Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Conservatives, Cut Bush Slack
The Chicago Sun-Times ^ | June 22, 2002 | Thomas Roeser

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.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 2,241-2,242 next last
To: First_Salute
What has changed since Reagan was President, is the body of the people who have not benefitted from conservatives and Republicans' standing up the errors prolific in the liberal media, which produces histrionics that are lost in extra-Constitutional space, misleading people into thinking in virtual, instead of freedom's, realities.

Witness the Al-Qaeda-Jugen, born and raised in front of TV's "boob tube;" becoming boobs for nationalizing socialistic fascism that operates shamelessly and fraudulently in the name of Islam.

Where the liberal media and the whole flotsam of leftist propaganda mislead our people, is something up with which we should not put, but especially our President Bush.

He may have some personal integrity on some issues, but he compromises your's and my freedoms, giving away, negotiating away ... what is not his, nor has the authority to do so.

Great post that bears repeating.

121 posted on 06/22/2002 11:56:35 AM PDT by browardchad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: 185JHP
 The standard is integrity -
did he stand for good things,
regardless of mockery and costs?

Why doesn't Reagan make your list?

122 posted on 06/22/2002 11:58:25 AM PDT by gcruse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Randjuke
Sorry I heard it 'should'.
123 posted on 06/22/2002 11:58:25 AM PDT by nanny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: windchime
Well, there are some posts on here that remind me of the well, and often beaten wife who keeps insisting 'he loves me, when he is not beating me up'.
124 posted on 06/22/2002 12:00:04 PM PDT by nanny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Wild Irish Rogue
Wild Irish Rogue wrote: Thanks for being willing to take the arrows!

I was tempered and hardened in the furnace of the FR flame wars of '98-'99.

This is child's play and most of these malcontents can't hold a candle to the legendary flame warriors of the past.

125 posted on 06/22/2002 12:01:44 PM PDT by quidnunc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: al_possum39
Could it be that you really do want to alienate us?

It would appear that way to me, after watching this particular strain grow here for the last year or so.

Call them the 'moderate' FR nihilists.

ni-hil-ism /'ni(h)-e-liz-em, :a doctrine that denies any objective ground of truth and esp. of moral truths 2. :a doctrine or belief that conditions in the social organization are so bad as to make destruction desirable for its own sake independent of any constructive program or possibility

There seem to be those here whose desire is to make this simply a Bush cheerleading site, and a daily propagator of the GOP party line; irregardless whether those talking points are true and right or not.

(Of course there are those here whose criticisms of the administration are silly and unfounded. But they are just more fodder for the 'smash-anyone-who-doesn't-toe-the-line' crusaders.)

It will be a sad day for FR, and for our Republic, when and if this crowd has the upper hand, and/or drives away those who want to come here to discuss the stated principles underlying Jim's site.

EV

126 posted on 06/22/2002 12:09:17 PM PDT by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
He does - he's the other one. He tried to do what he said he'd do.
127 posted on 06/22/2002 12:13:18 PM PDT by 185JHP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah! I have been hearing this worn out excuse over and over. Democraps don't vote on issues, they vote for whom leadership told them to. And, the leadership, usually communist union leaders, when given the choice between a determined communist democrat and a Republican that tries to act a little commy, will always pick the real deal. Thus, the masses of democraps follow. Therefore, no matter what liberal W does, the black leadership, union leadership, etc. will NEVER endorse a Bush presidency.

I encourage everybody to vote Republican in the upcoming congressional elections, and vote Libertarian in the next presidential elections. We will lose the presidency, but will send a strong message to future candidates that conservatism is still the major view in the base of Republicans at the grass roots level. Just my opinion.

128 posted on 06/22/2002 12:15:03 PM PDT by rodeocowboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple
Please translate, "Got that extension cord, yet?"
129 posted on 06/22/2002 12:16:58 PM PDT by Grampa Dave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: rodeocowboy
Also, VOTING FOR A DEMOCRAP IS THE WORSE THING ONE COULD DO! That will tell our wishy-washy republican leadership that the base is becoming more liberal. Vote libertarian and it will tell the leadership the base is more conservative, once they see the large percentage the libertarian vote took away.

The only time the Repbulican party ever had to worry about third parties, and really has since, was when we have had wishy-washy candidates. The first real threat-and-loss to the Republican party was with George Bush (Daddy Bush) in his reelection. Then with that piece of garbage RINO, Bob Dole. Then, once again with George W. Bush. You would think they would learn by now. Maybe next time will be the ticket.

