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.
(Odd choice of humor you have.) If they lacked the 2 hijackers who overstayed their visas, no doubt the whole attack would have been thwarted. Gee. Were we fools to have not elected Joe Hadenufski to the White House.
. Now there you go again. You should post on DU you anti-American PIG. I am watching that band of terrorists using my lawn as a cover operation. They are plotting as we speak. LOL
Prior to FDR, it was.
, and that you will appoint supreme court justices that will vote to overrule all prior SCOTUS precedents and sweep the whole thing out. That should rally the "conservative" base.
The "conservative" base (quotes intended) are a splintered amalgam of anti-government libertaians, single-issue whigners voters, big government "moderates", and JBT statists.
The last rally point that it came together was the fight against Clinton/Gore.
I count myself with the libers mostly, I'm not thrilled with Bush, but I support him over the Gore/Hillary party.
That said, it would be better to not add more government control (the prescription benefit) now, then to try adding it, then take it away later.
I have read your arguments for finding a conservative candidate to your liking. They include: Today I'd advocate the massive election day protest which would see Bush wind up with about 10% of the vote, the opponent about 40%. The massive protests would leave no doubt in the Republican's minds that come the next election day, there damned well better be a conservative on the ballot.
You would hand over the reins of government to the democrats simply in an effort to garner a candidate that would appeal to your side of the isle? You don’t have a side of the isle and 8 years of a President Hillary Clinton still would not gain you the candidate you desire.
Your perceptions of the President and his accomplishments are simply tainted by your bitterness and inability to move forward.
Wow! Over here we get mostly Mexicans.
Well they speak funny.
Go ahead. Prove it or shut up. Either suits me
No need to, you are proving my point with each of your posts. You and your malcontnent buddies should learn the age old addage of "digging yourself a deeper hole".
I guess that addage doesn't work well with those enamored with hubris.
I stated that if the Republican party was going to continue to run people who were willing to support liberal policies and legislation, it would be best if we allowed the dems to win by a large margin, meaning that Bush or any other mild leftist would only get about 10 million votes.
Why did I say this? Did I say it because I support leftist policies that see tens of billions more thrown at schools? Did I say this because I want to see 75% of our nuclear deterent destroyed? Did I say it because I like seeing our Navy down to 310 ships from 600, and still headed south? Did I say it because I like him backing $300 healthcare programs only a Roosevelt could love? No, I said it because I'm damned tired of those policies sneaking through. So whatever you think, let's get one thing straight right now. If I were a Democrat I'd shut my mouth and join you.
By only giving the Republicans 10 million votes instead of around 40 million, we'd be sending a message that we're through backing leftists in sheep's clothing. We'd be saying that if the Republican party wants to remain a viable party it better start running conservatives. Otherwise it's over. I don't think the party has a death wish that is strong enough that they'd try placing a mild leftist into play again.
Now, what would we lose by sitting out four years? We would gain by forcing the party to run conservatives. As it is we don't stand a chance of having a conservative in the White House until 2008. If Bush wins in 2004 he'll do his best to pass off his legacy in 2008, thereby preventing any conservative from being on the ballot. And if another mild leftist wins in 2008, we'll you get the picture. We could be looking at 2012 to 2016 before a true conservative gets in. And you think my idea is bad?
Dump the party one general election. Tell them that if they ever place a mild leftist on the ticket again, they'll be ignored again. And by 2008 we'll be voting for a conservative. Otherwise, who knows when.
Now you may not like this prospect. Frankly I don't like it either. But if we're going to have to wait until 2012 or 2016 at the earliest, to get a conservative by playing the Republican's game, what the hell choice do we have. It's the only viable alternative party to the Dems, and it won't run a conservative. Now what do you suggest?
Only Tpaine. You know how his wit and political acuity adds to any thread he participates in.
The Fulani vote didn't do Buchanan much good.
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.