Posted on 06/05/2002 1:20:54 PM PDT by Stand Watch Listen
Let me just say up front that I am not addressing you if you voted for George W. Bush in 2000 and regret it. The same goes for those of you who voted for Bush and insist on holding his feet to the fire on the important issues. If, however, you cast your vote for Bush, still believe he is the only hope for America and intend to support every move he makes without so much as a raised eyebrow, this is for you.
It has been nearly a year-and-a-half since George W. Bush, the savior of conservatism, descended from on high to begin his earthly reign in Washington, D.C. Republicans assured us that he would restore integrity to the White House and would be a marked improvement over the promiscuous Bill Clinton. Well, in all honesty, that could have been accomplished by electing a neutered chimp to the office of president.
During the 2000 presidential campaign, George W. Bush the man proved to be a nice break from Bill Clinton and Al Gore. Unlike Gore, Bush had a more likable...well, he actually had a personality. He also possessed the unique ability to address the American people without the smug and condescending vibe Clinton exuded. However, when it came to policy, George W. Bush the candidate failed to demonstrate that he would govern any differently than his Democrat counterparts.
Still, throughout the campaign, there was a loyal group of Bush supporters who would take offense at even the slightest implication that their candidate was anything but a staunch conservative. Even now, they continue to stand by their man, and I find this to be rather perplexing.
Perhaps those who have pledged their undying allegiance to President Bush could answer a few questions for me, in no particular order of course:
• How would you have reacted if Bill Clinton had signed the Patriot Act into law and given the government sweeping new surveillance powers?
• Would you have criticized a Democrat president for signing a $26 billion education-spending bill?
• Did you feel betrayed when Bush signed Campaign Finance Reform into law?
• What do you think about Bush's position on granting amnesty to hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants?
• Would you have tolerated a Democrat proposal for federally funded faith-based initiatives?
• What would your reaction have been if a Democrat had said, "No one should have to pay more than a third of their income to the federal government"?
• What do you think about the president's granting of Permanent Most Favored Nation status to China?
• What's the difference between Bush and the Democrats on the issue of farm subsidies?
• How would you react if a Democrat president sent a $2.13 trillion budget to Congress?
• Would you have stood for a Democrat saying "No!" to arming airline pilots?
• What would your reaction have been if a Democrat had pushed for the federalization of airport security?
• Are you willing to stand by and let the Bush administration cater to the environmentalists on the global warming issue?
• What do you think about Bush's call for a Patient's Bill of Rights?
• What one thing has Bush done that sets him apart from the Democrats?
• It's been a year-and-a-half since Bush took office. When do we start to see a decrease in the size and scope of government? For that matter, when do we start to see even a remote indication that this administration will think about doing anything to try to limit the federal government?
This list is by no means exhaustive, but I would really be interested in some answers. Perhaps it would help shed some light on the mindset of modern compassionate conservatives.
The fact that a Republican president is governing like a Democrat isn't surprising. What's amazing to me is that there are a few select Bush supporters out there who cannot—or will not—utter one word of criticism against their president for any reason. In their minds this man is the epitome of conservatism, and to question his actions would be to question their own beliefs and cause them to wonder why they supported him in the first place.
The way I see it there can only be two explanations for this: 1) these people really and truly believe in what Bush is doing, or 2) they do not wish to face up to the real reason they voted for him — he was simply a slightly more palatable choice than Al Gore.
It took us long time to get where we are. I'm just as anxious to fix as anyone else, but we have to realize that we are going to have to hunker down for the long haul. And occasionaly accept a minor defeat or compromise without demanding that everyone fall on their swords. The libs understand incrementalism. We either learn how to fight them on those terms or we are going end up bitter and disapointed.
There is a lot of good advice on the subject at my bio page where I have book-marked Quotation threads from some of the great military and political thinkers of history. Check them out if you get a chance.
This is a great response! The reset of the 'bots need to learn these manners and the helpful approach.
On the other hand, I have never spoken negatively about Bush. I rather like the man ... and met him in person when he visited Atlanta during the campaign. (Yes, I went to the rally.) I have voiced disappointment over some "action items" compared to what continues as "unfinished business". To sustain the sort of attacks metted out by these alleged conservatives has been very telling. Those who will merely remind our peers that there is plenty more work to be done are being eaten by our own kind.
Bush is not as conservative as I, at least his political manipulations certaily are not. Thank you for your level-headed objectivity.
Nah, that's as superficial as an Earl Scheib paint job.
Sez absolutely nothing about what's under the hood.
And it doesn't at all address the real issues that exist between Red & Blue Zone citizens.
Unless, of course, you think that color is the only issue that matters.
Myself, I prefer to ignore "color" and focus on economics.
Like most conservatives, I detest quotas.
But unlike the current GOP sycophants, I oppose policies that undermine hard-working Americans efforts to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. (Such as opening a floodgate of illegal immigration to depress wages while also exporting our factories overseas.)
For having this America First! perspective, I get labeled a communist, racist, anti-semite, union-loving, etc. etc. etc.
IMHO, your Fulani comment that initiated this exchange is nothing but a continuation of that superficial smear campaign.
Bad analogy Garfield, that's not what I'm saying at all. Now let's see if I can do this using words with no more than three syllables so that you will understand your fallacy.
The bank robber (illegal) gets a trial (hearing) to find out if he's guilty or not guilty.