130 posted on 06/22/2002 12:22:25 PM PDT by rodeocowboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave
This is Howlin's prototype. She told WRhine that she was going to get an extension cord. LOL!


131 posted on 06/22/2002 12:22:49 PM PDT by Miss Marple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Tabitha Soren
Tabitha, you can't really be serious. I would say the fact that President Bush changed the argument from abortion and a woman's choice to pre-natal care for the unborn is the beginning. Also his policy of defunding abortions abroad. Give the man some credit for redirecting the arguments.

A Pro-Life Victory

This Thursday, Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson made an announcement that is great news to anyone who values life in this country, providing that states may classify a developing fetus as an "unborn child" eligible for government health care. The important decision will give low-income women access to prenatal care.

Specifically, the plan focuses on the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Under the new classification, pregnant women will be able to take advantage of a state "CHIP' program, receiving important prenatal and delivery care.

"Prenatal care for women and their babies is a crucial part of the medical care every person should have through the course of their life cycle," Thompson said in a statement. "Prenatal services can be a vital, lifelong determinant of health, and we should do everything we can to make this care available for all pregnant women."

This groundbreaking policy change will not take effect until public comment is received, and the regulation is printed in the federal register. Not surprisingly, the pro-abortion forces have been on the warpath since this decision was announced. They are trying to depict this decision as a back-door attempt to criminalize abortion. You can bet the farm that they will have all guns a-blazing in the coming weeks to try to stop this important measure.

The fact of the matter is that the Bush Administration has taken a bold step toward recognition of rights for unborn children, and the president should be commended.

132 posted on 06/22/2002 12:23:52 PM PDT by swheats
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
It will be a sad day for FR, and for our Republic, when and if this crowd has the upper hand

Too late.

133 posted on 06/22/2002 12:24:11 PM PDT by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: al_possum39
It is seems to me that some folks, while appearing to support GW, are trying to alienate those with legitimate complaints against GW. Any criticism at all is considered "bashing". If the folks with complaints are in error, you don’t convince people of their error by calling them ignorant and whiners, etc. Could it be that you really do want to alienate us?

I can speak only for myself, but I believe the people being "bashed" here are the posters who, if you deviate at all from their idea of conservatism, will label you quickly as a Dem or RINO, not only dismissing what you say but also sending what amounts to an insult. There is also the tendency among them to paint GWB with the same brush, stating they would rather vote for anyone else or no one at all. Have they forgotten that, if not for Ralph Nader, we would have Al Bore leading us (oymoron?) in our war on terror?

I welcome differing opinions, it would be a boring discussion board if we all agreed. We need to decide if the Republican party is going to be the "big tent", welcoming people who don't necessarily agree on everything but share enough beliefs to win elections and change what we can, or a "small tent", populated by determined and principled people who nevertheless can't generate enough agreement to get anything done.

134 posted on 06/22/2002 12:24:12 PM PDT by Randjuke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Wild Irish Rogue
My personal experience is that those most furious with GW,have a lot of, shall we say, anger issues, which I am sure spill over into other areas of their lives.

I hate you.

135 posted on 06/22/2002 12:26:07 PM PDT by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: MJY1288
Thanks, reclaiming the Senate and holding the House bump.
136 posted on 06/22/2002 12:33:20 PM PDT by swheats
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
Too late.

Maybe.

137 posted on 06/22/2002 12:35:51 PM PDT by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
EternalVigilance wrote: Call them the 'moderate' FR nihilists.

Moderate nihilists!?

That's arrant nitwittery and ridiculous on it's face!

Here's a few terms which might be more the mots justes when searching for the source of the trouble.

zeal·ot n.

1.
a. One who is zealous, especially excessively so.
b. A fanatically committed person.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

kook n. Slang

A person regarded as strange, eccentric, or crazy.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

mon·o·ma·ni·a n.

1. Pathological obsession with one idea or subject.
2. Intent concentration on or exaggerated enthusiasm for a single subject or idea.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

idealogue n.

One given to fanciful ideas or theories; a theorist; a spectator.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

138 posted on 06/22/2002 12:36:48 PM PDT by quidnunc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc
Sorry Bush has been caving into the left for no reason I don't see how this is going to help the GOP win anything. In addition Mexico runs his immigration policy now and Saudi Arabia is running the war on terror( which is sorta like putting Adolf Hitler in command of a war against Germany). I really liked the guy until he started sliding leftward and appeasing early this year but I despise the man now.
139 posted on 06/22/2002 12:38:09 PM PDT by weikel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc
Wow, I'm impressed. You have a dictionary too.
140 posted on 06/22/2002 12:45:41 PM PDT by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 2,241-2,242 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson