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.
Sad......
redrock
There is a big difference between hammering out a give and take compromise with Demoncrats, and giving away the farm, for free. Reagan understood this difference. Here is another quote on a subject he refused to compromise on.
"A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply swell its numbers...And if there are those who cannot subscribe to these principles, then let them go their way."--Ronald Reagan
Unfortunately, things have completely reversed and now conservatives are being invited to leave the Party.
These were your words.....right?
Indeed they were. If you would read them in context, and if you had an open mind, you would understand what I'm saying.
CFR was the plan of our political 'enemies'...but was accomplished with the assistance of many Republicans...including the President.
The education bill was Teddy Kennedy's wet dream...and was accomplished with the support of many Republicans...including the President.
Tom Harkin has been trying to pass his version of the the Soviet five year plan for agriculture for the last 30 years...and got it done this year, with the help of Republicans, including the President.
With Reagan, we always had the sense that he was fighting for our agenda, even if he didn't always succeed. I believe he would have vetoed all three of those bills, personally.
Boss! Boss! tpaine, tpaine!
redrock
It is an infringement of the rights of the states for the federal government to control any amount of education funding. That they currently do so and that the states can choose to "refuse" this funding doesn't make it less of an infringement.
Circular logic.
Tell me this was Lott and not Nichols, pleeeeeeeease!
Same was true of impeachment. I still have his letter explaining how Democrat Senators and some Republicans would not even go look at the evidence and had no
intention of voting to remove Clinton so they ignored evidence and the votes were NEVER going to be there to remove. They would not budge. NOTE: Not one
DemocRAT voted to remove!
Once again, was this Lott or Nichols? Lott right?
Recently he has taken on ms. clinton twice quite publically even though the mainstream press chose to ignore it. If there were a lot more Senators like him and Sen
Inhofe, the United States Senate would be a lot better place.
Now, this is Nichols right?
You really do need to brush up on your comprehension skills. Good night.
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.