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.
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.
Thank you for dropping such a pearl into this manure pile. Glad I found it while I was shoveling my way through...
You expressed my sentiments exactly.
Regards,
EV
Even being slightly associated with tpaine, makes me want to barf!
Whoah! Time out there, good buddy. If you have an argument to bring to the table, feel free to do so without the angst and personal attacks.
Why would The Creator grant us these gifts if not to be used?
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 oftent wonder about whether or not a lot of Bush fans wouldn't like a Dictatorship themselves. I concerns me when they cheer actions of his without a thought as to how they'd oppose those actions if a Democrat took them. And sooner or later, another Democrat will be in the White House, with all of those same powers and precedents of Bush's lining his or her path. What then?
As far as understanding the Constitution, the 10th Ammendment is a great place to look to for the spirit of it...
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Alcohol causes dehydration, so drink plenty of water. Also drink fruit juices and tomato juice.
Why? Because Bill was a strong conservative. Those who voted for Ganske were: 1)People who thought Bill couldn't beat Harkin, even though they didn't like Ganske 2)People who didn't know about Bill, 3) People who were push polled.
And in those counties that were most organized, Bill won anyway. If things would have been even, Bill I believe would have won handily. Most people are conservative, and they will support conservatives who can reach them with Message. There is no need to compromise, we can win elections with a conservative platform.
CJ> "The libertarian ideology is based on cruel moral-liberalism."
dcwusmc> " Up yours! Stop talking about my mother that way!"
It depends on how you use those gifts, and where you put your trust.
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.