Posted on 05/21/2004 2:54:58 PM PDT by Jean S
Last week, the Democratic National Committee began distributing several pages of quotes from conservatives critical of President Bush on a variety of fronts and suggesting to the media that the fact that we don't agree with the man on everything all of the time is evidence of real weakness in his base. Some in the media took the bait, and many of us got calls from reporters wondering if the president can really rely on the strong support he's going to need from his conservative base to win in November.
Now, the summer silly season is fast approaching, so perhaps one has to cut these folks a little slack, but their reasoning defies logic and represents little more than a hopeful fantasy among those who go to bed at night hoping the conservative Republican coalition will somehow fracture. It isn't going to happen … at least not this time around.
While the Democrats were circulating their theory, the president himself was addressing the 40th anniversary banquet of the American Conservative Union here in Washington. To say that he was well received by the audience of more than 700 activist conservative leaders would be a gross understatement. Indeed, we welcomed him as one of our own. Those attending agreed, I think, with my observation in introducing him that they, like millions of conservatives around the country, are prepared to do their part to see to it that he is re-elected this fall.
Does this enthusiastic support mean that we agree with his every act as president? Of course not. But he knew when he accepted our invitation and when he took the microphone that he was speaking to friends who believe he's done a remarkable job given the challenges he's faced since taking office in January 2001. He knew, too, that we all consider ourselves part of the same team and that he can count on us both to work for his re-election and to prod him to govern as we hope he will.
Frankly, those hoping for a collapse of the president's base don't seem to be able to grasp the simple fact that conservatives can differ with their friends on matters of policy but rally behind them if they are doing a good job overall, and are quite capable of recognizing the difference between friends, allies and those, like John Kerry, who oppose everything they want. In fact, it is not all that hard to tell when we are really mad enough at those who need our support to take a walk.
When many of us concluded prior to the 1972 elections that President Nixon had forfeited his claim to conservative support, conservatives ran a protest candidate against him in New Hampshire. When his successor did everything he could to infuriate us, we almost denied him his party's nomination in 1976. In 1992, conservatives flocked to Pat Buchanan because they were upset and offended by the current president's father's abandonment of the promises he'd made during his 1988 campaign.
None of those protests succeeded, but each reflected deep discontent within the GOP base. In none of those cases did it take a Democrat with a divining rod and a bunch of handouts to find out we were upset.
There was no talk of a primary protest against the current president this year for the simple reason that, while we might oppose such things as his Medicare prescription drug program and believe he could do far more to cut government spending, few believe he's abandoned us or the principles we like to believe we represent. No president is perfect, but most conservatives believe that this is one who deserves another term.
This doesn't mean that conservatives will agree with everything the president says or does in the future. We'll agree with him when he's right, urge him to change course when we believe he's wrong and work as hard as we have to to make sure he's there to listen to us for another four years.
Moreover, even those few with lingering doubts about whether he will be able to deliver as much as they'd like in his second term know that Kerry is not the answer to anyone's prayers. Ideologically, stylistically and in every other way, the Democratic nominee is just the guy to get conservative juices flowing.
So the president's political coalition is in pretty good shape, and certainly in far better shape than that on which his opponent will have to depend. Ralph Nader, the spoiler out there, is not a conservative but a nutty liberal who thinks the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate should be rejected by Democrats as not liberal enough.
Perhaps someone should be distributing a few pages of what Nader thinks about Kerry.
Fools flocked to Buchannan,and fools flock to the Constipation Party. Unelectable and only giving ammunition to the true enemy.But, you and yours don't care,you're pure. Yep,I'd agree, you're pure something alright
worold=world.... Jeez.. spellchecker, be my friend.
I got that from MJY1288. I think he made it.Good job on the website ! :^)
It may surprise you to know that back then I was an advisor to Johm M. Ashbrook, Ohio Congressman and owner of WCLT AM and FM Radio in Newark Ohio.
Back then I had lunch with John quite often. His attempt in the 1972 New Hampshire primary was no more a revolt against Nixon than the Cleveland Indians attempts to win ball games are a revolt against the New York Yankees.
I spent a lot of time trying to get John to be more aggressive in the house. I thought Ford and Michaels were wimps. He didn't.
It took John a long time to convice me that getting 218 votes in the house for as many of the things he supported as he could was the name of the game. It was not how many people John could tick off by starting a fight.
John knew he didn't have a snowballs chance in hell to win the New Hamsphire primary. And he certainly did not want to help George McGovern win in November. He felt that McGovern and the Democrats might pull the center to the left. He wanted to show the right had support as well. Plus there is always the "Lightning could strike aspect." But no one with a brain thought it would.
The very last think John Ashbrook wanted to do was hurt Nixon. Ashbrook wanted McGovern burried and he was.
