# Has Bush alienated too many conservatives? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 2, 2004, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-bush-alienated-too-many-conservatives/227195 "2004-02-02T15:50:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2004, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-bush-alienated-too-many-conservatives/227195/1 "2004-02-02T15:50:44Z")
It seems to me Bush might have a tough time in November no matter who the Dems put up against him, because in his term in office he has done too much to alienate too many of his own core constituencies. Consider: Some conservatives are nativists. They won’t vote for Bush because of his “guest-worker” program, granting amnesty to illegal aliens. Some conservatives are isolationists. They won’t vote for Bush because of the Iraq war. Some conservatives are Libertarians or libertarian-leaning. They won’t vote for Bush because of the Patriot Act and the Department of Homeland Security. Some conservatives are fiscal conservatives. They won’t vote for Bush because he slashed taxes, upped civilian and military spending, and gave us the most massive structural deficits since the Reagan administration. Seems to me all Bush can really count on will be the big-business conservatives, the warhawk conservatives, and the social-religious conservatives – and some of the latter are isolationists and nativists (viz. Pat Buchanan and his America First Party). What do you think? Will some of the above groups vote for Bush anyway because the Dem is even less palatable to them? If not, can Bush win without their votes? ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2004, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-bush-alienated-too-many-conservatives/227195/2 "2004-02-02T16:23:11Z")
Most of the conservative republicans I know are going to vote for Bush reguardless because of strict party. My dad and wife included. A lot of my unaligned friends (and myself) are voting Democrat if they run a moderate, or third party if not. My reasons are pretty much what you listed…mostly: > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Some conservatives are fiscal conservatives. They won’t vote for Bush because he slashed taxes, upped civilian and military spending, and gave us the most massive structural deficits since the Reagan administration. So, IMO its not really the conservative republicans that will leave Bush in droves, reguardless of what he does. They will either not vote at all or toe the party line. Its the moderate unaligned thats the key…and ya, I think he’s alienated them. Now, just have to see who the Democrats run and how HE fairs with the middle. -XT ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2004, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-bush-alienated-too-many-conservatives/227195/3 "2004-02-02T16:24:37Z")
**BG** : I think it depends a lot on the 3rd party candidates. In the thread I started about Bush’s new immigration plan, I asked the rhetorical question: “Does Bush **want** Pat Buchanan to run again?” So far, that doesn’t look like it will happen, though. Bush can aford, politically, to cozy up to the illegal alien issue for the same reason that the Dems can distance themselves from the gay marriage issue-- the people they may piss off still won’t vote for the other party. I think he is most vulnerable on the deficit issue, especially since the Democrats will point to the record under Clinton. And you can see that he’s already trying to deal with this. Although, his statement to “cut the deficit in half over the next 5 years” is pretty pathetic. As for the war issue, I think he’s more likely to gain a the hawkish Democrat vote (like [Ed Koch](http://www.forward.com/issues/2004/04.01.09/oped1.html)) than to lose the isolationist Republicans. ---
**Author:** ![Rashak\_Mani](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ea666f/32.png) [@Rashak\_Mani](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rashak_Mani)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2004, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-bush-alienated-too-many-conservatives/227195/4 "2004-02-02T16:28:12Z")
Which of the factors mentioned do you think will drive away more conservatives ? Deficit ? War ? Civil Liberties issues ? Big Business clientelism ? I guess only one issue won’t change the mind of a conservative… but 2 or more might. Especially if the democrats don’t put someone too liberal. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2004, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-bush-alienated-too-many-conservatives/227195/5 "2004-02-02T18:25:00Z")
Geroge Will offers this analysis in his OP ED piece, [GOP Embraces Strong Government: But New View Is Not A Surrender To Liberals](http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/7854643.htm). I normally like Will, but this seems like a pretty tortured analysis. I’m offering it not because I subscribe to the view presented, but because his opinions carry considerable weight in conservative circles. ---
**Author:** ![mack](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b19c9b/32.png) [@mack](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mack)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2004, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-bush-alienated-too-many-conservatives/227195/6 "2004-02-02T18:51:52Z")
I think at worst conservatives will hold their noses and vote for Bush. He may have pissed off some people, but he’s the one in the race with an R next to his name and conservatives would rather have a fixer-upper R guy in the White House than a democrat of any stripe. They’re not pissed off enough to give up the White House. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2004, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-bush-alienated-too-many-conservatives/227195/7 "2004-02-02T19:17:58Z")
> [@Rashak Mani](#): > > Which of the factors mentioned do you think will drive away more conservatives ? > > Deficit ? War ? Civil Liberties issues ? Big Business clientelism ? > > I guess only one issue won’t change the mind of a conservative… but 2 or more might. Especially if the democrats don’t put someone too liberal. Deficit. I don’t think the other issues have any traction. It also depends on how successful Rove is in painting the Dem candidate as a liberal. Whether Kerry is “liberal” or not, it won’t be too hard to make him appear so. Voted against Gulf War I; Dismal voting record on defense during the Cold War period; Massachusetts–Dukakis–Kennedy. 19 Years in Congress leaves a “target rich environment” for a smear campaign. That’s one big reason that Senators rarely get elected as President (unless they go thru the VP slot first). Too bad the Pubs are fielding a stronger candidate… ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2004, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-bush-alienated-too-many-conservatives/227195/8 "2004-02-02T19:19:56Z")
