live." Another, Fox News analyst Tony Snow, says that Bush's decision to shelve his Social Security privatization plan is "an act of surrender." Yet another, former Reagan domestic-policy adviser Bruce Bartlett, is releasing a book this month titled "Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy."

The vibes here late last week at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) were particularly toxic. Normally, the thousands who attend spend most of their time trying to ensure that liberalism is a dirty word in American politics. This year was different.

Bush was painted as another Bill Clinton (the ultimate insult) or Jimmy Carter (almost as bad), because he is pushing a downscaled domestic agenda — no Social Security plan, no tax-code overhaul this time — and because he wants to pump taxpayer money into alternative energy. Even Rick Perry, who succeeded Bush as governor of Texas, rebuked Bush for failing to secure the borders against illegal immigrants, thereby questioning Bush's national-security record.

The ongoing influx of illegal immigrants, and the nation's porous border with Mexico, have become major grievances for the Bush base. The issue now threatens to undercut Bush's '06 strategy, which is to stump for a big November turnout by touting his war-on-terror credentials (an intended reprise of '02 and '04). Indeed, Republican strategist Marc Rotterman warned here that unless Bush gets tough on immigrants, "we risk alienating our conservative base and the 'Reagan Democrats' who have helped us secure our electoral majority. ... Our conservative movement right now is at a crossroads."

Mike Krempasky, a veteran activist and prominent conservative blogger, said: "I know so many people who care deeply about immigration. It has become increasingly frustrating for conservatives to see their leadership refusing to secure the borders. And how will this affect the army of election volunteers that Republicans normally rely on?"

The immigration issue is especially sensitive because it threatens to split the Republican coalition, dividing the grass-roots conservatives (the campaign workers) from the business lobby (the big donors).

Within the grass roots, there is great hostility toward Bush's "guest worker" plan, which would allow illegal immigrants to stay in America for three years. Many conservatives dismiss that plan as a back-door amnesty and an invitation to terrorist infiltration; Bush's big-business allies like the plan, because they see the illegals as cheap labor.

Last week, that GOP fault line ruptured. It happened when Rep. Tom Tancredo showed up at the CPAC event. The scourge of illegal immigrants, he's a Colorado Republican who flaunts his rebel status. In 2002, he said that if terrorists struck America after slipping across the unsecured border, "the blood of the people killed will be on this administration," a remark that (as Tancredo tells it) prompted Bush strategist Karl Rove to ring him up, chew him out and call him a "traitor."

Tancredo was the CPAC rock star. He triggered howls of appreciation when he said that, on immigration, "it is the president, not Tom Tancredo, who is out of step with his party." Then he took on the Bush guest-worker plan and said: "It is the employer community which sees profits from cheap labor, and the hell with the (impact on) the American taxpayer. The conservative movement can either be the voice of principle ... or it can be the voice of the Chamber of Commerce, but it cannot be both."

But Randel Johnson wasn't howling. A senior U.S. Chamber of Commerce official, he took the podium shortly thereafter, looking as if he'd just been punched.

"Look," he said, "I'm a lifetime Republican, I worked in the Reagan administration, I worked on (Capitol) Hill when the Republicans took over in 1994. Immigration is a tough issue for some of us, like me, and we hate to see a split like this in the Republican Party."

Thousands sat in silence, but he plowed on: "We in the business community provide millions of jobs, and all of a sudden, we become the bad guy in this debate." More silence.

Nor does harmony reign on other fronts. There's a big conservative faction that thinks Bush is wrong for believing he can bring peaceful democracy to Iraq and the rest of the Middle East (case in point: Palestinians have chosen Hamas).

There's a conservative faction that believes Bush is wrong to conduct warrantless surveillance of Americans; ex-Rep. Bob Barr, who led the early fight for Clinton's impeachment, suggested here that the Bush plan violated federal law and argued that "we can't allow our convictions to be dimmed or tarnished or confused by the fog of war."

And there's a big conservative faction that is alarmed about lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who pleaded guilty last month in a bribery-and-corruption scandal. They see Abramoff as a symbol of the special-interest establishment, and they want Bush to separate himself from that orbit and lead as a small-government outsider.

And, maybe most importantly, there is an outcry over Bush's big spending and record deficits. Even Grover Norquist, one of the top conservative architects in Washington, points out that Bush's non-defense spending has outpaced Clinton's — and that this issue could demoralize conservatives on Election Day.

