Posted on 06/22/2002 9:46:05 AM PDT by quidnunc
This summer will mark the 47th year since I took my first Republican job: as public relations director for the party in Minnesota. Since then I have rarely strayed from politics, or my party. I served as a staffer to two GOP congressmen, to a GOP governor, as a federal appointee to Richard Nixon and as a corporate executive who supported in Washington and Springfield much, if not all, of the Republican agenda.
You can describe me as a conservative. Thus I am qualified to say that although I dearly love conservatives, they tend to be querulous, disagreeable and threaten revolt when Republican office-holders don't please them. So it is now with George W. Bush. Here is a president who has surprised us all with the firmness and resolve he showed after 9/11. I must tell you I voted for him with less enthusiasm than I had for many of his predecessors. But his administration has pleased me often — most notably on two issues: defense of America and social policy.
Yet, Bush has to get re-elected in a country that is evenly divided on philosophy. Thus he must occasionally — on matters that sometimes offend conservatives — dip into the other side's ideology for support. He has done so on three notable occasions: on the issue of steel protectionism, where he departed his free-market proclamations; on the signing of a campaign finance bill tailored by his enemies, and allowing his attorney general (in the words of Libertarian Nat Hentoff in the Washington Times) "to send disguised agents into religious institutions, libraries and meetings of citizens critical of government policy without a previous complaint, or reason to believe that a crime has been committed."
In a perfect political world, where conservatives are in the majority, these things would be sufficient to encourage a boycott of the polls. Either that or a protest vote for the Democratic opposition. But we are not in a perfect world. We conservatives have a president who didn't receive a majority of the votes, and has one house of Congress against him. He must make compromises to get re-elected. Conservatives who do not understand the nature of politics ought to stay in their air-conditioned ivory towers and refrain from political activity altogether. If they cannot adjudge the stakes in this election and the difference between Bush and an Al Gore or a John Kerry (D-Mass.) or a Dick Gephardt (D-Mo.), they are foolish indeed.
-snip-
To read the remainder of this op/ed open the article via the link provided in the thread's header.
Oh, good. I guess that gives him a pass to enact huge socialist housing programs, curtail political speech before elections, deny civilians their Habeas Corpus rights without revoking Habeas Corpus outright, and so on.
We are at war, therefore Bush can do no wrong. Gotchya. I'm back on the Hymnal.
Yes, I do.
I don't see how you have any chance of pulling this off. Even if you managed to "take over" a state (and it would have to be a very small state or a state with a small population and meager value for you to take it over with only 20,000 people in your "army"), you would have no standing, no power, no influence on the Federal Level. The Federal government (along with the other 49 states who would team up in opposition against you) would squash your seccessionist plans like a bug.
If Quebec is unable to successfully secede from Canada (and in my opinion Quebec has a better case for secession and is in a much better position to make a go of it alone than just about any state in the U.S. except California), no way will a state be able to secede from the U.S given the present economic, political, and social climate. Short of some unforseen calamity occurring to the entire country, 14 years is not enough time to alter that climate.
Getting people out of public housing and into a program where they buy their own homes is a "huge socialist housing program?"
Why can't those people stay in the projects where they belong, eh, Laz?
Facts that could be used to smear a person by association.
You have also pointedly refused to disassociate yourself from this associational smear. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that you intended to smear Registered as a sympathizer or supporter of DU.
I will note this rather shoddy and shabby behavior on your part and subject you to it yourself, if you happen to present the opportunity someday. Goose, meet gander.
Dont worry ABOUT housing programs because maybe the TERRORISTS might blow up your house if President Bush can't STOP them. President Bush is ON our side. We are fighting the TERRORISTS. I am sorry if I SAID bad things about you but I had to STOP you from ATTACKING President Bush. Thank you for SAYING that President Bush is not WRONG. Always say that when you GET angry and it will MAKE you feel BETTER. Please stay ON our side. Thank you AGAIN.
Here, the most logical poster wins.
No, no and no.
Are you a hypocrite?
Life can be kooky.
Wow! Sounds like I've found my niche group. Is there a sign up table for this bunch or is it just you, Reagan Man, who determines into which slot one will fit?
Good! You seem to have turned around on this topic. I recall, perhaps incorrectly, that you were quite anti-gun.
Are you a hypocrite?
If you are not anti-gun, my argument fails.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.