Criticism from conservatives signals troubles for Bush’s agenda BY DICK POLMAN, Knight Ridder Newspapers

The pro-war conservatives, however, denounce the dissenters as out to lunch and on the fringes of power; by contrast, conservative hawks crafted Bush’s war policy and dominate much of the conservative opinion empire – the National Review and Weekly Standard magazines, the Rush Limbaugh radio show, the top Washington think tanks. …

Some pro-war conservatives who admire the president are nevertheless worried about his political standing. Peter Robinson, a speechwriter in the Reagan White House, says Bush “will have a real problem holding everyone together, because, believe me, all those conservative congressmen are increasingly going to hear about the heightened level of anxiety when they show up in their districts.” …

And other conservatives are openly deriding Bush’s aspirations for global democratization; commentator Peggy Noonan, the Reagan special assistant, writes that Bush may be suffering “mission inebriation,” and that he risks exposing himself abroad to accusations of “conceit, immaturity or impetuousness.” …

Marshall Wittmann, former lobbyist for the Christian Coalition and a close observer of conservative politics, says: “This debate had been suppressed within the ranks, because of support for a Republican president. Now, with no weapons of mass destruction found, and with the war more difficult than anticipated, all the tensions are coming to the fore.”

But even pro-war conservatives are faulting Bush for a failure to communicate; amid the grim war news, they say, it’s not enough for him to simply keep insisting that “we’re making progress” and that “freedom is on the march.” …

But Christopher Preble, a Navy veteran of the 1991 Gulf War who directs foreign policy at the conservative Cato Institute, cites the ongoing downside – an average of two slain soldiers a day, and $2 billion a week – and offers this warning to the president:

“Conservatives were sold on the assumption that it wouldn’t be long and costly. Now we’re paying for it in taxpayer dollars and paying with our lives. … He can talk about doing other things – (curbing) abortion, reforming Social Security – but the war is where the rubber meets the road. If he truly feels he has a mandate for this, he’s in for a rude awakening.”

I would say the Conservatives kept quiet last year because they wanted Duhbya re-elected more than anything and at any cost. Now that they have what they want, they can try to reclaim their party — good luck.

BTW, if you read this article in the Albuquerque Journal, you have no way of knowing that it was cut by more than 50%, with almost all of the evidence of conservatives against Bush conveniently dropped. Gotta make room for those ads, you know. mjh

The Nation | Blog | The Daily Outrage | The Faith-Based Fraud | Ari Berman

In 2003–according to White House data reported by the Los Angeles Times–Bush doled out $1 billion to hundreds of faith-based groups through a little-noted executive order. More importantly, the Bush Administration used the grants to sway influential African-Americans in key battleground states and reward longtime political supporters at taxpayer expense.

For example, after the Rev. Herb Lusk II delivered the invocation at the 2000 Republican convention, his Philadelphia church received $1 million in federal funds. Bishop Harold Ray, who offered the invocation at a rally for Dick Cheney in Palm Beach, Florida, got $1.7 million for his South Florida ministry. In 2002 Bush personally visited Milwaukee’s Bishop Sedgwick Daniels–who voted for Clinton and Gore–and later awarded him a $1.5 million grant. This fall, Daniels’s face appeared on Republican Party fliers in Wisconsin, endorsing Bush as a man who “shares our views.”

The faith-based initiatives likely played a crucial role in increasing Bush’s take of the black vote, especially in targeted swing states. Funnily enough, the campaign held grant-writing workshops in St. Louis in September (when Missouri was still in play) and Miami in October.

Social Security Panel Tells Truth [Free Republic] By Stephen Moore

Social Security is the last vestige of the New Deal era of creeping socialism that the left wants to preserve and expand upon rather than modernize.

I have always believed that Social Security is the soft underbelly of the welfare state. If Social Security can be made private, the rest of the architecture of the income redistributionist ideology of the left will soon come crumbling down behind it. …

If workers start demanding that the chains of Social Security be unshackled, soon they might demand financial independence in so many other areas of their lives.

FactCheck.org Does Social Security Really Face an $11 Trillion Deficit?

Bush and Cheney say yes. But actuaries say the figure is “likely to mislead” the public on the system’s true financial state.

Summary

President Bush and Vice President Cheney have told audiences that Social Security faces an $11 trillion shortfall if nothing is done to fix the current system. But they fail to mention that this is over the course of the “infinite future.” Over the next 75 years — still practically a lifetime — the shortfall is projected to be $3.7 trillion.

The “infinite” projection is one that the American Academy of Actuaries says is likely to mislead the public into thinking the system “is in far worse financial condition than is actually indicated,” and therefore should not be used to explain the long-term outlook.

[follow link above for analysis]

The End of the Rights of Association and Assembly:

Christian Taylor, Free Republic: “ANSWER and some of the other protest groups like Code Pink have allied themselves with the terrorists and with Saddam Hussein. So for them to get permitted demonstration spots along the parade route is akin to giving Sadam Hussein and the terrorists their own cheerleading section.”

ANSWER Los Angeles. Act Now to Stop War and End Racism

Newspaper shouldn’t print Liberal voices

[T]he glorious Constitution is there to protect the rights of Christians to profess their faith. This country was founded by good Christians and the Constitution guarantees our right to express our religion.

It just is completely beyond me how we have allowed Liberals to deny us this guaranteed right.

Oh, they raise ridiculous arguments like other (false) religions would be “upset” if they were forced to pray alongside the righteous in schools or council meetings.

Surely those others would appreciate the opportunity to be saved. As God’s chosen people, we Christians have the right to express our religion and praise tolerant, patient and merciful God, and I don’t want to read any more letters from Liberals suggesting non-believers should be allowed to express their superstitions just because we Christians can express ours.

The Founding Fathers were God-fearing men and never intended the first Amendment to promote other superstitious beliefs.