Posted on 06/22/2002 9:46:05 AM PDT by quidnunc
This summer will mark the 47th year since I took my first Republican job: as public relations director for the party in Minnesota. Since then I have rarely strayed from politics, or my party. I served as a staffer to two GOP congressmen, to a GOP governor, as a federal appointee to Richard Nixon and as a corporate executive who supported in Washington and Springfield much, if not all, of the Republican agenda.
You can describe me as a conservative. Thus I am qualified to say that although I dearly love conservatives, they tend to be querulous, disagreeable and threaten revolt when Republican office-holders don't please them. So it is now with George W. Bush. Here is a president who has surprised us all with the firmness and resolve he showed after 9/11. I must tell you I voted for him with less enthusiasm than I had for many of his predecessors. But his administration has pleased me often — most notably on two issues: defense of America and social policy.
Yet, Bush has to get re-elected in a country that is evenly divided on philosophy. Thus he must occasionally — on matters that sometimes offend conservatives — dip into the other side's ideology for support. He has done so on three notable occasions: on the issue of steel protectionism, where he departed his free-market proclamations; on the signing of a campaign finance bill tailored by his enemies, and allowing his attorney general (in the words of Libertarian Nat Hentoff in the Washington Times) "to send disguised agents into religious institutions, libraries and meetings of citizens critical of government policy without a previous complaint, or reason to believe that a crime has been committed."
In a perfect political world, where conservatives are in the majority, these things would be sufficient to encourage a boycott of the polls. Either that or a protest vote for the Democratic opposition. But we are not in a perfect world. We conservatives have a president who didn't receive a majority of the votes, and has one house of Congress against him. He must make compromises to get re-elected. Conservatives who do not understand the nature of politics ought to stay in their air-conditioned ivory towers and refrain from political activity altogether. If they cannot adjudge the stakes in this election and the difference between Bush and an Al Gore or a John Kerry (D-Mass.) or a Dick Gephardt (D-Mo.), they are foolish indeed.
-snip-
To read the remainder of this op/ed open the article via the link provided in the thread's header.
Don't twist my words, and take them out of context.
Most people here understand what I'm talking about about when I reference our political 'enemies'.
Is that REALLY the BEST you can do??????
But if you're afraid to answer them...I understand.
redrock
Nixon's list?
I understand Jim's position very well. But looking at the big picture, I am not overly confident either.
Huh, when you were bad mouthing the Pubbie candidate on the Va. Governors race threads, you stated that your family had roots in Va. since the 1700's.
What a tangled web we weave when we set out to deceive.
Many teachers in my area are conservatives also. I still think one thing that would help is for more of us to become public school teachers. If we leave the public schools to the liberals, what will become of the future generations?
I know some people are saying that their children will never go to public schools...but there are a lot of children who will never go anywhere else, and either we can influence them or the liberals will.
As one who feels that the federal funding of education is both unconstitutional and an infringement upon states rights, ANY money given by the feds is unacceptable. Does that mean I expected the federal government to abolish the department of education? Not at all. It certainly means that this should be the end goal of any phase-out attempt, and that a REDUCTION in funding is in order. INCREASED funding and federal involvement is cetainly not going in a conservative direction. This one is a LOSS for conservatives.
You sounded pretty straight forward to me.
You are truly blessed.
When we Take Back the Senate in November, please support Sen Don Nickles from Oklahoma who is going to challenge Lott for Majority Leader. Sen Nickles is one of the most conservative Senators in the United States Senate and needs our support in defeating Lott for Majority Leader. We need you all to put pressure on your Republican Senators to Vote for Sen Nickles. Lott refused to take Sen Nickles with him on the last budget negotiations with clinton because Sen Nickles would not go along with Lott's compromise.
I totally agree...Don Nickles would make a great majority leader.
Lott has already proven he can't get the job done...time to let someone else step up to the plate.
Kissing up to JimRob, I see. What a hypocrite you are.
States have the right to refuse those funds, don't they?
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.
