Why Bush Can't Win the Conservative Vote

[wilheim]

February 13, 2004
By Donald (R.J.) Carroll

When addressing the public, it is important to know your audience. You, the audience for this article, are liberals. What I know about liberals is that they don't know the extent to which we conservatives are obsessed with semantics. Not in the same way liberals are, in that politically correct sense, but we are preoccupied with accuracy of labels, regardless of how the labels make people feel. America is not a Democracy, for example, it is a Republic. All people work, not just the working class. A lot of conservative philosophy is dictated by this focus on semantics.

What do semantics have to do with why Bush can't win the conservative vote? Simple - Bush is not a conservative, he is a Republican. And Republicans aren't necessarily conservative. You, my liberal audience, may not see this distinction or why it is an important one. It is important, however, and it is of the utmost of importance to Bush's reelection campaign.

It is important in politics to 1) understand your party's political philosophy, and 2) to gain the support of your base. George II has failed on both of these basic criteria, and both for the same reason. Bush has forgotten that the political philosophy of the Republican Party has historically been conservative. To be conservative, by definition, a party has to do something which bares some similarity to what a conservative would do. Growing the government through social programs, bloated military spending, unjust injection into foreign theaters of war, un-American attacks on civil liberties - all of these are completely contrary to the philosophy of any conservative.

So, they call Bush and his ilk neo-conservatives. This means nothing; it is a bastardization of conservative values for political purposes. There is no neo-conservative political philosophy. The only thing new about Bush's conservatism is that it is 1930's liberalism revived in the new millennia. Liberals will, understandably, disagree that Bush is a liberal. If we look at it through a proper lens, however, it is clear that his policies regarding the size and scope of government do not indicate a philosophy that has one foot in a belief in the Republican form of government and the other in anarchy.

Clearly Bush has religious beliefs that would best be described as conservative, but that is theological philosophy and not political. Conservatives do not have to be religious at all, much less fundamentalist; I’m a staunch conservative and an atheist at the same time.

So, George Bush fails to understand the conservative political philosophy which he purports to support. He believes that conservative values are built around heterosexual marriage, supporting religion, and maintaining a strong foreign presence. In reality conservatives, like liberals, are not of one voice on the issue of homosexual marriage, religion is best left to the individual, and America should only become embroiled in foreign conflict when it is absolutely unavoidable.

Due to his failure to understand and properly represent the philosophical beliefs of the conservatives in this country Bush II has alienated his true base in favor of imposters who have convinced the media and the Republican Party that they are the voice of American conservatives. Those imposters are the Religious Right. Bush is a theologian before he is a conservative (in a political sense) and because of that philosophical choice on his part, true conservatives like me could not possibly vote for him. True political conservatives have no more desire to be held down by the dogma of a theocracy than we have to be held down by an overly intrusive socialist government. With Bush II we get both, a theocracy and socialism. What Bush has done is to create a nightmare for political conservatives and a heyday for religious zealots and big government Republicans.

So, will bush win in November? I can assure you that if he does, it will not be because conservatives supported him. We conservatives have been relegated to voting for Independents, Libertarians or Reform Party members this time around. If Bush wins in 2004 it will be because of conservative Democrats who c**** over because they like the social programs, and religious conservatives who don't care about anything except maintaining their stranglehold on American social interaction.



2004 The Associated Press.

 

[Shotgun]

Wilheim, I've read this article a few times and still don't know what point this guy was trying to make. He certainly tells us what a isn't 'true conservative'; shouldn't he at some point tell us what a true conservative really is? Dismissing the religious right and the neo-cons as imposters demands at least one explaination of political philosophy.

 

[jimbutorac]

Shot,

You gotta point. However, I think what article should be pointing out better is discrepancies between traditional conservatives and current Bush policies.

For instance, traditional conservatives say reduce size of govt and keep budget deficit down. Bush admin policy is to make largest discretionary budget increase in 20 years and turn budget surplus into largest deficit ever.