The illegal gets a hearing (trial) to find out if he can stay or has to go.
No one evades anything. Only in your mind.
Gotta go, but I will be back later...we're not done.
The stem-cell decision was simply hog-wash. Bush said during the primaries, that he wouldn't support the taking of any life for stem-cell research. I guess he thinks that ill-gotten gains are fine. About CFR, I am surprised that you don't remember his quote, "Over my dead body will they curtail your free speech."
I am not sure what you think i should try to refute, but I stand by my claim that Bush has not made any overtures to the right.
Let me get this straight. Are you saying that the Univ of Chicago economics dept is a hotbed of socialism? If I were you, I wouldn't post anything anymore, ever!
Fulani is a damn communist. She should have nothing to do with conservatives or conservative causes. She's an enemy just like RATS are my sworn enemies.
You have the gall to pass yourself off as a conservative, yet you have no problem defending an open communist? What the hell is your problem?
You have preconceived notions already formed in your head. So, why should I bother with it? You're going to think whatever you want to think no matter what.
So, see ya! And I wouldn't want to be ya.
Clown.
Willie Green F RTR List.
I completely agree. But it's fun to watch sometimes.
So what there is a split Senate? Why do we need both Houses of Congress to pass any conservative legislation? Do you know what kind of a luxury is that? If Republicans controlled both houses, we wouldn't need Bush to be the President. I can do the job myself. I thought Bush was this amazingly charismatic leader with 5000% approval rating. Then why is a little sissy named Daschle is jerking Bush around. How could he block the judicial nomination of such a popular President? The truth is the Democrats have figured out that Bush is weak. He will never veto anything, because lacks the courage to do it. Don't bring up the Senate situation, because it only makes your man look weak.
I would slightly expand this to include a constitutionally minded congress, and there may be a couple possibilities, each with pros and cons, that attempt to work within the party and failing that, to continue without the party but offering the option to leverage any influence with voters to increase the constitutional conservatism of the party.
I do not, in this post, presume to be able to present any consensus of opinion on candidates or positions, so I won't try. I am, however, suggesting the starting point of ways to be more influential with Republican Party leadership, and I am assuming that there are sufficient issues on which both staunch Bush supporters and those that would like Bush to be more conservative could agree. The specifics below are examples, the underlying concept doesn't pivot (I don't think) on the specifics, other specifics would suffice (presuming we reach a consensus).
Assuming such consensus (a big assumption I grant you), it would seem the following is a largely 'intellectual' effort, well within the scope of the posters here. Whether it moves beyond that, clearly depends on how attractive the ideas produced are to candidates and incumbents who would have to 'carry the banner' so to speak thereafter, and how much support they and said ideas generate. But formulating the ideas is well within the scope of this forum, thanks entirely to you, Jim Robinson.
1) Develop a new 'contract with America', a more constitutional contract with America. It's planks/provisions to be determined, but would run along the lines of:
Then offer said constitutional contract with America (CCA) to candidates and incumbents alike, to see how much actual support it gets.
The point in this post again is not to presume to pick a consensus of what the issues would be (on which both Bush supporters and more conservative advocates might converge) but to suggest for discussion, a process to influence direction.
2 ) Develop grassroots swing vote (at least for 2004, but ideally for 2002 though that seems remote at this time)
Independent swing voters decided previous outcomes, and could well decide the next (2002 and 2004), we can lead the direction of those swing voters.
Demonstrate in 2002 elections (if not too late) ability to swing votes towards conservative candidates and issues (RNC anointed or not). A coordinated write-in campaign with the cooperation of selected candidates might prove influential enough to swing the outcome, or put the outcome in doubt.
Who would the candidates be? For state and local office, unknown. For national office, 'known' names have been suggested elsewhere, some serious, some not, more could be offered. Again, it would be presumptuous in this post to identify consensus candidate(s). What is suggested is a process by which conservatives can influence the Republican Party leadership.
If candidates win, great, hopefully they'll sustain their position as campaigned.
Else, if enough votes were swung from Republican candidates (I doubt 'independent' Democrats would ever vote conservative - but that has been debated here as well) then leverage that 'swing vote' influence to get Republican Party leadership, including current administration to adopt a more 'conservative' position, or risk losing that swing vote in 2004. I'm acutely aware the potential to 'take votes from Republicans' is anathema to many here. Political animals of all persuasion don't seem to pay attention to anything less. They do measure what to do by how much pressure they get to do it. That's the point of putting the outcomes of their elections in doubt. The advatages of doing this with congressional races in 2002 certainly would seem to outweigh the risks at the presidential level in 2004. ie, if this might work, sooner is better.
The 'conservative position' advocated with swing voters and the Republican Party would be something along the lines of option 1) above.
There are aspects of this that smack of brinkmanship, which I don't like, and would like to see it removed without loosing any impact. I do believe however (as I suspect others in this forum do as well) that we do approach a constitutional brink and commensurate measures are needed to bring attention to the issues.
I am certain there are aspects of this that I'm mistaken or naive about. To those who would educate me, please do make it a constructive education. Show what is wrong, why it's wrong, but ideally, suggest an alternative (that lacks your stated objections) that you believe would in fact work and why.
Thank you Jim for the opportunity to present my thought. If you feel this may inadvertently inflame and cause more damage than contribution, then please do remove it.
You cite Larry Klayman and JW as a source. Could there be anyone with less credibility here than you?
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.