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.
Lou Gerigh's record stood for 56 years, Ruth's .847 slugging average for more than 80. But that didn't mean that there were no good players in between, or that baseball wasn't exciting. And we most certainly shouldn't discard those players who were merely "good" along the way.
I don't think we'll see another Reagan in quite a while. But it incumbent upon us to not give up the fight in spite of that, specially not in the name of winning the war as some here are suggesting that we should do.
There are idealogues, demagogues, opportunists and charlatans enough to fill a ocean with second guesses and arm-chair quarterbacking, all living in the make-believe vacuum of a contemporary political arena without opposition. The reality is that the opposition is there, and it is very strong. And that we have to get them out of there by whatever means necessary.
I read an article here on FR about a Republican Congressional candidate in California named Tim Escobar who had a great quote, I wish him all the best, he's got a rough road ahead in California.
"George W. has taken education, welfare, and other issues away from the Democrats. They're left with gays, abortion, and Jesse Jackson."
By whatever means necessary.
I think that's clear Jim.
Supported by California's Republicans, opposed by California's liberals and Libertarians.
LG> By whatever means necessary.
WooHoo!
I see. So your solution is what again? Should Bush declare martial law and round up this horde of "terrorists"? Hell if we multiply the "Elian photo" a thousand fold that would stop the border crossings in their tracks. How about it, Martial law and a serious round up?
And killed by our Federal Government.
Yes he has. He increased their budget by $40 billion. Now, when he tries to reign back in the exploding budget, guess who's going to demagogue that issue and take it away from him? You can not out Democrat a Democrat. What part of that do you fail to see? And while Bush has supposedly taken that issue from Democrats, are you saying that the teachers unions are now going to vote for Bush? Surely even you aren't that far gone? Are you?
These increases in spending are almost impossible to retract. That's the madening part of this. And it's simply amazing to watch as "conservatives" explain this master plan to the rest of us.
I at least put forward a solution. Something you are a bit reluctant to do. Let's tee this puppy up and start the round-up. How about it?
No, it had nothing to do with immigration. The attack was perpetrated by a group of blood thirsty Islamist extremists.
There are many, many forms of terrorism Jim. Not just planes hitting building intentionally.
Democrats were outraged that the Republican Party and a number of Republican legislators had provided over half the money to get the proposition on the ballot. Libertarians were angry that Proposition 187 threatened their goal of open borders.
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.