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.
Doesn't matter really though does it, as long as Republicans are the head of all three branches....assuming we still have 3 branches by then.
What "literalist intrepretation" is that?
No. There really aren't that many, and some are just blowing steam.
It's really an unfortunate Freeper Myth that many who've been critical of Bush are somehow crazed Atlas Shruggers or DU operatives. But I continue to see it promulgated, and I'm guessing that's because it's easier then to be dismissive of the criticism. A denial reflex, really.
Don't preach to me bucko. These people aren't interested in building any coalitions. They want to fragment the rightwing even further then it is and pull even more votes away from conservative Republican candidates. They've said as much on numerous occasions and you know it too. In the last general election, the fringe rightwing received roughly 1,066,482 total votes, for Buchanan, Browne, Haglin and Philips. Next time around their stated objective is to punish resident Bush and all Republicans, by pulling as many votes away, as they can, so they can get liberal socialist Democrats elected. If you think that's good for conservatism, then you're as extremist as they are.
In addition, all three of these so-called "posters" didn't have the decency to flag in the past. Two of the three didn't have the decency to flag me on this thread. And if you want to defend them for such behavior, then you should feel free to join them and jump off that political fringe into the empty void of never never land.
Frankly, we conservative Republicans don't need your extremist types to win elections. Especially when you fringers aren't interested in winning any elections. You can talk all the political philosophy you want, but if you can't back it up with party politics and election victories, you'll never have the power and influence to effect real change!
Well, I have in mind those ideologues who claim that Arlington National Cemetery is a 'socialist enterprise' and that driving is a right and no one needs a license and anyone stopped by a traffic cop has a right to self-defense (murder), and self-destruction and consensual cruelties should be allowed, etc. These are the sorts of militia nutcase statements which conservatives and general voters resoundly reject. If you want to call them 'literalist interpretations' be advised that the value of your opinion on what is Constitutional is worth exactly what anyone else is willing to pay you for, which amounts to ziltch.
I'm not going to staying on this thread today. Have a good one.
You should also make a note to yourself that asking "when do we become socialists" is also the sign of someone who's run of things to say.
Kinda gimpy to suggest I said that.
One of the points I was making was that I see the accusations made against those who are simply being critical of Bush.
Name the "many learned men have posted to this board" that our society is "about to collapse." Heck, name even two.
You can't, you won't, you made it up.
Isn't that the statement you were responding to?
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.