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.
Economics 101: The economy moves in a circular fashion.
It's a war man, and you win wars with bombs, not ideology.
We have to win...by any means necessary.
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.
Come to think of it, Bush just created that agency, didn't he?
Bingo.
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
Looks like you have all you could ever possibly need.
SMOOCHES .. yes I like that kitty better
What a pathological fantasy they share.
Your crayons need sharpening.
BINGO ..
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!
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.