Posted on 02/19/2004 7:50:28 AM PST by Eala
Many of George W. Bush's natural allies can muster only tepid support for the big-spending president
IF GEORGE W. BUSH HAS A POLITICAL PROBLEM IN this election year, it's that the people who hate him exhibit so much more passion than those who love him. That may be more an appearance than a reality, of course, because we have been so saturated for the last couple of months with the Democratic primary process. The vitriol and venom that have sloshed over the boundaries of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and a dozen other states suggest an energizing of the anti-Bush voter base that few had predicted. Most states enjoyed record turnouts for the Democratic primaries—and sometimes by thumping margins.
All of that might still prove to be misleading. It could still turn out to be another media bubble that will ultimately burst in Mr. Bush's favor.
But I have to say that right now the tone I'm hearing personally is uncharacteristically consistent with what the big media are saying. In this space last week, I summarized a few responses I received when I asked 50 WORLD readers about the depth of their own political commitments. Since writing that, I've now heard from perhaps two dozen more of those folks—and they are notable for all the reservations they hold.
Almost to a person, these folks said they still intend to vote next November for George Bush. But almost to a person, they also suggest that they are half-hearted in that commitment. And half-heartedness doesn't typically win a close election.
Ray Thompson, a businessman from Montana, typified these folks: "Between Democrats, the media, and George W. Bush, the average American has no representative. Big government socialists have them all. True, he's stolen the platform from the Democrats—and they hate him for it. It's the one area in which his integrity is suspect. His sidekick in the campaign, Mark Racicot, did the same thing in Montana. The compassionate neighbor is competing with the big government compassionate conservative."
From an opposite corner of the country, in Charleston, S.C., Will Haynie echoed the same thought: "I don't want a 'moderate' Republican in the White House or for Congress to fund the same programs a liberal Democrat would—but for less money. To me, it's not the amount; it's the principle.... I don't have a high degree of confidence in the Bush administration's commitment to limited federal government."
Former college president Frank Brock said tersely: "He must cut back federal government if he's going to cut taxes. The deficit is not tolerable." WORLD's managing editor Tim Lamer added: "If he would veto a single spending bill, that would make my support for him somewhat more enthusiastic."
One reader stressed that the interest on our national debt this coming year will be a bigger expenditure than will be our national defense—a development that almost certainly will weaken our national defense.
What really surprised me, though, was how few of my correspondents chose to defend Mr. Bush. Attorney Brian Dutton from Pittsburgh pointed out that the president inherited a recession from Bill Clinton, suffered the 9/11 attacks, and then felt forced to fight wars in two countries—"all valid reasons for a deficit." But such arguments were rare indeed—strengthening my own argument that way too many of those who will be voting for Mr. Bush will be doing so with a good bit of reservation.
Most ominous of the responses was from Ross McGee in Nevada, who said he goes to coffee every morning with a large group of retired men. "The sense there is that we need a new person in the White House—if only to get some gridlock up there," he said. "They all went for Bush last time."
Anecdotal evidence is a bad methodology for political forecasting. But neither this, nor last week's very similar collection of vignettes in this same space, is meant to be statistically valid. Both are included here simply to make the point that if a man's natural friends are fainthearted, what can you expect from his foes? Most of these folks (minus the morning coffee bunch) would likely vote for almost any Republican. They like George Bush, and they note especially their concern for electing a president who will make the right judicial selections over the next four years.
So far, though, they're a lot less excited than their political opponents.
Could you explain this? I really had no idea.
Have I missed something here? Was 911, Afghanistan, his confronting the UN council, the war in Iraq, all of his many, very conservative accomplishments in the last 3 years, evidence he has not lead this country?
If so, you must have some idea of what is "correct" leadership. I would welcome some realistic and logical explanation for your lack of vision.
Thank you - I've made it one of my missions to go out and "bad mouth" all the "Freepers" who kick and howl about the little stuff and ignore the real issues - I tend to put them on the same side of the aisle as the Dims and it raises some hackles, but they keep trying to justify some of their inanities. It's refreshing to see you and a few of the others who will mention it.
What is going to kill us (and already has us sick) is the internal immorality and lack of freedom that grows daily in this nation.
You'd have to have known someone who regularly goes to sci-fi conventions to be aware of it, or have worked one of their conventions. The same is true at so-called Plushie Conventions, where attendees dress up as teddy bears and other stuffed plush toys. CSI even did an episode on it.
The people who attend sci-fi conventions are real die-hards, going to as many conventions as possible. There is a strong hook-up mentality amongst them, and I'm not sure how it got started. The attendees roughly separate into two camps - those who dress up and those who don't. By dress up, I mean wear either StarTrek or alien costumes. Among the dressers, there is the anonymity provided by the costume, and with that comes the shedding of inhibitions (and other things). But there's just as much sex among the non-dressers, too.
Any Freepers hanging around who've been to sci-fi conventions wanna add some personal experiences?
Michael
Not quite...unless you're willing to tell me that President Bush was never elected President, but stepped into office after his predecessor's resignation.
Have I missed something here? Was 911, Afghanistan, his confronting the UN council, the war in Iraq, all of his many, very conservative accomplishments in the last 3 years, evidence he has not lead this country?
If so, you must have some idea of what is "correct" leadership. I would welcome some realistic and logical explanation for your lack of vision.
Look, I honestly like President Bush and think he's trying to do his best, and I'm absolutely committed to voting for him and working to convince others to do the same. But honestly, and I really hope you don't take this personally, you and some other people here on F.R. really need to get out and talk to average people out there once in a while that aren't Freepers.
There is a LOT of legitimate concern out there about things like unchecked illegal immigration, job flow, and the spiralling-out-of-control deficit. And believe me, these concerns aren't just coming only from rabid left-wingers, a lot of it is coming from moderate non-political types who aren't necessarily dedicated to one party or the other.
This isn't at all personal, it's just facts on the ground as I see it from talking to people nowadays.
Let's see...he spent 57 minutes talking about the war on terror and the economy and 90 seconds on steroids. Certainly, his focus in solely on the topic he spoke about for a minute and a half.
Since when is it the duty of the President to hold business at gunpoint and operate the way they are told?
Protectionist economics are proven to be the worst thing any country can do. It is a guaranteed failure. <>In the 80's, our country had the same kind of white-collar job loses due to down sizing, etc..., very similar to our current trend. Americans didn't lay down and die or go on welfare, they did the American thing, they started their own businesses to replace the ones that left. The result was the boom of the 90's that isn't over yet.
Conservatives should be conserving a little energy (you may interpret this as the "blahs") The Federalist notion of government is buried in a pile of judicial activism. The struggle to regain what has been lost (limited government) is going to be long. Compared to the liberals, conservatives have a long war ahead; the liberals will achieve their victory when they install a free spending Kerry, Edwards or whomever as President of the USA. But conservatives know that the next battle is one important step on the road home. Electing Bush means controlling or at least influencing the courts. Until we change the courts, the balanced budget battles are just a sideshow of an era of bloated government. Each annual budget battle is important but not really critical if the whole ship is off coarse. When the Dem candidate steps into the open, we conservatives will destroy him. Why, because it is step one.
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.