Conservatives traditionally favor less social engineering by govt., Bush admin believes in finding $1 billion to promote institution of marriage. Even has his wife announce largest ever increase in National Endowment for the Arts.

Conservatives generally decry nation-building as Bush so blatantly made clear in 2000 campaign (claiming we were over-extended), yet makes it a policy to spend lives, stretch military thin and rebuild iraq.

And now he even proposes a few trillion more to go to Mars.

If he was a democrat, you all would be howling that he is the most fiscally irresponsible, free spending politician ever.

 

[Oceans11]

I don't really understand the article either.

If those people he refers to are a majority, GWB will win...ok we know this.

IMO the opposition does not win elections, the Government loses elections.

 

[wilheim]

More re. conservatives against GWB.

Bruce S. Ticker, Salon.com.



Now even his own compatriots are telling George W. Bush that he has screwed up.

Archconservatives warn that the deficit could ruin us, Republicans in state legislatures are rebelling against his education policy and the CIA is warning of a possible civil war in Iraq where our so-called allies have been making threats of future trouble.

On these three crucial issues, many of us have been warning of these prospects during the last three years: When you keep cutting taxes so sharply for the rich and hiking expenses for a war and your pet faith-based ideas, we’re going to have an impossible deficit. Standardized school tests are only one indication of student progress and too much of it detracts from quality-teaching time. And a civil war in Iraq should be no surprise considering the conflicting forces at work there.

Only now it is Bush’s fellow Republicans and administration people who are telling him this. Whether intended or not, they are doing him a favor. If he does something about it now instead of next October, maybe he will not be vulnerable on these issues on Nov. 2 (the date of the general election).

On Thursday, The New York Times front-paged a story headlined, “Conservative Republicans Push For Slowdown in U.S. Spending.” In the most recent development, 40 GOP House members met to discuss pressing Bush and Congress to deal with spending increases and a deficit expected to reach a half-trillion dollars this fiscal year. Beforehand, archconservative groups like the Heritage Foundation and the Club for Growth sounded such warnings.

Brian M. Riedl, a budget analyst for the Heritage Foundation, told the Times: “The president used the State of the Union to defend past spending increases, and he made eight specific calls for new spending increases. But he made zero calls for spending cuts. He merely said focus on priorities, cut wasteful spending and be wise with people’s money. That’s not specific enough.”

On C-Span’s call-in television show, Riedl said the deficit could lead to massive tax increases and called for cuts in pork projects and corporate farm welfare (which he added only harms small farms).

Translated: Bush has screwed up on the deficit

On Friday, the Republican-controlled Virginia House of Delegates passed a resolution 98-1 (the lone dissenter was a Democrat) urging Congress to exempt Virginia and states like it from the requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act, The Washington Post reported.

The law “represents the most sweeping intrusions into state and local control of education in the history of the United States,” the resolution says, and will cost “literally millions of dollars that Virginia does not have.”

These are not only Republicans talking, but southern Republicans. The resolution follows months of griping from local and state educators that the federal law conflicts with Virginia’s Standards of Learning testing program.

The resolution is also considered the strongest action yet by a legislative body in protest of the law, which is not backed by enough money to administer it. Other GOP-controlled state legislatures which have challenged the law in some form include Ohio, North Dakota and Utah.

Translated, again: Bush screwed up on education.

Last Thursday, The Philadelphia Inquirer ran a front-page story reporting that CIA officials are warning of a possible civil war in Iraq. What a shock. They finally figured that out.

While guerillas presumably loyal to Saddam Hussein continue to kill American troops and Iraqis, a Shiite Muslim leader in the south known as Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani has insisted on direct elections instead of caucuses to choose delegates. He won’t talk directly to the Americans.

There are fears that al-Sistani’s position can lead to a revolt against American troops. Observers also suspect that al-Sistani is using the practice of democracy to seize control of Iraq and then eliminate democracy. After all, Shiites account for 60 percent of the population, so they would be in the majority in any election.