Oops. Major FUBAR. That last sentence should have been: Too bad the Pubs **aren’t** fielding a stronger candidate… ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2004, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-bush-alienated-too-many-conservatives/227195/9 "2004-02-02T19:53:43Z")
> [@mack](#): > > I think at worst conservatives will hold their noses and vote for Bush. He may have pissed off some people, but he’s the one in the race with an R next to his name and conservatives would rather have a fixer-upper R guy in the White House than a democrat of any stripe. Ditto to that. I’m sure Karl Rove and the other big brains in the Bush Administration are sitting there going, “Ha! Whine all you want, you’re going to take what we dish out and _like_ it! You’re too spineless to vote against us, so we don’t care!” …and then, of course, they turn around and accuse _liberals_ of voting in a monolithic bloc… :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2004, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-bush-alienated-too-many-conservatives/227195/10 "2004-02-02T20:36:22Z")
Well, it may well come down not to are they switching sides but are they staying home come election day. That’s what makes political strategists stay up late…have they done something that will depress their turnout while not depressing the oppositions. Interesting balance. Even in my more conservative issues I couldn’t vote for GWB simply because I’m a deficit hawk of the deadly variety. Others might lean that way on other issues. ---
**Author:** ![Renob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8c91f0/32.png) [@Renob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Renob)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2004, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-bush-alienated-too-many-conservatives/227195/11 "2004-02-02T21:26:42Z")
Bush lost me a long time ago because of his failure to curb the high spending in D.C. I plan on voting Libertarian, no matter who the candidate is. Sure, the people in the party are, by and large, insane and it’s not likely the candidate will get even 1% of the vote, but I feel the need to send a small message to the other parties that there are a few people out there who really do want smaller government. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2004, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-bush-alienated-too-many-conservatives/227195/12 "2004-02-02T21:44:37Z")
There’s another key issue that hasn’t been touched on here and that is likely to be used by the Pubs to mobilize the conservative base: Judicial Activism. We got a taste of that in the SotUA. The MA court decision will kick in sometime this spring (I forget the exact date for the 6 month deadline). It’s hard to think of an issue that will stir up hard core conservatives more than “Judicial activitists are forcing gay marriage down our throats”. And it’s almost certain that a SCotUS appointment or two will occur in the next 5 years. Sure, this won’t have much traction with the libertarian wing of the Republican party, but it should take care of **JC’s** voter apathy issue. Throw into the mix that this is all happening in Kerry’s backyard, and the possibilities are endless. I know Kerry is on record as not favoring gay marriage, but voters will not be fooled about which party is the font of the judicial activitism leading to this end. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2004, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-bush-alienated-too-many-conservatives/227195/13 "2004-02-03T00:45:03Z")
> [@Jonathan Chance](#): > > Well, it may well come down not to are they switching sides but are they staying home come election day. Nah, even if there was a chance that some dissatisfied conservatives will simply not vote for anyone on election day, the GOP can simply spook the herd into the voting booths by waving the spectre of “four years of an _evil liberal President!_” at them. Dissatisfied conservatives might feel like they’re being taken for granted and mutter about not playing along, but as long as they dance to Karl Rove’s song, it’s nothing but talk. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2004, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-bush-alienated-too-many-conservatives/227195/14 "2004-02-03T14:58:27Z")
I’m a moderate - more liberal on social issues, and conservative on spending. I’m not a republican, but by the standards of the SDMB I’m conservative. > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Some conservatives are nativists. They won’t vote for Bush because of his “guest-worker” program, granting amnesty to illegal aliens. This angered me, and I think many more conservatives. More than everything else you mention, this will hurt Bush, IMO. These conservatives won’t be voting for a Democrat, but just might stay home during the election. The most important thing in elections is appealing to the middle, but almost as important is motivating your core voters to show up at the polls. This decision hurts Bush in both, IMO. > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Some conservatives are isolationists. They won’t vote for Bush because of the Iraq war. I don’t think this is a big issue. I just can’t see that many conservatives not voting for Bush because of the war. I am pro-war in Iraq, but it’s not just that. Even anti-war folks have to realize that it’s water under the bridge at this point. Even the most “anti-war” candidate, Howard Dean, plans on keeping troops in Iraq pretty much indefinately. It’s not as if there will be a candidate who voters can choose that will result in troops coming home. Plus, conservatives tend to be pro-war anyway. > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Some conservatives are Libertarians or libertarian-leaning. They won’t vote for Bush because of the Patriot Act and the Department of Homeland Security. I would think libertarian or leaning libs would have more of a problem with spending. I consider myself very libertarian leaning. I voted for more libertarians during the last election than I did republicans. I have no problem wiht the patriot