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.

[EternalVigilance]

Many of us in this forum who protest loudly a number of Bush's recent actions are doing so to prevent such an erosion of his base and a potentially disastrous loss in 2004. But if the President knows our votes are in the bag, he has every reason to ignore us, just as he will if he knows we'd never vote for him. As the election nears, politicians only focus on getting out their base and winning the votes in play.

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

[tpaine]

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

---

Great line! -- Bears many repetitions. - Thanks.

[Free Vulcan]

With Republican in front of your name you can do ANYTHING, even violate the laws of the universe. It's like being Superman. If Sweden were to elect all Republicans tommorow, they could even keep their economic system and not be a socialist country (well, in everyone's minds but the conspiracy theorists of course). It's magic I'm telling you...you GOTTA try it some time.

[tpaine]

Jeeessshh, -- talk about lacking a sense of humor, - gawd.

[Reagan Man]

I thought that might be the case CJ.

Even being slightly associated with tpaine, makes me want to barf!

[dcwusmc]

Yep. My masochistic side keeps reading your bs. Then I get nauseous and have to quit for a while. I can't understand how so much BS got packed into one person. How DID you get to be so full of it, Roscoe? Was it a case of permanent constipation gone bad? Try a laxative. Oh, wait, posting here is your outlet. Most people keep their bodily waste a private affair, rather than spew it out in public arenas. You are obviously the exception that proves the rule. The one DECENT folks assiduously avoid. Roscoe, have you ever had even ONE original thought in that vaccuum between your ears? Can you ever do anything but spew bs and vitriol? Try answering the actual QUESTIONS I ask once in a while. Then maybe folks can overlook the occasional burst of vile.

[Cultural Jihad]

When I want some crap out of you, I'll squeeze your head.

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.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Our advances in technology are a manifestation of our God-given abilities to imagine, think, and build something out of nothing.

Why would The Creator grant us these gifts if not to be used?

[Sabertooth]

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 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.

[tpaine]

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

[tpaine]

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

[Luis Gonzalez]

OK, that's a BINGO on #1449, and #1458...what do I win?

[dcwusmc]

Oh, CJ... This from YOU? Come on, your PERSONAL attacks are notorious. Kindly refrain from your sanctimonious BS act. Read the post I replied to then shut up.

[Roscoe]

Then I get nauseous and have to quit for a while.

Alcohol causes dehydration, so drink plenty of water. Also drink fruit juices and tomato juice.

[tpaine]

Mommy! Mommy, the bad man said nastys! --- I'm sad! -- He violated by right to be happy! -- Do something bad to the bad man mommy! -- Its for us childrens mommy!

[Free Vulcan]

We just experienced the same thing here in Iowa. Bill Salier and Greg Ganske just ran a primary race for Harkin's Senate seat. Salier had barely any money. No TV ads, few radio and paper ads, limited literature and signs, etc. Ganske blanketed the TV, radio, and papers, had endorsements from all the national party people, did push polling and everything else, and only beat Bill 59 to 41. Looks good, but the astute realized that Ganske should have won 75/25 with the advantage he had.

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.

[Cultural Jihad]

[Personal attacks as defined by the hazy mindset afflicted by ideology]:

CJ> "The libertarian ideology is based on cruel moral-liberalism."
dcwusmc> " Up yours! Stop talking about my mother that way!"

[Don Myers]

"Why would The Creator grant us these gifts if not to be used?"

It depends on how you use those gifts, and where you put your trust.

[dcwusmc]

I bow to the voice of experience in these matters... As I do not drink to excess (I had 2 beers yesterday, celebrating my wife's birthday and our anniversary), nor do "illicit" drugs nor even use tobacco any more, preferring to remain solely a political smoker, I have no recent experience to go by. Thanks for telling us how you deal with your other excesses.

[Roscoe]

OK, that's a BINGO on #1449, and #1458...what do I win?