Conservatives, Cut Bush Slack

The Chicago Sun-Times ^ | June 22, 2002 | Thomas Roeser

[Sabertooth]

Now, what happens in 2004?  His dad couldn't win two in a row.  Bush has alienated at least a portion of his base.  Folks, I'm telling you right now that you are living in a dream world if you think Bush is going to skate in 2004.  The fact is that liberals will vote for the real liberal, not a liberal lite. And once again the Repbulican party will pander to the liberals and leave their base blowing in the wind because they think they can't not vote for the Republican candidate.  I say you have a real problem brewing.

I think the statement above has a great deal of merit.

I voted for Bush twice in 2000, in the primary and the general. In '96 I voted for Keyes and then Dole. In '92, I voted for Buchanan (I think) and then Bush the Elder. I don't regret any of those votes, though I'd never vote for Buchanan or Keyes again, they're no longer even serious enough candidates for a primary vote.

Does that leave my re-election vote in the bag, no matter what Bush might do? No.

If the election was held today, I'd don a tight pair of noseplugs and vote for Bush with some heavy reservations. The "what about Gore/Hillary/etc." argument isn't especially persuasive. Trotting out the boogeyman to keep me in line no matter what Bush might do doesn't win my vote. The President needs to do that on his own merits.

Does that make me unappeasable? I don't think so. I'd been a straight line libertarian during the 80s, but got tired of that and eventually registered GOP in the early 90s. Even so, I totally surprised myself voting for Bush the Elder in 1992. Perot and Clinton just turned my stomach for any other alternative to be feasible.

Yet I can't join those in this forum who blame Perot voters for Clinton. George HW Bush took those votes for granted, and acted in ways that lost his majority from 1988. He has no one to blame but himself. Politicians serve at our pleasure, and our franchise is not their birthright.

George W. Bush starts out the 2004 campaign with a half-million vote deficit. The votes he got in 2000 are his "base." He barely eked out an Electoral College victory with but dozens of votes to spare. Maybe his new poll numbers will hold until 2004, maybe they won't. But if he alienates enough voters that he loses in 2004, then like his father, he'll have no one to blame but himself for his loss.

Many of us in this forum who protest loudly a number of Bush's recent actions are doing so to prevent such an erosion of his base and a potentially disastrous loss in 2004. But if the President knows our votes are in the bag, he has every reason to ignore us, just as he will if he knows we'd never vote for him. As the election nears, politicians only focus on getting out their base and winning the votes in play.

The best scenario possible is that Bush governs as we'd like and wins re-election. I'll take a certain amount of compromise in governance, but I don't like some of the trends. Where the conservative agenda can't realitically be advanced, the line must at least be held. Yet I see too much incrementalism in favor of the Left's agendas, where holding the line holds little risk. Thus my uneasiness.

So for now, I've determined I'm a Bush-leaning swing voter. And I won't cut him any slack

[Amelia]

You're absolutely wrong. Most Americans don't believe any such thing about the role of government, except a rather large minority of people who watch TV religiously. You're simply repeating what the medium of TV claims is the opinion of most people. According to them, most people are fascinated with the affairs of the British royals. I think that's such obvious nonsense as to be given no credence at all.

Large MINORITY of people who watch TV religiously? And, oh yeah, publishers put pictures of the royals all over the covers of their magazines so they WON'T sell, right?

Most people I know don't approve of what government does.

Do you talk to anyone besides people who think as you do? I don't think you've been spending much time in the real world.

Of course you can pretend that I said I feel that people are imbeciles. What I said is still there for anyone to see, so you're doing yourself no favors by making delusional statements like that.

You're right, the statements are there for anyone who chooses to read.

[Free Vulcan]

I would gladly vote for a conservative Democrat who supports the Constitution over a liberal Republican any day of the week. Constitution first, party second.

[Cultural Jihad]

Unfortunately, there are some. Their idea is that Democrat control would hasten a governmental collapse and that society would then turn to them for their extraordinary wisdom and vision. Sorta like Walter Mitty on steroids.

