Seems like some conservative groups breaking with the Republican leadership - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

dami³ · 01-16-2004, 08:35 AM

Conservative groups break with Republican leadership
By Ralph Z. Hallow
The Washington Times

Quote:

National leaders of six conservative organizations yesterday broke with the Republican majorities in the House and Senate, accusing them of spending like "drunken sailors," and had some strong words for President Bush as well.
"The Republican Congress is spending at twice the rate as under Bill Clinton, and President Bush has yet to issue a single veto," Paul M. Weyrich, national chairman of Coalitions for America, said at a news briefing with the other five leaders. "I complained about profligate spending during the Clinton years but never thought I'd have to do so with a Republican in the White House and Republicans controlling the Congress."
Warning of adverse consequences in the November elections, the leaders said the Senate must reject the latest House-passed omnibus spending bill or Mr. Bush should veto the measure.
"The whole purpose of having a Republican president is to lead the Republican Congress," said Paul Beckner, president of Citizens for a Sound Economy, whose co-chairman is former House Majority Leader Dick Armey of Texas. "The Constitution gives the president the power to veto legislation, and if Congress won't act in a fiscally responsible way, the president has to step in — but he hasn't done that."
"If the president doesn't take a stand on this, there's a real chance the Republicans' voter base will not be enthusiastic about turning out in November, no matter who the Democrats nominate," Mr. Beckner said.

You think Bush is in trouble? Don't actually know how big these 6 conservative organizations are and how much of an electoral following they have, but it does seem to pose a mayor problem for the Bush campaign. Sign of the times?

Ustwo · 01-16-2004, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by dami³
You think Bush is in trouble? Don't actually know how big these 6 conservative organizations are and how much of an electoral following they have, but it does seem to pose a mayor problem for the Bush campaign. Sign of the times?

This is where I break ranks with Bush as well. Its fine and good to try to expanded your voter base, but doing so using the democrat method of buying votes over principles violates one of the very reasons I vote republican in the first place.

I'll still vote for Bush in 2004 because I think national security is more important, but his taking away democrat issues by acting like a democrat won't make me really happy about it.

dami³ · 01-16-2004, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ustwo
This is where I break ranks with Bush as well. Its fine and good to try to expanded your voter base, but doing so using the democrat method of buying votes over principles violates one of the very reasons I vote republican in the first place.

Problem for these conservative groups is that they haven't got an alternative to Bush - not with another party that they can support and no choice within the Republican party, since their is no alternative Republican presidential candidate - so Bush can pretty much do as he pleases.

Superbelt · 01-16-2004, 09:31 AM

You could stick to your guns and vote libertarian this cycle Ustwo.
Or Constitution party.

Ustwo · 01-16-2004, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superbelt
You could stick to your guns and vote libertarian this cycle Ustwo.
Or Constitution party.

About the only way I'd do this is if Liberman got the nomination since I wouldn't fear him in the national security department. I feel we can not AFFORD to let a democrat take office right now, so while I"d like to make a statement and vote libertarian (and while I like them, I don't like their stance on national security) its overcome by the need for a strong leader for national security.

Plus I'm not sure if Bush will continue his spending spree, I think he tried it hoping for his 'new tone' and since the very people he empowered to spend like Ted Kennedy are still being assholes he may well back off.

Also he DID promise things like a drug plan, and I think so far he has kept ALL of his campaign promises, or as close as any presidential candidate in my memory.

Sparhawk · 01-16-2004, 11:19 AM

With the latest moon proposal, it certainly seems like there's no end in site to Bush's liberal spending.

But don't worry, America - we'll get a Democrat back into the oval office to clean up the Republicans' fiscal irresponsibility, just like we did last time.

Lebell · 01-16-2004, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sparhawk
With the latest moon proposal, it certainly seems like there's no end in site to Bush's liberal spending.

But don't worry, America - we'll get a Democrat back into the oval office to clean up the Republicans' fiscal irresponsibility, just like we did last time.

