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.
You and everyone else on the thread. :)
Wipe your mouth.
I can't speak for anyone else, only myself and personally I don't have a problem being critical of some of Bush's policies .. just as long as they comment on the facts and not what they claim President Bush is doing .. I don't expect everyone to agree with him and I don't expect everyone to like him all the time
But when posters make the comments that they would rather have Queen Hilda as President in 2004 or more Rats in Congress just to show the GOP how they really feel .. That tends to just blow my mind a bit .. One would think after 8 years of the Clinton's they would realize just how ridiculous that sounds ..
And I STILL like this other kitty better
Yes, by disagreeing with the basic premise of the statement. It's right back up there at #1403, and I think the English isn't bad.
I don't see how a fair reading leads to the impression you have at #1409. If you think about it, that's why you needed to splice a three-word fragment quote of mine onto another poster's words to reach the conclusion you did.
You're a lying sack of, you know what.
Take your crappy lies and stuff them.
Hehehe. Honestly the new one looks odd. The eyes are too yellow, the body too pink, the head too big. Perhaps a better one will be created soon.
They? The Illuminati? Space aliens?
I have to say, that "Many learned men have posted to this board..." bit was the funniest thing I've read here in a long time. All I wanted was to know exactly who he was referring to. Apparently I hit a nerve. ;)
Those who want Democrats in control aren't merely being "critical" of Bush.
And I STILL like this other kitty betterFor those that are sincere, I agree. For those that are blowing off steam, I can understand their frustration, even if that's not how I'd choose to vent it.
I just see a lot more of the false charges than I do actual culprits, and it's usually in the context of avoiding debate.
Alright already!
At least you recognize the true problem here. Let me help you out.
It seems that you have gotten somewhat confused, and are mixing not only arguments, but terminology as well.
First of all, we're discussing the terrorists who attacked WTC, the Pentagon, and were foiled in one more attack by a bunch of everyday heroes who "rolled" into history, not about Mexicans, keep your metaphors straight.
Next, let's define immigration for you:
Main Entry: im.mi.grate
Pronunciation: 'i-m&-"grAt
Function: verb
Etymology: Latin immigratus, past participle of immigrare to remove, go in, from in- + migrare to migrate
Date: circa 1623
Inflected Form(s): -grat.ed; -grat.ing
intransitive senses : to enter and usually become established; especially : to come into a country of which one is not a native for permanent residence
transitive senses : to bring in or send as immigrants
- im.mi.gra.tion /"i-m&-'grA-sh&n/ noun
- im.mi.gra.tion.al /-shn&l, -sh&-n[^&]l/ adjective
These murderers did not enter this country under the pretense of migrating here, they came in on visas issued to people who come here on business, for schooling, or as tourists. Legitimate visas, issued by our consulate or embassy (part of the State Department) in their country of origin, not "La Migra".
They got past Customs (an agency of the Treasury Department) at their point of entry because their papers were in order.
Then they applied to the INS (part of the Department of Justice) for a visa extension, or a change of status.
The INS, not having access to CIA and/or the FBI intelligence ref: the classification of some of these people as terrorists, granted the visas based on lack of negative information.
The real problem here is the decentralization of the system, this is what allowed the terrorists to get in.
What we need is a new agency co-ordinating the functions of these separate entities, and forcing the sharing and effective disbursement of information.
Come to think of it, Bush just created that agency, didn't he?
Let me know if you need further help.
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.