Josef Stalin had the same sick ideas: "True, we are oppressing the workers, which is apparently a contradiction to our stated goals. But in that contradiction will come another dialectical leap to the utopia we want to bring to them! We are thereby freeing them by enslaving them!" (and ideologues wonder why normal people shun and reject their weird mindsets in droves!)

[Roscoe]

Josef Stalin had the same sick ideas

As did Charles "Helter Skelter" Manson.

[Roscoe]

Good post, fairly put.

[tpaine]

I can not believe anyone on this forum wants to see the democRATS controlling congress or the executive branch.
Unfortunately, there are some. Their idea is that Democrat control would hasten a governmental collapse and that society would then turn to them for their extraordinary wisdom and vision.
Sorta like Walter Mitty on steroids.
1360

---

Hey, Walt, even you get it right once in a while.

[Zack Nguyen]

There are many things that I would like to "thank" Daschle for.

[MJY1288]

The point I was trying to make is we all here are on the same side (besides DU trolls) and that is the Conservative side, The only chance we have in changing things is DEFEATING DEMOCRATS, not trashing each other here on this forum, we should be focusing on this Novembers elections, State by State we have to defeat democrats and when we NO CHANCE of ever taking back this country from the Liberals. If there is some here that think by electing democRATS will help the conservative cause, they need to put the crack pipe down and get some help

[Roscoe]

Our society isn't about to collapse, however much the anarchists fantasize about it.

[Admin Moderator]

thanks, no offense taken 8^)

[Roscoe]

If there is some here that think by electing democRATS will help the conservative cause, they need to put the crack pipe down and get some help

Agreed. There's plenty of opportunities to walk precincts, work phone banks, donate to campaigns, etc., coming up in the next few months.

[MJY1288]

CORRECTION... "State by State we have to defeat democrats Otherwise we have NO CHANCE of ever taking back this country from the Liberals."

[Cultural Jihad]

If there is some here that think by electing democRATS will help the conservative cause, they need to put the crack pipe down and get some help

You statist, you! Only socialists tell people to put their crack pipe down and seek help. Smoking crack is a human right; it's listed in the BoR somewhere or other. In fact, the Constitution itself was written on pressed cocaine paste, or so I've been told. ;)

[Mudboy Slim]

"...you can disagree all you want, it will not change a thing... :o)"

Or we can passively agree no matter what, and it will not change a thing, either...

"Freedom Is Worth Fighting For!!"

Agreed...and Freedom includes limiting the Size and Scope of the Federal Leviathan...MUD

[MJY1288]

LOL, I slipped, shame on me :-)

[tpaine]

I would gladly vote for a conservative Democrat who supports the Constitution over a liberal Republican [who does not] any day of the week. Constitution first, party second.
1363

---

There, in a nutshell, you have captured the view of a LOT of american voters. -- Misguided or not, that is their concept.

-The challenge to conservatives, is to educate these voters on the true meaning of the constitution, -- which neither party upholds in its original sense.

[dcwusmc]

I'm a one-issue voter, too... PRO-CONSTITUTION. All I see Bush and the bush-bots doing is shredding it further... USA-PATRIOT act, CFR, DOEduc, etc., etc. When is the ROLLBACK of big gooberment gonna happen? Under Bush? Not likely. If it had actually been agore elected, would YOU tolerate this kind of rape of the Constitution? I think not. So why do you have your head back in the sand NOW? Is it the label the rapist wears? Does that make it all better? Got lots of ice for that?

[Reagan Man]

Conservative Republicans unite, not in unanimity, but rather in a common cause. To beat back the liberal and socialist Democrats in this coming election and take back the Senate, while increasing Republican majorities in the House. Let's give President Bush elected officials he can better work with. Let's elect more conservative minded individuals and move the conservative agenda forward.

Rah Rah Rah!!!

Misfits like Twodees, need not apply.

Malcontents like DoughtyOne, need not apply.

Militants like tpaine, need not apply.

Why don't all you extremists, reactionaries and absolutists get together and just walk out on that political fringe a little more and jump off into the empty void of unreality. Face it, you're basically there already. Why not complete the move.

[deport]

Great answer... now would you like to try the abortion issue to which I was responding of the poster?