In his words, "the troubles of 2005 could yet snowball to disastrous proportions in 2006."

Link

Let me tackle this one. Here goes:

Reagan's 11th commandment, which decrees that no Republican shall ever speak ill of another.

I guess that only works when you agree to do Bush's bidding.

At the dawn of a crucial election year — and with all the polls indicating that the Democrats are poised to make gains in the House and Senate — the Bush White House is banking on a big, enthusiastic conservative turnout in November. But that will happen only if the Bush base calls a halt to its Bush bashing.

We'll halt the Bush bashing after he gets his much deserved impeachment. If Bush thinks he's going to get a big turnout for Republicans at the polls in November, he's going to be in for a rude awakening. A very rude awakening. Remember both Republican candidates for governor lost last year after Jorge Bush stumped for them. Before Jorge Bush stumped for them, both races were too close to call, but afterwards, both candidates lost by at least 6 pts. Bush is a lameduck and voters aren't going to go to the polls in support of a fake Republican and his weak, tepid, milquetoast policies. The only chance the Republicans have of keeping their majority is if they end up getting candidates who are pro enforcement only to win in the primaries. Otherwise expect the Dems to win back the majority and in which case I say oh well, that's what the Republicans get for turning their backs on the voters.

he issue now threatens to undercut Bush's '06 strategy, which is to stump for a big November turnout by touting his war-on-terror credentials (an intended reprise of '02 and '04).

What war on terror credentials? Spying on his own citizens, forcing us into a war against a non threat, leaving our borders wide open during this so called war on terror, caving in to Islamic sociopaths like Hamas and Al Sadr. Is that your credentials? You can take your credentials and shove them where the sun don't shine. Bush still thinks we are as stupid as he is obviously. This i'm tough on terror stance is non-sense.

a remark that (as Tancredo tells it) prompted Bush strategist Karl Rove to ring him up, chew him out and call him a "traitor."

Traitor? Traitor to whom? You and your globalists criminals that you stump for? At least he's not a traitor to America like you are.

Thousands sat in silence, but he plowed on: "We in the business community provide millions of jobs, and all of a sudden, we become the bad guy in this debate." More silence.

Millions of jobs for whom? Certainly not for the American people. Yes you are the bad guy because you continue to break our laws by hiring illegal alien criminal job thieves which violates federal law. Your extremely lucky I'm not in power or you would be in an orange jump suit instead of a tux.

There's a big conservative faction that thinks Bush is wrong for believing he can bring peaceful democracy to Iraq and the rest of the Middle East (case in point: Palestinians have chosen Hamas).

I have been saying this for years. This crap is nothing more than a neocon fantasy. You can't make peace with fanatics. They only know one thing and it has nothing to do with holding hands while dancing around a bonfire while feeling the love.

Bush has recklessly put us into this situation and it's cost us many lives and trillions of dollars and he refuses to do what needs to be done. Those trillions wasted on Iraq sure would look good on our borders. This clown is the same globalist hack who spends more money on Africa then he does on our borders. Remember that the next time you go to the polls in November.

And there's a big conservative faction that is alarmed about lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who pleaded guilty last month in a bribery-and-corruption scandal. They see Abramoff as a symbol of the special-interest establishment, and they want Bush to separate himself from that orbit and lead as a small-government outsider.

ROFLMAO, yeah like that is going to happen. Bush has been all about big government since day one and because of one corrupt lobbyist getting caught with his pants down, that's suppose to change? The only small government Bush believes in is to reduce the size of the faction of the government that goes after the illegal aliens. Bush is only for small government when it comes to getting the government off of the backs of the illegal aliens.

And, maybe most importantly, there is an outcry over Bush's big spending and record deficits. Even Grover Norquist, one of the top conservative architects in Washington, points out that Bush's non-defense spending has outpaced Clinton's — and that this issue could demoralize conservatives on Election Day.

Yeah Norquist is so concerned that I didn't hear one peep out of him when Bush earmarked a quarter of a billion for amnestied guest workers.

Man dman, when you say tackle you mean TACKLE! Well done!

dman1200,
RE:The only chance the Republicans have of keeping their majority is if they end up getting candidates who are pro enforcement ....

