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.
Already done
I'd appreciate knowing why it is you feel that my particular stand for the constitution is worthy of contempt. I have the distinct impression that it's personal.
But at least we can be secure and smug in the knowledge that we did the principled and right thing.
As to this particular point. I want to be able to look myself in the mirror and know I did the right thing. To know I supported the constitution and my fellow Americans.
I could care less what others think about this since others are not interested in whether or not I can face myself. If they are, I at least have a good answer for them.
As to what you do? Forgive me if you think I am lecturing. I have respect for you JR. If you followed the anti-freeping at all you'd know that I had your back when others walked. Even when you had banned me.
My disagreements with you do not in any way indicate that I have contempt for you. I don't. I never believed the crap said about you by your enemies and still do not to this day hold any ill-will toward you. Perhaps we can resolve our differences someday even if it's simply an agreement to disagree amiably.
LOL... well it's been my experience you can pull a rope much further and faster than you can push it.... But they can push all they want but in the long run you have to have the coalitions band together or you'll never have the opportunity to succeed or fail.
I too recognize that he is on the campaign trail and his chances are possibly good at this point. Given that most Americans seem more concerned with basketball games and soccer, his chances may be very good.
However, I am extremely disappointed in the President, and in all likelihood, he will not garner my vote.
Jim, I must tell you that I do have a dream. A dream of saving this great nation from the globalist and others that want to destroy our country, our sovereignty and our freedoms.
You are dealing with globalist here, and I cannot support that. Ten years ago, I thought people that talked this "one world order", "globalist" stuff were kooks or cranks. Now I know I was wrong and they were right. This has become inordinately clear in the past decade.
This country was built and fought for by people with dreams of independence and freedoms. Now those dreams are turning into nightmares, brought to us by those with a global, one world agenda. One without borders or national soveriegnty, and with very limited freedoms.
He sponsered HR316 and HR214, one deals with being able to choose a school, and the other deals with abuse of Special Education by schools listing children as retarded in order to garner more Fed money.
He is against Socialized Health Care and is for a tax credit for families whose employers do not provide insurance. He feels that citizens should be able to choose their own doctors.
He is for strong defense, and improving military hardware. He is very much for disabled veterans and feels their mistreatment is horrible, so do I.
He is for the environment as long as it does not infringe on communities or private ownership. He's upset that so much land in Colorado has been grabbed up by D.C.
Of course his stance on immigration is widely known, he has had the courage to buck D.C., risk not being on the best committees, and go toe to toe with open border politicans.
And he is for a national sales tax rather than income tax. He thinks taxes are far too high and that D.C. has far too much power.
He seems an honest man to me because he stands on the courage of his convictions even though he has been told to "Never darken the door of the White House", because of his illegal immigration stance.
I think he should darken that door when he walks through it as President of the United States. And I don't see that happening if the Republican Party doesn't hear from you and me that we are not pleased with the leftist candidates they put forward.
At least make a phone call to the RNC guys...good Lord, don't just accept what is put forward without a fight. Unless of course you like the direction the party is taking.
-snip-
At 85, after a life in politics spanning five decades (he retired from the Senate in 1987), Mr. Conservative has found himself an unlikely new career: as a gay rights activist. While that's not his sole pursuit – he returned to Capitol Hill yesterday to testify in favor of scenic overflights of the Grand Canyon – in recent years he's championed homosexuals serving in the military and has worked locally to stop businesses in Phoenix from hiring on the basis of sexual orientation. This month he signed on as honorary co-chairman of a drive to pass a federal law preventing job discrimination against homosexuals. The effort, dubbed Americans Against Discrimination, is being spearheaded by the Human Rights Campaign Fund, the influential gay lobbying organization.
-snip-
Gay rights aside, Goldwater is doing lots more to drive would-be disciples nuts. In 1992 he backed a Democrat for Congress over a Christian conservative Republican (his candidate, Karan English, won), and has been applying the full force of his cantankerous personality to frequent denunciations of the religious right and occasional defenses of Bill Clinton – calling a press conference recently to urge Republican critics of Whitewater to "get off his back and let him be president."
Some of the faithful think he's lost his marbles.
-snip-
(Lloyd Grove in The Washington Post, July 28, 1994)
To Read This Article Click Here
Be specific if you're going to accuse me of Calumny.
I oppose tariffs everywhere. But like Milton Friedman, I believe that charging our folks tariffs because others do on their folks, is shooting yourself in the foot. We have been down the road of retaliatory tariffs before. The result was not pretty. In the end, such a regime is not self sustaining anyway. Just ask the Japanese.
That doesn't appear to be in our control does it? We can declare victory at any time. Is tomorrow soon enough or next week, or next month? Maybe you would even grant a year?
Said the antichrist.
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.