Conservatives, Cut Bush Slack

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.

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."

I hope that the Freepers viewing this site recognize that the Republicans are not getting this message. I hope Freepers will decide that FreeRepublic has the message that Republicans need to hear. And that Republicans are going pay a price if they do not hear and act on our message:

Stop enacting the Democrat's agenda. Repeal the Democrat's agenda that has been enacted. We do not want to get along with Democrats. We demand that you defeat not only the Democrats in office, but virtually everything that is near and dear to the hearts of the socialists of the Democratic Party.

And if you don't, we are going to try and elect somebody that will. Either the Republican Party is going to demolish the Democratic Party or we are going to demolish you both.

That is the message that FreeRepublic should be sending to the Republicans and the President.

'We must have a Republican in office.'

'Why?'

'Because we don't want a Democrat in office.'

'Why don't we want a Democrat in office?'

'Because then a Republican wouldn't be in office.'

'Why is that bad?'

'Because there would be a Democrat in office.'

'Why is that bad?'

'Because then there would be no Republican in office.'

How do you compromise with someone who doesn't compromise? Do you ever see the left moving right in order to move the country left? How do you move someone in the direction of your principles by always sacrificing them?

It never ceases to amaze me the logic of some conservatives, that we can somehow move people in the direction of our principles by abandoning them at the drop of a hat, that somehow we will create conservatives by adopting liberal ideology.

It's the typical political naivety of the Republican party. We move left, which becomes the center. Then the socialists come back and say the center is now the right, and we compromise again to the left, to create a new center, which quickly becomes the right again, and so on.

There is another term for it, it's called LOSER. People who don't have the will to win are the one's who compromise their principles. Those who give up their principles LOSE. Those who will do anything as long as they can keep the 'R' in front of the current officeholders name have LOST. They have LOST because they are incapable of winning the public debate and articulate their position to win people to their cause, so they water down and make 'R' a meaningless shell.

Of course, they argue that this is what we must do to win people to our side. Funny, I don't recall Rush Limbaugh gaining national noteriety by compromising his position. I thought he did it by Winning Hearts And Minds. Gee, I guess Limbaugh isn't a true conservative. He couldn't be anyway, he's been bashing Bush to much lately.

PRINCIPLE is what decides where the country is going, and what our daily lives will be like. It is PRINCIPLE that creates the reality we live in. The reason we so much taxation and regulation is because someone or someones have steadily been pushing their PRINCIPLES into law. They have done this by winning the public debate and getting their people elected to office.

Of course none of that addresses the Constitution. Because compromising Republicans conveniently get around that by saying that as long as the Supreme Court says it's constitutional, then the Constitution hasn't been violated. So, when the entire country is nationalized and we are sitting in concentration camps, the Constitutionhasn't been shredded, because the Supreme Court hasn't ruled concentration camps unconstitutional. Of course, they eliminated that possibility when they compromised for a more liberal bench, in order of course to promote conservative govt.

So what does the article mean? Nothing really. The rantings of a LOSER, someone who can't get the job done because they don't have the will to fight in the public arena. Someone who cares only that their group is in power, not that they stand for anything good. I myself want no part of it, I don't hang with LOSERS. I'll keep company with those who have the spine to keep their principles.

If we remember that we are Defending Our Constitution, instead of the President (who is only one man), might not it be easier to agree?
From front page:

About Free Republic

Who are we? Free Republic is a loosely organized group of grassroots Americans who support our Constitution and look for honesty, integrity and honor from those in government. Like millions of Americans, we are fed up with our out of control federal government. Therefore, we are working together to roll back decades of liberal/socialist public policy and eliminate the waste, fraud, abuse and corruption pervasive in Washington today.
FreeRepublic Logo = Defending Our Constitution

Non-partisan American voter and believer in the US Constitution.

I hope that the Freepers viewing this site recognize that the Republicans are not getting this message. I hope Freepers will decide that FreeRepublic has the message that Republicans need to hear. And that Republicans are going pay a price if they do not hear and act on our message:

I am trying to find an article I saw about a month ago; I believe it was a poll commissioned by the RNC...IIRC, it said that Americans back Bush strongly on the war on terror, and after that, their top priorities for the Federal government were improving health care, improving education, and saving social security.

It also said that Americans trust Bush to successfully prosecute the War on Terror, and believe that Congress will follow his lead, but they trust the Democrats more on the domestic issues they are interested in.

The results were rather surprising to me, because they did NOT fit my preconceived notions of what Americans want, and certainly don't agree with MY opinion of what government should be doing.

My question to you is, do you have any basis for saying what Americans do or don't want, or are you projecting your own beliefs onto the rest of the country?

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.