In northern Iraq, Kurds want Iraqi Arabs – numbered at 270,000 – kicked out of Kirkuk and vicinity and an explicit commitment for expanded autonomy in order to go along with a central government in Baghdad, according to The Washington Post. That notion is rejected by Shiites religious leaders, Sunni Muslim leaders and Turkmens in the Kirkuk area.

In other words, Bush could well be screwing up.

How many more screw-ups can we afford?

 

[chonce]

Bush just spends too much.

Now most of his conservative followers are willing to concede the military increases, but now he is spending on the arts, marriage et al.


He is not adhering to the cut taxes AND spending philosophy that the republican party is ideally about.

For the most part, conservatives are seemingly indifferent, or at least tolerant of his excessive spending, but some senate/house members are starting to grumble.


My problem with Bush is that he is not very bright, lies to the public, suppresses freedom, and goes to war on false grounds, when the threat was not nearly as immenent as he suggested.

In other words, he is the worst that the republican party has to offer.

Vote Liberterian!

 

[wilheim]

February 12, 2004

‘Everything on table’
GOP plans cuts, reforms, to tackle budgetary woes
By Alexander Bolton and Sam Dealey


House Republicans hope to enact a host of measures aimed at curbing what both centrist and conservative lawmakers decry as runaway federal spending.

Emerging from a rare members-only “mandatory” two-and-a-half-hour conference called yesterday to deal with mounting budget concerns, Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) told reporters: “Nothing is sacred in this business. Everything is on the table.”

Although Hastert didn’t say so, several initiatives under consideration would curb the power of the Republican leadership as well as House appropriators and authorizers.

These initiatives are being pushed most vigorously by a group of young conservative firebrands, many of whom have come to Congress since the so-called Republican revolution of 1995. These ardent conservatives want to reinfuse their senior colleagues with the spirit of that revolution, once led largely by former Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.).

patrick g. ryan
Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Their actions are in large part a response to constituent complaints about the spiraling budget deficit, as well as growing anger among the conservative base over federal spending, which has reached record levels. It also reflected election-year concerns and signs that the voters are beginning to regard the Democrats as the party of fiscal responsibility, reversing a traditional GOP edge.

However, a broad c****-section of the House Republican caucus, conservatives and centrists alike, agree that something needs to be done to cut the deficit, estimated at $521 billion for this year.

House leaders hope to present a budget resolution by March 15 that reflects the consensus. They would like to see a final version enacted by both chambers by April 15.

Some of the most severe cost-cutting proposals discussed include a moratorium on congressional earmarks for this year, a one percent cut in non-defense, non-homeland security discretionary spending, a 1 percent cut in the growth of mandatory spending, and some 20 initiatives to reform the budget process. Another proposed initiative would require that transportation earmarks be paid for out of the transportation funding that states automatically receive each year according to a preset formula.

Many of the proposed budget reform initiatives are included in a 12-point statement of budget principles forged by members of the conservative Republican Study Committee (RSC) and the moderate Tuesday Group.

Bush’s budget, unveiled last week, also seeks to restrain domestic discretionary spending, permitting growth of a half-percent next year. Such programs, however, only account for 16 percent of the overall budget and do not touch homeland security, Social Security and defense, for which spending will increase.

The conference saw dozens of lawmakers rising to speak about the importance of reducing spending. Attendees say the meeting showed a GOP more united than it has been since 1995 on trimming federal outlays.

“This was not a gripe session like Philadelphia pretty much was,” said another lawmaker, referring to the House Republican retreat last month.

Only a handful of Republicans defended specific programs, but usually in a political context, questioning whether such a cut could be made in an election year.

The unusual alliance of conservative and moderate Republicans, whose relationship since the House takeover in 1995 has been soured by funding differences,
underscores the anxiety many House Republicans have over the sharp rise in federal outlays.

“Usually the leadership is in the middle trying to separate the RSC and the Tuesday Group to get to 218 votes,” said a conservative who attended the meeting. “It’s really pretty remarkable. People were actually telling jokes about Mike Castle being an honorary member of the RSC.” Rep. Mike Castle (R-Del.) is one of the original founders of the moderate Tuesday Group.

