Stay the Course (Why should we vote for Bush again? Good editorial.)

We conservatives have been excercising our right to voice opinion and gripe against the Administration - to the glee of the left and the benefit of any opponent in November. It is true that there are valid concerns, from spending to No Child Left Behind, but is now the time to bellyache and trade shots? At this moment we should be considering what we can do in the next 4 years to improve things while keeping a great President in office. If not, we will be back to square one and have real reason to complain.

I agree!

BIG BUMP for the great article and your equally good analysis.

Full Article:

Stay the course

For all of the Bush administration's faults, it's good to have a president who knows about a set of rules "bigger than government rules"

JOIN THE CLUB." THAT'S WHAT PRESIDENT-ELECT Bush said in December 2000, when I told him I was journalist first, Bush supporter second, and would probably be criticizing some of his decisions early and often. That's the way it has worked out, and it's easy to enumerate complaints. No vetoes of pork-barrel spending. No nationwide vouchers or tax credits to begin creating parental choice in education. Missed opportunities during the first year of the faith-based initiative. Etcetera.

This magazine and now www.worldmagblog.com have criticized the Bush administration and will keep trying to tell the truth, regardless of partisan considerations. But, as we keep in mind two speeches President Bush has given this month, and the beliefs underlying those talks, let's remember that we're better off now than we were four years ago (when Bill Clinton was in office) or than we will be a year from now, if millions of Christian conservatives stay home in November.

Much could be said about our war against terrorism, but I'll concentrate here on domestic policy and the way President Bush in the State of the Union address on Jan. 20 reemphasized his commitment to compassionate conservatism. He was right to ask Congress to act "so people of faith can know that the law will never discriminate against them again." The faith-based initiative's emphasis on grants has been frustrating—tax credits and vouchers would work better both practically and politically—but as long as we have big government Mr. Bush is right to fight against red-lining religion.

The other speech wasn't heard by many outside of the New Orleans church in which it was given, but President Bush's remarks at Union Bethel AME on Jan. 15 went much deeper than the nationally televised address that should be called the State of the Onion, because every president spends so much time slicing and dicing (the infamous "laundry list" of items) that many viewers begin to cry.

The church speech laid out a bottom-up political philosophy that is the opposite of the top-down approach demanded by Democrats and relished by liberal Republicans. President Bush spoke, sometimes reaching for words, of problems beyond the ability of government: "Intractable problems, problems that seem impossible to solve can be solved.... Miracles are possible in our society, one person at a time. But it requires a willingness to understand the origin of miracles. Miracles happen as a result of the love of the Almighty."

He stated well the problem for religious groups: "Government policy says, on the one hand, perhaps you can help; on the other hand, you can't practice your faith. Faith-based programs are only effective because they do practice faith. It's important for our government to understand that. Government oftentimes will say, yes, you can participate, but you've got to ... conform to our rules. The problem is, faith-based programs only conform to one set of rules, and it's bigger than government rules."

Why does President Bush persist in talking this way? How about because he's the first president since, maybe, Grover Cleveland to have turned around his life as an adult in conjunction with a coming to biblical faith? He still speaks about this haltingly: "Addiction is the problem of a heart—of the heart. I know—I told this story before. I was a drinker. I quit drinking because I changed my heart. I guess I was a one-man faith-based program. I'm comfortable in pushing the change, because I know the nature of the work that is taking place."

Mr. Bush can say, as he did in New Orleans, "Many of the problems that are facing our society are problems of the heart," because he knows his own heart and knows that he needed and needs God. That realization leaves him attuned to the goals of life-changing groups in a way unlikely for someone who knows only theoretically the importance of transformation.

Liberal journalists don't worry that President Bush is a hypocrite; they see that he's not one, and that makes some frantic. But how should conservative Christians react? The price of veto-less government spending? Billions. The price of not pushing for school vouchers? More student mis-education. Those prices are high and we need to keep pushing for change, but does anyone see Democrats as the party of frugality? And what is it worth to have not only an adult in the Oval Office, but an adult who knows deep down that he was dying and was born again, and is ready to work to help millions of others who could also change? Priceless.

Thanks for a great article and a terrific summation!

Worth the read!

I'm not willing to vote for any other viable candidate in the race this year.

Thanks for the ping Howlin.

Here we go again, another 1000 + posts thread with every single malcontent here on FR to vent their hatred for Bush. and transform this thread into an immigration thread

It is clear that no third party has added to its organization or size in the last 3 years.

Therefore, all of us can predict with certainty that the next president of the United States will be either the Republican Candidate or the Democratic Candidate. We can say that with 99.99999% degree of certainty.

If that is the case, then why would anyone do anything to throw this election to the Democrats by either staying home or voting 3rd party?

Even in terms of 3rd parties my sense is that they would do better at elevating their visibility by ENDORSING one of the 2 main candidates rather than by running one of their own.

I certainly think we need to lean on Bush to do the right thing in some areas were he is weak. My list would include immigration policy, spending policy, vouchers, and cleaning out the clintonoids that he has inexplicably let stay in so many agencies and branches of our government.

But he is sound on the basics, and he is smart enough to know that you have to give a little on some issues to get what you want on the most important ones. He is, I believe, very strong on the most important ones: defense of life, defense of our country, and appointment of sane judges to a crazed judiciary.

It is absolutely the case that we will have a president from one of the two major parties for many years to come. (Given that, it really doesn't matter who or what minor parties endorse.) Those who would vote 3rd party or stay home to "teach a lesson" are choosing a fools errand.

You got that right, and we will not stop bashing or threatening to stay home in November until the administration reverses itself on illiegal immigration. Sorry, I know it stinks and I hate doing it but sometimes you have to be willing to go over the cliff.

I think they're happy to finally have stuff to bash him with out in the open.

I am kind of tried of every thread turning into a immigration thread though. You'd think people would be able to separate the issues.

But alas...

On the money!

and I hate doing it

We all believe that.

You can go over the cliff if you wish.

I respectfully ask that you not take the entire country with you.

Excellent post, I agree with you 100%

Three things I have not agreed with President Bush on, immigration, education bill and medicare. But I love my president. He is a good, Christian, decent man who I believe has the best interests of this country at heart. I will never desert him. I have already signed up here in Miami to work the election. The alternative is unthinkable. Oh, and by the way I have one word, JUDGES. No three words, SUPREME COURT JUDGES.

For myself and a few others that I know it is indeed true that we don't enjoy this. If I could get the president to spend a few minutes in the urine drenched 3rd world Kmart near my home that would be enough for me.