Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Excuse_My_Bellicosity
I never considered George W. Bush a true political conservative but simply a good man with conservative values and a 'practical' politician who was sometimes too willing to 'compromise' with those who were working at opposite purposes from him. Bush's tax cuts and his excellent reaction to 9/11 did please me. However, the president and congress are not the same entity.

For the past 12 years, I remained both annoyed and discouraged by the wishy-washy Republican majority in congress that seemed to allow the Democrats to run the show and decide the agenda but I remained thankful that 'we' had the majority as I felt that if the Democrats ever gained a voting majority in congress, the war in Iraq would be lost, a la Viet Nam, and President Bush would be unfairly impeached - if not removed from office, just so the Democrats could extract revenge for the Clinton impeachment and smear Republicans as 'law-breakers' in order to gain a political advantage in 2008. Sadly, this is now a very likely probability and is inimical to my - and the nations - interest.

I cannot put George W. Bush in the same 'class' as Ronald Reagan, as President Bush appears to lack the kind of rock-solid convictions of his core principles that drove Reagan. However, Bushs inability to convincingly articulate the importance of staying in Iraq to the nation and to lead the too-timid congressional leaders (Hastert, Frist) into battle for principle-driven programs, such as partial Social Security privatization and border control - the latter an issue where President Bush was notoriously weak and far too willing to accomodate illegal entry into this nation as a given that had to be accepted and legitimized by government - was a [huge disappointment. To what end President Bush championed 'amnesty' for illegal aliens, I'll never quite understand, except as some sort of misplaced compassion. If so, that kind of an emotional approach to a serious national crisis is inexcusable in a president elected to protect and defend his country.

Like the good Rabbi (the author of the lead piece) I'm not 'devastated' by Tuesdays loss of congressional 'control' - but I am dismayed. The next two years are not going to be much fun for conservatives and, one hopes, will energize political conservatives to reject the 'go-along-to-get-along' (with Democrats) mentality that plagued too many congressional Republicans recently and shove 'maverick' RINO politicians like John McCain aside in favor of more serious and truly conservative candidates for congress and, especially, for president in 2008.

That will be a winning electoral strategy and one that could finally end Democrat party power in American politics for a generation, as it would be based on principle, not personality and certainly not pandering and expediency or a wish to get 'good press' from news outlets that hate everything you stand for. President Reagan was able to govern effectively with a Democrat-run congress and I'm hoping that President Bush can, too. However, as we all know, whatever his attributes, George W. Bush is no Ronald Reagan. I wish he were.

98 posted on 11/09/2006 1:22:59 PM PST by Jim Scott (These ARE the good old days)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Jim Scott

One thing about Reagan that I hated at the time but I love now is how he utterly did not care what the press said about him. He laughed at them. He treated them with good natured contempt. I expect he'd gotten over reading the notices long before, in his acting days.


140 posted on 11/10/2006 6:06:21 AM PST by ichabod1 ("For make benefit of Our Glorious Socializt Revolution")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson