Conservatives, Cut Bush Slack

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

[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.

[Free Vulcan]

Foreigners sell our stocks and bonds. Stocks and bonds go down. Dollar goes down. Interest rates go up. Stocks go down, more investors sell stocks and bonds, and other dollar assets. Dollar goes down. Economy goes down. Tax revenues go down. Ability to service debt goes down. Credit rating goes down. Causes even more foreigners to sell US assets. Stock market goes down, bonds go down, dollar goes down. Economy goes really down. Tax revenues go down. Debt is defaulted on. Get the picture?

Economics 101: The economy moves in a circular fashion.

[thrcanbonly1]

Re:#1361

Well said.

P.S. Cool new graphic.

[Luis Gonzalez]

You're not going to convince Joe Schmoe that less is more, when he's staring at failing schools. American mentality always reverts back to "throw enough money at something and it will be fixed"...is going to take literally showing them their kids unable to read in spite of the massive amounts of money thrown at the schools for the vast, unwashed masses to come around.

It's a war man, and you win wars with bombs, not ideology.

We have to win...by any means necessary.

[Sabertooth]

The basic premise of the statement was "are these posters who want Democrats in control so that the government to collapse the reason we have such a mess in Congress today??"

The premise is not identical to the statement itself.

Go back and look at #1393, which was the comment I was posting to, so that you can see the context. It was a conversation about whether or not there are posters on this forum who want to see the Democrats on control of Congress, and why.

The premise was that there are to some degree.

My disagreement with the premise is that the degree to which there are such posters in insignificant, and often exaggerated.

You're trying way to hard to misunderstand this.

[dcwusmc]

Very politely, UP YOURS, Roscoe. When I want some crap out of you, I'll squeeze your head.

On the other question, try Walter E. Williams for one intelligent writer. I KNOW he's been posted here. Thomas Sowell is another. There are a lot more. Or go look at the links to JewishWorldReview I think it is. Their articles have been linked here often...

Daughter, if you are buying into the kind of statist BS Roscoe and his crowd are peddling, your dad fought in vain. They are NO kind of conservatives, because they have nothing at all WORTH conserving.

Roscoe, who owns your life? Who SHOULD own your life? Who should have first claim on what you earn (presuming you are one of those in the private, PRODUCTIVE class and not some gooberment parasite)? Who CLAIMS first dibs on your private, productively-earned income? Why should they? Who wants the Bill of Rights interpreted out of existence? Who keeps claiming that the Second Amendment phrase, "the PEOPLE," means GOOBERMENT, while the exact same phrase in the FIRST amendment means individuals? (except for some judges who think it means someone who is paid to have opinions.) Who ignores the clear and concise words of the 9th and 10th amendments? Does GW Bush come to mind in many if not most of these cases? I rather think so, considering both his actions and his close advisors, like Karl Rove...

[Amelia]

Much better kitty! :)

[Luis Gonzalez]

"In '92, I voted for Buchanan (I think)..."<p.Were you living in Palm Beach County at the time?

[tpaine]

Get the wet noodle from roscoe, -- & whip me some more!!

Oh woe, -- how could I be so politicaly incorrect?

[Roscoe]

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?

Bingo.

[Mo1]

The basic premise of the statement was "are these posters who want Democrats in control so that the government to collapse the reason we have such a mess in Congress today??"
Those who want Democrats in control aren't merely being "critical" of Bush

No, they aren't just being critical of President Bush .. IMO they would be critical REGARDLESS of who was President

IMO their intention is to bring down the government so that they can take over and run it the way THEY think it should be

IMO there is no difference between what they want and a Dictator .. which is a far cry of what Our Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote the Constitution ..

I do not claim to be an expert on the Constitution but I think when the Founding Fathers wrote it their intention was to keep a balance of government .. I think they knew that not everyone would be happy .. but they wanted to avoid any kind of Dictatorship

[Reagan Man]

So, you like making enemies around here, I guess. Thanks for lumping me in with that creep tpaine. Truth is, in this case, you'll have to find a true kettle to fit the rhetorical picture you've painted. I'm not your man CJ!

[Roscoe]

When I want some crap

Looks like you have all you could ever possibly need.

[Mo1]

Alright already!

SMOOCHES .. yes I like that kitty better

[tpaine]

Luis, in the words of a former 'great one'. "You need rest."

[Roscoe]

IMO their intention is to bring down the government so that they can take over and run it the way THEY think it should be

What a pathological fantasy they share.

[Sabertooth]

"In '92, I voted for Buchanan (I think)..."

You're not hanging that on me. I was in L.A.

[Roscoe]

Get the picture?

Your crayons need sharpening.

[Mo1]

It is going to take literally showing them their kids unable to read in spite of the massive amounts of money thrown at the schools for the vast, unwashed masses to come around.

BINGO ..

[sneakypete]

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.

The most amazing part about this to me is that probably 90% of the "win by compromise" people are old enough to remember the campaign of 94,and how Newt and the REAL conservatives took over Congress and made history BY RUNNING AS CONSERVATIVES! They didn't try to pretend to be "compassionate conservatives",moderate Republicans,stealth Dims,or anything other than what they were. The result is they won in a landslide,and this scared the elites like Bubba Bush and the old Country Club Republicans so bad they couldn't stand it. It was ok with them to PRETEND you were a conservative for political purposes,but no way in hell did they want actual conservatives sitting in and even heading committees and making laws. They've been pushing the Rep Party away from the right ever since. So far this has cost the Republican Party AND the country two lost presidential elections and control of the Senate. It will soon cost them one more presidential election,and bigger losses in the Senate and MAYBE even loss of control in the House.

They must be VERY proud!

[Cultural Jihad]

Hehehe. Not at all, RM. The kettle and pot may both be black, but my intent was not to say you are guilty as tpaine is. I'll try to find a better way of illustrating the hypocrisy of his incessant whining and brow-beating.