John worked hard for Nixon in the 72 general election.. I did too
doesn't get it. Lack of objectivity is what got us to where we are now.
Forget about "exit strategy" and think about perservering and accomplishing the mission...It isn't going to be easy but it is worthy and important.If that mission is in error, perserving it is not the right thing to do. This leadership has told us over and over that certain things would be such and so and virtually every important facit of their proclamations have been in error.
Hekc of a signal for a short tower.
Should we just fold our tent and go home because mistakes were made? Which promises are you upset about?
I have studied both candidates and decided objectively that Bush is better...my fear of Kerry now so pronounced that I do not wish to rehash criticism of Bush...that's what I meant.
Of course,if you never supported the war ..you would have Saddam back in charge or have us desert the war and leave it as a base for all kinds of terrorists.?
MEG, I am being placed in a camp where being critical of wrong makes one either patriotic or liberal. Well that's not the case. I'm trying to settle between right and wrong. That's why moderates are seen as testing the waters. We don't believe in ideology alone. We want our ideology to reflect the correct standard, not just a standard right or wrong. Not a safe standard, not an ideological standard, but the right standard. And sometimes that can be a moving target.
But to see some of your earlier replies to me and others, you are practically implying taking the lesser of the evils. If that is the case, then let's admit it. But you are now beginning to admit to blemishes I have picked the best candidate,admit he isn't perfect...already know war is hell and not predictable,and back my man. I feel no need to prove my objectivity and even handedness..on this Presidency that for so long you and others tried to stiffle. Maybe if those who were looking for truth and what is correct were able to advance without being labeled as wishy-washy, liberal or worse, we would a have avoided the morass we are in now.
You'd have had a very hard time dealing with WW2.
Spare me. I need to be grounded because the lightening may strike at any time. You have never from day one even gave consideration to Kerry as president. Never. How can you objectively say what you are saying. You are a partisan. Period. You'd rather die than vote against anyone who would run against President Bush. And you have tried to stiffle any criticism of President Bush since you came to this board. Always.
Of course,if you never supported the war ..you would have Saddam back in charge or have us desert the war and leave it as a base for all kinds of terrorists.?
I supported going into Iraq untilwe told Blix he was looking in the wrong places for the WMD's and when he said "fine then tell me where they are" we started with spin and disinformation. Did we ever respond to his request other than to sputter and spurt? That's when I knew something was afoot with what was at that time a planned invasion. As far as leaving it as a base for terrorists, unless we stay there forever as a massive presence, it will be anyway. Better they are there than here.
That may be so, but I wasn't even a glimmer in my daddy's eye then (WWII), so I don't know. I do know there is much wrong with this current situation. Doesn't mean it was totally in error, but we've been given a ton of spin by this administration and their mouthpieces for sometime now.
What choice do we really have?
Bush, or an absolute buffoon from the party of loons.
You are mistaking bad intelligence for spin. Bill Kristol was not a part of the administration and made some "cake walk" remarks. I have seen pictures of people greeting our troops with flowers and gratitude expressed for our getting rid of Saddam..It is still worth it..we can only be defeated by naysayers and defeatists at home.
....Osama, his training camps and chief lts. were "over there" and far away on Sept.11th...or have you forgotten?
And yes, some people have welcomed us. Most haven't. Most wish we'd go home.
Of course back in the 1776 there were some that would have placed flowers at a certain King's feet too as well as welcomed him.
That bad intell came primarily from one source and their crony's. And after 1/03, that source was handpicked by this administration to be listened to. And so who's accountable for the bad intel and why hasn't there been some sort of correction for that?
Make that after assuming office instead of 01/03.
The point is that terrorists do not confine the terror activities to their base countries...not that Osama was in Iraq.
Exporting terror is widespread...and I do not believe you have read all the research collected here on Al Queda and Iraq...not that Iraq helped with 911 directly. Iraq paid Palestinian suicide bombers families...That helped terrorism....Of course you may consider suicide bombers against Israel freedom fighters. Saddam harbored terrorists.
And don't try to bait me with the suicide bombers against Israel. They are kooks.
The base is larger and more passionate than when Reagan was elected...or even re-elected. Republicans are a larger proportion of the electorate than they were in 1984, and Bush has, believe or not, a higher percentage of support among Republicans this year than Reagan did in 1984.
The key question in the election is wo what extent the Democrats have been successful in their campaign of hate, fear, and anger against Pres. Bush. To what extent have rank-and-file Democrats been corrupted by the Democrats' strategy. Reagan won because of the large number of cross-overs, and independents. Bush had the support of a significant percentage of Dems last year; but how successful has the hate campaign of the DNC been in hardening their own against Bush.
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.