Posted on 04/26/2002 1:44:34 PM PDT by Rightfield14
For the past twelve years, conservatives have grown quite accustomed to betrayals by the nation’s Chief Executive. Not only did President Bush (the father), break his promise not to raise taxes, the next administration dismally failed to honor any of the promises that were made to Republicans.
Therefore, way too many of us in the conservative camp routinely expect to be betrayed by the president.
I do not share the opinion of some that President George W. Bush has done any irreparable harm on the Constitution. Nor do I feel his actions have betrayed us.
Having said that, I am not saying that I wasn’t disappointed in several of the choices the president has made or the bills he has signed. In all of those cases, I believe he relied too much on his advisors, people who care more about politics than principles.
I believe President Bush is a good and decent man, a person of high character. He is someone who tries to do the right thing. I believe his instincts are good. And when he follows them, he will inevitably make the right decisions.
However, for all of you who say that President Bush is too liberal, I offer the following perspective:
Many of you have forgotten that one of the president’s first initiatives was to stop the public funding of overseas abortions. This executive order was met with weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth from the militant feminists and their media cheerleaders.
Despite lacking the support of the leaders of the European Union, President Bush stood firm on his support for missile defense and his opposition of the Kyoto treaty. Later, he boldly scrapped the antiquated 1972 AMB treaty on ballistic missiles.
He promised tax cuts during the campaign and stubbornly refused to yield. He has stood firmly against human cloning. His war leadership has been superb. And that is only a small sample of his conservative credentials.
Increasingly, I have come to believe that some of those who are purportedly in our same camp would not be satisfied with whomever became our Chief Executive.
If I was going to create the perfect president, then I would start with the self-deprecating wit of Ronald Reagan, the intellect of William F. Buckley and Anthony Scalia, the tell-it-like-it-is candor of Bob Dornan and Ann Coulter, the boundless optimism of Rush Limbaugh, the flaming oratory of Alan Keyes, the rich military heritage of John McCain, the pro-life passion of Pat Buchanan, the fervent Constitutional defense of Rep. Ron Paul. Still, it wouldn’t be enough for many of those who call themselves conservative!
Carping and criticizing, they idly sit on the sidelines. They never take up arms in defense of their party. They never take the slings and arrows from the opposition. They never attempt to remake the GOP in their conservative image the way liberals have dominated the Democrats.
I am not suggesting that we stifle honest ideological introspection. Political dissent is what made this country great. We were conceived in it. In fact, I certainly reserve the right to do more of it in the future. I also plan to criticize President Bush whenever he is wrong.
However, I believe than many of us will never be satisfied with any president. These so-called ideological purists can always see the faults in anyone chosen by the GOP. Yet if you look for betrayal long enough, you are sure to find it.
More than anything else, I think is inarguable that President George W. Bush has restored the public’s respect for his office. No longer is the presidency or its current occupant perceived as little more than a dirty joke.
That is all I ask of Bush or any president. I do not expect them to be right on every issue. I do not demand their total allegiance to every cause I personally support. I do not expect that they will not make mistakes.
I do, however, hold them to higher standard of behavior than the average man on the street. I expect them to recognize and appreciate the sacrificial contributions of our young men and women in the armed forces. I do expect them to uphold the finest traditions of their office and to carry themselves with a dignity worthy of their lofty position. Bush has done that.
In conclusion, I must say that George W. Bush is not the perfect president, but he is still pretty darn good!
© 2002 Robert Yoho
Why do you folks demand everything RIGHT NOW? Can you not see that some things are being delayed until there is a public desire for the actions, and that some things are being done as a way to get acquiescence from the democrats on other, more important things?
I just don't understand people who expected that everything would be changed immediately on January 20, 2001. Bush never promised that, and anyone who thought that was being unrealistic.
You're assuming he wants to do right in the first place and is being restrained. But he's not trying to do right, and it's not as if he's doing nothing; he's actively destroying the Constitution.
We can't take our marbles and go home when something doesn't go the way we personally would like. We all have to work hard to get more conservatives (or at least mostly conservative Republicans) elected. We need that majority in order to control the committees! Then the President will have a much easier time getting done what he wants done!
He's not doing the world's worst job. But the main reason for his popularity is the war itself (which he is prosecuting in about the way I would have guessed that he would).
And he has done some things which he hasn't needed to do-- and avoided doing some things which definitely ought to be done. (I'm not talking about things which he has deferred. I'm talking about things which he has deep-sixed.)
And although I disagree with Rush Limbaugh about a number of things, I think Rush was right about CFR. And that's a pretty serious matter. Our President did not need to take the political path of least resistance. But that's a fairly conspicuous part of his politics, so I'm not surprised that he signed CFR. I was expecting it all along (assuming a bill would make it through both sides of Congress).
What our POTUS has failed to remember is that our Congress is loaded with Dems and RINOs who do not really love our Constitution even if they often talk about it in loving terms. They call it a "living document," which means to them that our Constitution means whatever they can make it mean.
In this case, he needed to be a leader, not a diplomatic follower. He needed to lead from the front, not from the middle (which is his typical approach as an organization man, so to speak).
He needed to address the Constitutional issues head-on, not punt to the SCOTUS. To punt to the SCOTUS is to neglect an important checks-and-balances feature of our Constitution--designed for the protection of our Constitution, of course--and to send a wrong signal to those who do like to slowly but surely erode our liberties!
Our nation's founders would have fought and bled over this kind of thing. (As a matter of fact, they did!) As I said in my earlier posts on this thread, we are far removed from our founders. We need to get back to their ideals. We need to climb out of the swamp, not tread water and then tire and then sink.
Pardon me, but isn't our party supposed to defend us? Heck, they don't even defend themselves, just make weak excuses and go along with the Dems. It's really the RINOs' party, not 'ours', and the RINOs have turned it into one-half of the Party of Government.
I feel sorry for you. If you live in fear of terrorism, then the terrorists have already won.
Yes, people like you would vote for a third party as a protest vote--but in the long run, whom do you hurt? Look what happened to us with CLinton. Bush One did break his promise of no new taxes, but did you see what you got in his place? Clinton and Gore not only raised taxes the highest they have ever been but they also raised the taxes on the social security. Aren't you glad your people did this?
Wake up, criticism of the president is good and should be voiced. But this quackery comments of the constitutionality of the CFR and the education program b/c it has no vouchers, serve no purpose if you threaten to vote for someone who is the antithesis of your views or who has no chance of ever winning. Decide--either you want to incrementally advance your cause (I do believe that Bush would be more effective and have more of his agenda passed with a republican senate)or roll over and let the opponent win. Grow up and be mature about your differences but quit this "I'll take my ball home--wah wah wah".
Somehow it seems eerily apropos. ;^)
Tho he has the bully pulpit, if you work, when do you get a chance to listen to the president? I live in Houston, the radio stations don't carry his address on Saturday, C-span shows Bush's speeches at 3 AM (for those of us who work and can't watch cable all day, we are asleep at that time)and the media editorials don't quite like the president. The media loves McCain, it would have been Saint McCain vs. Lucifer Bush.
So, do you really think that it would have been smart of Bush to veto the CFR when he knew that the Mitch McConnels of the world would bring a suit to the SCOTUS.
Again this is hard ball politics--not fluff--so let the people know that he was in favor of keeping those nasty dollars out of the campaigns. It is all in perception!!!
My point is that I wouldn't have done what he did. (It's a theological thing. I'm a Calvinist, not a Wesleyan.)
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.