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.
Outstanding President. Outstanding Vice-President. Outstanding Administration.
What cave in the hills do these maniacs come from, anyway?
The alternative is Kerry. Kerry is unacceptable.
Hmmmmmmmm...interesting take on it.
If Al Gore would have been President, he never would have had the cajones to go into Iraq in the first place! Especially without complete UN approval (although I maintain that with resolution 1441, we did have UN approval). I give the President credit for going in and feel that we HAVE made great progress but that it has been and will continue to be a very difficult task.
According to Bob Woodward's book, the President realized that it wasn't going to be easy. The President himself told the world that difficult times lay ahead of us in the controvesial "mission accomplished" speech. I don't think he took this lightly at all.
And I'm glad that it is the case. Fact is, this war should have taught a whole bunch of people a very important lesson, if you are going to war, it better be an effort to make America safer. The 1990's wars in Somalia and the Balkans were little more than human rights wars that we should not have allowed ourselves to be engaged. This war in Iraq is part of the war on terror. Period. It was and continues to be a war to make our country safer. That is why it is possible for many on this forum to support it even through many of the problems that have arisen.
As wars go, the war in Iraq has been practically mistake free. Go back and read my first post on this thread. 76,000 Americans died in the Battle of the Bulge. Just imagine the reaction of you and others if that happened today. Just imagine....
Another long time poster has a purple page...the one who called the military "welfare recipients" last Oct...he is now found a home on TOS....;)
Oh, REALLY? When/where did THAT happen? It's been a long time coming.
I think last night or sometime this morning...I wasn't around and noticed it this afternoon....
Great post!...D Day would have been cancelled by many today as we lost 700 in training for it in one day.
Quite a roughs gallery over there; some names I haven't seen in so long and didn't miss.
And Republican's didn't campaign against FDR in 44? You know, we're at war, get behind the President? Or how about in '52 or '68?
NO one has suggested suspending elections or campaigns!...but the amount of hand wringing over a very successful operation as far as casualties sustained and that things don't go as fast, mistake free and predictably as microwave cooking of a frozen dinner does, gets puzzling for some of us that know about history and war...
There have been successes...I read about them here..I don't see them on TV. We are at the brink of winning...not the brink of losing..but will have to be there for their security for some time.
I don't think we are anywhere close to winning this. But I may be wrong. As a matter of fact. I hope I am. But I will agree that we will be there for a long time. My guess is somewhere close to eternity.
Since I'll be the guy in front of you as you crawl through broken glass lying atop burning coals,covered over with razor wire, I'll try not to daudle.
My dear Joe,this is not a Democrat site. This owner, Jim Robinson has stated that this site will not have people on the site actively campaigning for another candidate this election season..as Bush is the only prayer of not getting liberal judges.
He has decided, though it is a conservative site that includes isolationists,libertarians and constitutionalists plus many Republicans that Bush is the only viable candidate for obvious reasons..
It is a two party race, with Nader possibly running (we shall see if he sticks it out) a weak third party. We may complain bitterly about this and that... Kerry is not the option people choose. Some prefer to vote Constitutional Party. They get flak because it is a vote of protest..not one that will win anything. We argue.
You asked if Republicans criticized Democratic Presidents during war...I am sure they did...They did not do it overseas.
Political squabbles and fights used to end at the waters' edge...One did not criticize the President in foreign countries, ex Presidents did not criticize Presidents period. Carter and Clinton broke the tradition and continue to do so.
This is not the place to promote Kerry as a possible alternative. Kerry has the most liberal voting record in the Senate and this is a conservative site..
Thanks...and be forewarned that dawdling would provoke a poke in your nether parts.I can't wait to vote!:-)
#235
Link to JR's message at #219
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.