As I recall, the last man who sent us to the moon was a Democrat

Anyway, I have to agree that Bush has dissappointed me with his spending ways and that is one thing I miss from the Clinton years: A balanced budget.

Unfortunately, I don't see a Dem I would vote for this time around.

Superbelt · 01-16-2004, 11:33 AM

Dean, as governor got fairly high marks from the Cato Institute for his fiscal responsibility. He got B's through his term, except for his last one. Where, admittedly, in his last term he got a C. But I think he has a decently proven track record of fiscal responsibility. The state had a surplus throughout his terms, and the C I think is a result of him pushing healthcare for uninsured kids in his state.
And it is no liability that he comes from a small state, (which some think are easier to balance). Clinton came from a small state too and he did a damn good job.

Sparhawk · 01-16-2004, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lebell
As I recall, the last man who sent us to the moon was a Democrat

Good point.

Quote:

Originally posted by Lebell
Anyway, I have to agree that Bush has dissappointed me with his spending ways and that is one thing I miss from the Clinton years: A balanced budget.

Unfortunately, I don't see a Dem I would vote for this time around.

I have a question for both Ustwo and Lebell: Have you considered Clark? As to Ustwo's national security concerns, Clark is a bonified war hero and a 30+ year veteran, not to mention Supreme Allied Commander. As for social issues, he was a Republican until he entered the race

, and he has some good ideas regarding the economy (steering it towards balanced budgets a la Clinton).

Lebell · 01-16-2004, 11:52 AM

Sparhawk,

I did consider Clark, but two things that make me lean against him are his stance on gun control, "if you want a gun, join the army" and an article I read the other day which caught him in an out in out lie where he currently says he never supported the Iraq war, yet he is on record before congress in 2002 supporting Bush in Iraq.

So my impression is that he is willing to say whatever to get elected.

Not that it makes him any different from most politicians, but the smart ones don't make it so obvious.

Ustwo · 01-16-2004, 12:11 PM

The more I learn about Clark the less there is to like about him.

The other generals hated him, he was relieved of duty, and he is obviously lying on his Iraq stance.

The ONLY reason democrats 'like' him is they hope the 'ex-general' effect can defeat Bush. Its pure desperation and wishfull thinking.

01-16-2004, 11:19 AM	#6 (permalink)
Sparhawk Dubya Location: VA	With the latest moon proposal, it certainly seems like there's no end in site to Bush's liberal spending. But don't worry, America - we'll get a Democrat back into the oval office to clean up the Republicans' fiscal irresponsibility, just like we did last time. __________________ "In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."

01-16-2004, 11:52 AM	#10 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	Sparhawk, I did consider Clark, but two things that make me lean against him are his stance on gun control, "if you want a gun, join the army" and an article I read the other day which caught him in an out in out lie where he currently says he never supported the Iraq war, yet he is on record before congress in 2002 supporting Bush in Iraq. So my impression is that he is willing to say whatever to get elected. Not that it makes him any different from most politicians, but the smart ones don't make it so obvious. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

01-16-2004, 12:11 PM	#11 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	The more I learn about Clark the less there is to like about him. The other generals hated him, he was relieved of duty, and he is obviously lying on his Iraq stance. The ONLY reason democrats 'like' him is they hope the 'ex-general' effect can defeat Bush. Its pure desperation and wishfull thinking. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

01-16-2004, 09:31 AM	#4 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	You could stick to your guns and vote libertarian this cycle Ustwo. Or Constitution party.

01-16-2004, 11:33 AM	#8 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Dean, as governor got fairly high marks from the Cato Institute for his fiscal responsibility. He got B's through his term, except for his last one. Where, admittedly, in his last term he got a C. But I think he has a decently proven track record of fiscal responsibility. The state had a surplus throughout his terms, and the C I think is a result of him pushing healthcare for uninsured kids in his state. And it is no liability that he comes from a small state, (which some think are easier to balance). Clinton came from a small state too and he did a damn good job.