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.
Congress passes legislation. Read a book.
Those who are trying to advance a conservative agenda working within the realities of our political system.
Then there are those who will do anything they can to defeat the current President because he isn't to their liking. You are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. My suggestion, get over you bitterness.
You've shown that you were lying. Now buzz off.
Whatever you say. You are the master of Twodees world, a world of unreality, IMHO.
BTW, since I don't live in Twodees world, I won't be making any political comment about it. That should make you happy.
Yes I would advocate dumping the party for one go around. My state hasn't got 12 years to turn this sucker around. Either we face up to the problems we have or we are going to go under. Ignoring the problem for another decade is not an option.
No, I woudn't hand over the reigns of government to get a candidate of my chosing, but I would turn it over to get someone on board that would protect our borders the next time around. I don't want any more of our radio stations television stations, jobs and other entities going Spanish instead of English or denying US citizens jobs unless they speak Spanish.
Bitterness, at having my state overrun by foreign nationals, now why would that bother anyone?
Can any true conservative actually state that we wouldn't be better off if the Republicans had been crushed in 2000? Sure we'd have the same things going on, and quite frankly some of the decisions that have been made would have been made for the worse. But on the other hand, Gore would have been too much of a chicken-sh_t to offer up some of the carpolla Bush has. There isn't a chance in heck that Gore would have increased the DOE by $40 billion. Gore would not have signed onto a healthcare plan alla Hillarycare offered up by Teddie like Bush has. And I doubt very much he'd have had the gutts to try and legalize all illegal aliens. I doubt very seriously that he could have gotten through the Patriot act in it's present form, and there's no way the intrusive federal mandates would have been propagated the way they have been.
Right now the Republican party would be searching desparately for a true conservative that they could run in 2004. Now they're planning on running Bush Albert in a canm, again. It will be at least 2008 before we could hope for a true conservative in the White House. And if Bush wins in 2004, you can bump that back to 2012 at least. There is no way a conservative will gain footing towards the end of a Bush Presidency. We would have been four to eight years ahead of the game if we as Republicans had taken one tactic in the year 2000.
What I would advise today is that we don't vote Democrat, we simple carry out a nationwide protest on election day with millions of frustrated Republicans standing on main streets across this nation, demanding a conservative before we'll ever vote Republican again.
My thought about voting for a Democrat wasn't misguided. Your suggestion was right on target. If the Republicans couldn't run a conservative, we should have stiffed them at the polls. You surmised that voting Al Gore in by a landslide would send a message to the Republicans. But after thinking about what message we'd be sending, I think we'd be sending the message that Democrat Liberalism sells better than Republican Liberalism. That would be a mistake.
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.
In 2004 there is either going to be a true Conservative on the Republican ballot or the party won't get 35% of the vote. Bush is in dire danger of becoming toast politically.
Today I'll bet there are far more than 100 people on this forum that would get what we're talking about here. Still, there's too many idiot sticks to hope that we could pick up a conservative by 2004 or 2008. I suggest it will 2012 before we have a chance of electing a conservative. By that time there will be between ten and twenty million more illegals within our borders in key states. I'd like to think we might have a chance. Fact is, this nation is likey doomed.
There, we did not leave anything out or gloss it over.
You think that defunding flunking public schools would be a positive way to promote the conservative agenda to the people of the US? It is after all, the people of the United States that we need to promote the conservative agenda to. The people whose kids attend flunking schools that conservatives want to take money away from. Money that would improve the schools and let their kids get a better education.
That's the game the Dems always play with conservatives, and they beat the hell out of us with it constantly. People vote into office the guy that promises to spare neither time nor resources to make sure their kids get a better education.
You bitch about the $40 billion, what price is too high to defeat the Dems?
By any means necessary.
Bingo.
Oh, that's right, I forget.
You live in that world where a candidate with the support of roughly 1% of the voters would slam legislation past a Senate controlled by the opposition.
Is that indicative of a broken system? Not so much as it is indicative of this country's heritage of freedom.
It was much simpler and less likely to attract unwanted scrutiny for the terrorists to exist within our laws, and guarantee themselves the ability to go about their deed, than to risk the possibility of detention by the INS.
The pure fact of the matter is that the INS had no reasong to think that these guys were any more dangerous than any other foreign visitor to the US prior to 9/11.
Because he didn't promote legalizing child porn
The federal government is trying to support massive medical services on elementary, middle and high school campuses. You have no idea what some of these programs involve. I just talked to an insider in the LAUSD. You would not believe the money that is being spent to place semi-vegetative seventh grade aged individuals with about a 2 year old level of understanding, in the regular classroom. Some of these individuals cannot even hold their heads up. They are so bad off that if they are allowed to slump forward, they could die. Further, all the normal classrooms these individuals must visit to take part in regular classes must have ramps and wheel chair access. Further, their equipment is so extensive that students that are perfectly healthy and would gain from attending the class, must be displaced to afford the space to the handicapped individual. And as bad as this is, some of the handicapped individuals could actually learn something of value if they were placed properly. But in the seventh grade or other classrooms, they will gain nothing.
Some of these handicapped people who are going to gain nothing cost our schools upwards of $100,000 to $1,000,000 per year all by themselves. Now, tell me how the schools can't get along without more money.
Luis healthcare clinics are being set up on campuses around the nation. How do you feel knowing that high school girls will have access to full medical services without their parent's knowledge?
Luis, it has been proven a number of times that our children's lack of learning is not due to a lack of money. They are not learning because they are not being taught. They are spending so much time on PC indoctrination that normal educational items are being given short shrift.
I could go on. Your mind is made up.
No budget could be too big.
You're learning. Congratulations!
Doesn't do much good. Every time I cool off over the last nonsense Bush has foisted off on us, he supports some other lunacy.
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.