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
Rush and other pundits are really getting on my nerves. What they don't see is that Bush is trying to control a fire that he is about to make a lot hotter. That region of the world needs to be brought under control so when we go into Iraq our soldiers won't be surrounded in a hostile environment once the shooting stops and Sadam has been toppled. Having a hostile Iran on one side is managable because they will be next. Having a hostile Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Jordan to the north and west might lead to a bloodbath (we will still win). I don't think Bush wants that on his conscience. Something to think about
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.
Excellent essay and an accurate portrait of many of the 'conservative' Bush-bashers on FR.
Never satisified, never mollified, always finding fault. The President never does anything right, in their eyes.
Dreary and negative, name-calling and ridicule their main weapons of disagreement, they hide behind the constitution and wave it in your face if you dare - dare - to praise or defend GW Bush on any issue, for any reason. They do little but complain and accomplish absolutely nothing but unfortunately, they comprise a sizeable portion of this websites posting population.
Some of us are even more concerned about his refusal to be confrontational in important matters of domestic policy, including criminal justice. Even if his famous nice-guy "velvet hammer" approach sort of works in domestic matters, it sort of doesn't.
Some FReepers may be interested in the theological underpinnings of his approach--and why President Bush sometimes does seem to lack the spirit of our founders. To that end, I recommend that lurkers read the final three paragraphs of my post on another thread: (see The Theology of Our Nation's Christian Founders).
Damned with faint praise.
Many conservatives say that Bush is "doing a good job." What exactly does that mean? If you mean that he's "doing a good job" at preserving the status quo, I would agree. If you mean that he's "doing a good job" of bolstering the federal monopoly on public education, I would concede that as well. If, however, you mean to say that he's "doing a good job" of scaling back government and restoring some form of constitutional sanity to Washington I would profoundly disagree. Whether or not Bush restores the public's respect for the office of president is inconsequential. He should work on restoring the public's respect for the principles upon which this nation was built.
Should he and I agree on every issue? Of course not, but the very least I expect from any president is that he live up to the oath he swore before Almighty God to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. Pushing for more education spending, stricter environmental regulations and more limits on free speech (a.k.a. Campaign Finance Reform) doesn't help.
And it will be because of Bush 43.
So those of us who criticize unconstitutional policies are regarded as Bush-Bashers? Would that make Bush and his supporters Constitution-Bashers?
Isn't Scalia's first name 'Antonin'?
Sounds picky, I know, but I would also object to reading about "Wilbur F. Buckley" in an article written by a conservative.
But some things in his Presidency reveal a peculiar failing in Presidential integrity itself. For example, he promised to "scrub" the Oval Office. But he has actually blocked the scrubbing--all of it, as far as I can tell.
(It's almost as if President Bush presumes that his presence in the Oval Office is the scrubbing. But it's really not. Merely changing Presidents doesn't eliminate the stains in his office or on our nation.
The Truth would go a long ways toward fixing the problem. And the truth is, our nation's founders would have tarred and feathered Clinton. And they would have tarred and feathered the guys who refused to tar and feather Clinton.
Our nation is far removed from the principles of our founders.)
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.