Does the President's claim to be a "compassionate conservative" have any merit?
...some religious supporters of Mr. Bush say they feel betrayed by promises he made as a candidate and now, they maintain, has broken as president."After three years, he's failed the test," said one prominent early supporter, the Rev. Jim Wallis, leader of Call to Renewal, a network of churches that fights poverty.
[snip]
At issue is Mr. Bush's willingness to demand financing from Congress on his signature "compassionate conservative" issues, like education reform and AIDS, with the same energy he has spent to fight for tax cuts and the Iraq war.
Critics say the pattern has been consistent: The president, in eloquent speeches that make headlines, calls for millions or even billions of dollars for new initiatives, then fails to follow through and push hard for the programs on Capitol Hill.
On one central piece of such legislation, the so-called faith-based bill to help religious charities, Mr. Bush, after two years of objections from Democrats, retreated this spring and agreed to strip the bill of provisions specifically related to religious groups. Instead, it now largely offers tax incentives to encourage giving to charities of all kinds.
On a proposal this summer to extend a $400-a-child tax credit to low-income families, Mr. Bush at first demanded that Congress appropriate the money, then backed off in the face of opposition from his conservative allies in the House, most notably the majority leader, Representative Tom DeLay of Texas. The issue is now bottled up in a dispute between the House and the more moderate Senate, and several Republican senators have called on Mr. Bush to step in and break the impasse.
Financing for another item on Mr. Bush's compassion agenda, the national volunteer program called AmeriCorps, faltered this summer under similar opposition from Mr. DeLay. Although Mr. Bush forcefully called for expanding that Clinton-era program in his 2002 State of the Union address, he was largely silent last month amid objections to a $100 million emergency infusion that it needed to maintain its current level of operations. The House rejected that spending, leaving AmeriCorps with an uncertain future.
So who's in charge here? Tom Delay (he of Texas redistricting fame) or President Bush? Tax cuts, pre-emptive wars and favors to his energy and defense industry contributors seem to be much dearer to his heart than the "compassionate conservatism" upon which he ran. Could it be he finds it easier to co-opt just enough Democrats (see Zell Miller) than to fight his own party? Or was that claim just a ploy to make him seem acceptable to the swing voters?
Posted by Linkmeister at August 31, 2003 09:49 AM