“There are suggestions of putting everything on the table,” said Rep. Sue Myrick (R-N.C.), chairman of the RSC, a bloc of more than 90 conservatives in the House.

Myrick said she would like to look even at trimming unnecessary homeland security and defense spending, reflecting a growing consensus among Republicans that no sacred cows will be spared the scalpel. Since Sept. 11, 2001, most lawmakers have been loath to criticize security and defense spending.

As for proposals to crack down on earmarks, Rep. Jim Ryun (R-Kan.), another conservative, said, “There are a lot of types of things being discussed.”

But a GOP leadership aide cautioned that many proposals — such as a moratorium on earmarks — might not garner the 218 votes needed to become law.

Rep. Bob Beauprez, a conservative Republican from Colorado, said that it would be foolhardy for the House to give up earmarks for a year if the Senate remained unreformed.

The most concrete cost-cutting proposals have emerged in the form of a budget reform package being pushing by House conservatives that would tie the hands of GOP leaders and the president in handling spending bills and big-ticket legislation as they move through Congress.

The package, containing close to a dozen reform initiatives, would also rein in House appropriators who are viewed suspiciously by many conservatives as a third party, independent from Republicans and Democrats.

“Look, the process right now is too wide open and to free ranging,” said Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), who is spearheading the effort for the RSC. “This will tie the hands of all [lawmakers] and the leadership. It does tie their hands to some degree, but leadership understands that.”

Ryan and Reps. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) and Chris Chocola (R-Ind.) put the package together on behalf of House Republican conservatives.

Ryan said the GOP leadership has been receptive toward the proposals and has promised to give them floor consideration, even though the reforms would make it tougher for leaders to shepherd controversial legislation through the House.

Most important, the initiative would give the budget resolution the force of law. This would significantly constrain the ability of GOP leaders to circumvent the budget, which is viewed by lawmakers more as a roadmap than an ironclad constraint on spending.

However, Rep. Ralph Regula (R-Ohio), chairman of the Labor Health and Human Services Subcommittee of Appropriations, disputed criticisms that the budget process is broken. He said he would be open to some reforms but was wary of giving the budget resolution the force of law because it would strip congressional appropriators and authorizers of power.

The package also calls for a two-thirds supermajority vote in both the House and the Senate to pass spending provisions that exceed the budget. In recent years, Republican leaders have routinely waived those budgetary limits to smooth the passage of the their agenda.

For example, the $534 billion Medicare bill that Congress passed last year would have died in the House for having exceeded budgetary limits had GOP leaders not waived those limits with a floor rule.

In addition, the package calls for the growth of discretionary and entitlement
spending to be capped at the rate of inflation.

Conservatives also want to abolish the practice of designating spending as “emergencies,” a tactic that allows congressional leaders to circumvent fiscal constraints because such items do not count against the discretionary spending ceiling.

Another proposal would give the president the power to target and eliminate wasteful spending in appropriations bills. Presidential proposals to eliminate such spending would be given expedited consideration from Congress.

“I happen to agree with a lot in there,” said Castle of the conservative budget reform package. “I feel very strongly that you need some of these processes in place.”

Said one conservative lawmaker: “In the past, their big goal was to pass a budget. What that budget looked like, they didn’t necessarily care, as long as they got one.”

The resolve to force budget cuts also reflects concerns about Bush’s re-election.

“There’s no longer talk about the president having coattails,” said a conservative lawmaker. “This is Congress worrying about whether the president is going to get reelected, not the president worrying about Congress getting reelected.”

“The Budget Committee is probably the most unneeded committee in Congress,” said a conservative chief of staff. “Because whatever they pass, we blow through it. They’re probably the most irrelevant committee, but they should be the most important.”








--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2003 The Hill
733 Fifteenth Street, NW Suite 1140
Washington, DC 20005

 

[PatPatriot]

wil, gotta agree, my biggest bitch is the runaway spending...and I've said all along you can throw a blanket over both partys when it comes to spending...if Bush loses it won't be because of the libs it will because of the conservatives.