Yes but even if the entire Congress is pro enforcement, so what? The legislative branch(congress) can not enforce laws. Legislators make laws, executives enforce them. The truth is Bush can solve this problem right now by enforcing existing laws, but he won't and congress can not force him to enforce immigration laws. Congress has the power to can impeach him, but the legislative branch can not enforce laws or set executive policy.

Originally Posted by dxd

dman1200,
RE:The only chance the Republicans have of keeping their majority is if they end up getting candidates who are pro enforcement ....

Yes but even if the entire Congress is pro enforcement, so what? The legislative branch(congress) can not enforce laws. Legislators make laws, executives enforce them. The truth is Bush can solve this problem right now by enforcing existing laws, but he won't and congress can not force him to enforce immigration laws. Congress has the power to can impeach him, but the legislative branch can not enforce laws or set executive policy.

Congress could force Bush to enforce the laws through threat of impeachment. Problem is none of them have the guts to try it. Congress can also force Bush to enforce our laws by shutting down everything Bush proposes. They can just say, we are not going to vote for anything you want until you start enforcing our immigration laws.

Congress doesn't enforce our laws, but it's not like they don't have any power over Bush. This government has checks and balances still, it's not a dictatorship, at least not yet. They could isolate Bush and make him a lameduck where nobody will even listen to him, let alone pass anything he wants and they can impeach him. Congress could make life very miserable for Bush if they really wanted to.

dman1200,
Yes congress can emlpoy indirect techniques, but the bottom line is, that if Bush refuses to enforce the laws, the laws don't get enforced. Congress can not give orders to the ICE or Border Patrol. But as you say,congress don't have the guts to even employ these indirect techniques

Yes we do have checks and balances as well as separation of powers between the branches. The Founders did not want the same branch to make laws and enforce laws because that is a recipe for tyranny. So they designed separation of powers between the branches where the legislative branch(congress) makes laws and the executive branch(the president) enforces them.

So what can congress actually do about this:
1)The can do as you suggest and employ a political move
2)The can oversight the ICE and Border Patrol
3)They can impeach the executive
4)They can declare war on the invading nation

But they can't order the executive to enforce immigration laws.(That would violate separation of powers)

Nice, Dman.

I have been saying this for years. This crap is nothing more than a neocon fantasy. You can't make peace with fanatics. They only know one thing and it has nothing to do with holding hands while dancing around a bonfire while feeling the love.

While I don't believe that all Arabs or even all Moslems are fanatics, I agree that you can't negotiate peace with a people who are taught from the cradle that we are the bad guys. I don't believe that you can spread democracy among people who have no idea of the concept or no comparative means to even visualize it.

Originally Posted by JuniusJnr

While I don't believe that all Arabs or even all Moslems are fanatics, I agree that you can't negotiate peace with a people who are taught from the cradle that we are the bad guys. I don't believe that you can spread democracy among people who have no idea of the concept or no comparative means to even visualize it.

absolutely correct. the wahabi (possibly misspelled) muslems are the source of the problem being that they are they extreme fanatical types we are fighting. however negotiating peace is going to prove impossible being that they are the ones who founded the kingdom of saudi arabia.

so when people say the money we are shelling out for oil is also funding the terrorist who mean to kill us .. the aren't making a stretch. they're hitting the nail square on the head.

Kneemow, as I see it, and I've read extensively and talked to actual people when I lived in Moslem lands, the Wahabis (which is nothing but the name of a tribe the same as Ibn Saud, Bin Laden, etc.) are the least of our worries.

I look for the Shi'ites to keep things stirred up in that region. And now our President has created another behive by giving them the lion's share of the control of Iraq, which will soon be another dictatorship. (It would have been no matter who had the lions share of the power, though. It is their way of life to remain sheep to the one who seizes control.)

For my money, we should back away and let them fight it out to establish their own balance of power and then leave them alone. They have absolutely nothing we actually need since Alaska has more oil than the rest of the world combined and the only other thing produced in the middle east is people. The other Arab nations only support the Palestinian state insofar as it is a way to slap Israel. They aren't particularly fond of the Palestinians t hemselves. They definitely aren't in favor of terrorists because their shaky governments have much to fear. many Palestinians would rather reside in places like Egypt and Saudi Arabia where they have no status and can never hope to attain status than go to Palestine and fight over stupidity.