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.
it IS the agenda of the liberals being enacted. it's seamless government from one administration to the next, seems to me.
They may not want it all, but they want some of it...whether it's education, health care, retirement, disability insurance....they think the Federal government ought to do it, and if the GOP tries to cut the funds they are seen as "mean-spirited"."
Americans have not bought into socialism. Most continue to despise socialism in any form. The problem is economic. The socialists have grown government so much that government confiscates so much of a family's resources that they are struggling to cope with their own financial needs. Government steals their time and their money. Time theft is accomplished through the many forms to be filled out, and through the myriad rules and regulations that make it impossible to get anything done.
The reason it takes two earner families is because the burdens of government confiscates the wages of the second to pay the taxes declared on the earnings of the first. It is obscene to think that government is entitled to part of a family's income. And politicians then buy the votes of their constituents by promising to give part of their wages back to them for this or that purpose. The Income Tax constitutes involuntary servitude. By any name, it is still slavery.
Those who do not think TERM LIMITS are essential, simply do not understand the problem.
I respectfully yet passionately disagree, my FRiend...MUD
I also take issue with those who believe that the way to win, is to lose. Or those who fail to understand that splitting the conservatives will result in a string of victories for Liberals. That's just a fact, and they need to deal with it.
Those who leave the battlefield with the battle joined, then blame the ones left behind for the losses, are hypocrites.
Reagan did not join the Republican Party in order to somehow secure future victories for the Democrats, did he?
I knew Texasforever is a male.
In the 60's. Men change. Reagan for the better. There is still time for many others, too.
Blanket statement , I hate them...
I just so happen to be a Contractor that works out in the heat and cold year round..
I'm afraid that there are a lot of egomaniacs who think that if they aren't calling the shots then the battle isn't worth fighting.
But Bob Dole was "next".
Actually, the majority of Americans think the major priorities of the Federal government, after the war on terrorism, should be education, health care, and social security. You might not like it, but there it is.
The majority of Americans won't SAY they are in favor of socialism, but they WILL say those are their top priorities for the FedGov.
The majority of Americans ARE social conservatives, but I'm not sure that they are economic conservatives.
What you're saying, stripped to its essence is that the majority of people are imbeciles who embrace what you oppose because they lack your superior discernment.
No, I'm saying they have a different view of the function of government. I do get the distinct impression that you feel those who disagree with you are imbeciles. But debating based on your feelings is a liberal tactic, is it not?
Saying that we've done this to ourselves and that we get the government we deserve is Hassayampa. This has been done to Americans by a bunch of amoral politicians who won't follow the rules laid out for them.
Like it or not, most of it has done with the approval of the American people, or there would have been such an outcry it would have necessarily been reversed.
Remove the insane level of taxation and regulation and people will begin to handle things on their own again.
That would be nice. I'd like to go back to the original idea that unless one paid taxes, one could not vote. It would remove at least some of the incentive for some people to vote for politicians who supported government redistribution of wealth.
Freedom Is Worth Fighting For !!
Molon Labe !!
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.