act or the new department. I have been able to see past the hype. I think most folks who are buying into the commonly held beliefs that the patriot act means that the government no longer needs warrants, can spy on everyone, etc are liberals who wouldn’t vote for Bush anyways. No conservative voters lost here, IMO. > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Some conservatives are fiscal conservatives. They won’t vote for Bush because he slashed taxes, upped civilian and military spending, and gave us the most massive structural deficits since the Reagan administration. I’m fiscally conservative. I have noticed that many are accusing Bush of being a big spender. It seems to be a tactic that the left is using to attack Bush and damage his base. However, the new budget has come out and he is cutting spending in many areas: [Fox news (article is actually critical of some numbers for the budget)](http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,110244,00.html) > [@](#): > > Bush calls for limiting the non-defense, non-entitlement spending to 0.5 percent growth for the year, cutting the budgets of seven out of 15 Cabinet-level agencies, eliminating 65 programs and reducing the size of 63 others. He’s raising funding for defense and homeland security, but conservative base voters won’t have a problem with that. Conservative voters (myself included) will have a big problem with the huge new prescription drug bennefit. But, the votes gained by this will outweigh them. I’m sure the administration did it’s homework on that math. So, Bush has done some things to alienate his core voters. However, he does seem aware that he must do things to appeal to the middle. And to do this, occasionally he will anger his core voters. However, the election is still a way off, and he has time to appeal back to the voters angered by the prescription drug plan and more importantly, the illegal alien amnesty. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2004, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-bush-alienated-too-many-conservatives/227195/15 "2004-02-03T15:27:08Z")
I have no doubt that each of BrainGlutton’s points will cost Bush _some_ votes. The question is:are these losses significant? > [@](#): > > Some conservatives are nativists. They won’t vote for Bush because of his “guest-worker” program, granting amnesty to illegal aliens. Not a huge loss- the nativist element isn’t that large, plus their darling Pat Buchanan won’t be siphoning off their votes this year. Will Buchanan’s crowd vote for Kerry? Not on your life. > [@](#): > > Some conservatives are isolationists. They won’t vote for Bush because of the Iraq war. Might cost some votes, again Pat Buchanan probably stole a lot of these votes away in 2000 anyway. Moreover, Bush’s flippant and arrogant attitude toward the UN probably scored points with this group. Could be a wash. > [@](#): > > Some conservatives are Libertarians or libertarian-leaning. They won’t vote for Bush because of the Patriot Act and the Department of Homeland Security. This will have a modest effect at best. I think a lot of conservatives see these as being essential to national security and not a threat to individual liberties. I don’t see this as being enough to cause them to jump to Kerry. > [@](#): > > Some conservatives are fiscal conservatives. They won’t vote for Bush because he slashed taxes, upped civilian and military spending, and gave us the most massive structural deficits since the Reagan administration. Major point. We had record surpluses in the Clinton years become record deficits in the Bush years. This is going to cost Bush big time. All things considered, I see only the deficit as being something that could cause signicant numbers of conservatives to jump to the Kerry camp. I just don’t see any neocons bailing on Bush, they certainly aren’t going to embrace Kerry and they aren’t the type to sit out an election. ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2004, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-bush-alienated-too-many-conservatives/227195/16 "2004-02-04T00:06:02Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > There’s another key issue that hasn’t been touched on here and that is likely to be used by the Pubs to mobilize the conservative base: Judicial Activism. We got a taste of that in the SotUA. The MA court decision will kick in sometime this spring (I forget the exact date for the 6 month deadline). It’s hard to think of an issue that will stir up hard core conservatives more than “Judicial activitists are forcing gay marriage down our throats”. And it’s almost certain that a SCotUS appointment or two will occur in the next 5 years. Sure, this won’t have much traction with the libertarian wing of the Republican party, but it should take care of **JC’s** voter apathy issue. Throw into the mix that this is all happening in Kerry’s backyard, and the possibilities are endless. I know Kerry is on record as not favoring gay marriage, but voters will not be fooled about which party is the font of the judicial activitism leading to this end. But for most people for whom this is a serious issue, do you think the concern is **really** judicial activism, or is it more “we don’t want queers to marry”? To put it another way, which group that falls into the category you discuss will be larger: those who vote for Bush because they doesn’t want the courts to make law, or those who vote for Bush because they think fags will burn in Hell? If the latter, why bring up judicial activism at all? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2004, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-bush-alienated-too-many-conservatives/227195/17 "2004-02-04T00:21:35Z")
> [@Leaper](#): > > But for most people for whom this is a serious issue, do you think the concern is **really** judicial activism, or is it more “we don’t want queers to marry”? > > To put it another way, which group that falls into the category you discuss will be larger: those who vote for Bush because they doesn’t want the courts to make law, or those who vote for Bush because they think fags will burn in Hell? If the latter, why bring up judicial activism at all? I think both work well. If you want soundbites, the “we don’t want queers to marry” works great. And this will probably be the more common political tactic to use. But Bush won’t be that crass in a format like a debate. He’ll frame the issue (as he did in the SotUA) as one of judicial activism. That allows him to use an intellectual argument to appeal to folks on an emotional level.