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.

[Mo1]

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?

I understand your point which is why I am not saying it is wrong with questioning policies made by President Bush. There have been a few things that when it first happen that raised my eyebrows .. but I have also learned that I shouldn't just jump on the band wagon and to get all the facts first ..

Is President getting everything he wants done right away .. No he isn't but I also think he also know that he won't get it either .. which is why he gets want he can now .. and continues to work on getting the rest ..

As for the 10th Ammendment .. I didn't say I didn't understand the Constitution .. I just said I was not an expert ..

Now I must rescue the hubby at the pool with the kiddies ..

[Luis Gonzalez]

God gave us free will, I guess that He trusted us...

[Miss Marple]

This entire thread is the reason I do not post as much as I used to do, and in fact don't read as many posts here as I once did.

In my opinion, the enemy is Tom Daschle and Hillary Clinton, not George Bush. But of course, anything I say is because I am a Bushbot and not a "true conservative."

Well, all the "true conservatives" need to realize that many, many lurkers read this forum. The "true conservatives'" nastiness to those they oppose is not winning any converts. Nor is it converting Bushbots. What they are doing is driving people away from the conservative position. Maybe that is what they really want.

I don't know why people are the way they are. But I do know that I much prefer President Bush's way of conducting politics to the slash and burn, personal attacks of some of these people, who to me sound just like James Carville.

[dcwusmc]

Oh, gosh, CJ, your moral superiority just REEKS here! I am OVERCOME by it. How do you ever come up with these gems? you are awesome. You are also full of it. But thanks for your input, anyway. I am sure to give it all the consideration it deserves.

Neil: here's another priceless gem for the archives. A timeless and CLASSIC CJism! I don't know WHERE we'd be with out him! Perhaps on a higher plane of discussion, but we'll never know that, will we?

[swheats]

If there is some here that think by electing democRATS will help the conservative cause, they need to put the crack pipe down and get some help

LOL, and all this time I thought they were Dems pretending to be 3rd party with a serious hatred for Bush.

[tpaine]

CJ> "The libertarian ideology is based on cruel moral-liberalism."

dcwusmc> " Up yours! Stop talking about my mother that way!"

---

Now CJ, you KNOW that is 'foul' play on your part. -- NO ONE here has included 'mother' in the insults save you.
That's a real scumball tactic, and you do it regardless. For shame.

[Cultural Jihad]

The mom is a libertarian, and that's something to be ashamed of? Seriously, I was illustrating the identity crisis ideologues suffer from. Any argument against their ideology is seen as a direct attack on their persons, according to them.

[dcwusmc]

Thanks, but let CJ continue to run amok. He is probably the best advertising Constitutionalists can get, him and Roscoe and the former kevin curry and their ilk. Who knows, maybe they're Constitutionalists in disguise. I mean, NO ONE who is rational to even the NTH degree could actually HOLD such opinions, could they? Maybe this is their way of pointing out how ridiculous statists and well-meaning bushbots are.

[deport]

I don't know why people are the way they are. But I do know that I much prefer President Bush's way of conducting politics to the slash and burn, personal attacks of some of these people, who to me sound just like James Carville.

---

I don't think most of them remember President Bush saying he was a "uniter not divider" and that he intended to end 'gridlock' in Washington as we know it. That means to me if the Congress is sending him legislation then they are the peoples representatives sent there by the ppl to do their work, thus he'll sign it. He intended to work with both sides of the aisle to reduce the gridlock and he's done that. Now he's not gotten all he wanted nor has any one faction either. That's life....

Belligerents and the PPOs

[tpaine]

Now you ridicule libertarian moms? --- At least 'libertarians' have moms.

You post like you were hatched in a den of vipers.

[Twodees]

Yes indeed, a minority which totals a few tens of millions is a large minority, but a minority nonetheless.

I talk to an awful lot of people and they all live in the real world. Pretending to be amazed at what I say hardly helps you make your point.

[doryfunk]

quidnunc, What has Bush done to make you happy with his war on terrorism? Is it his refusal to allow pilots(let alone anyone else) to exercise their God given and constitutionally protected right to self defense? Is it his utter lack of concern for controlling our borders and his contemplation of amnesty for millions of law breaking, aliens? Is it his attacks on the rights of the people of the States by using the government to spy on them on the internet, on telephones, and in churches or by throwing them in jail without any intention of bringing them to trial in the near future after declaring them 'enemy combatants'? For that matter, what has he done that is good at all in the 'war on terror'?

Perhaps the most telling statement in the article posted is "He must make compromises to get re-elected."

Reelection should not be his goal. I know that it is for most politicians. That is why we need to reform the system by insisting on strict adherence to the constitution. The constitution provides for the election of the president by the electoral college for a reason. The reason is so that he wont have to base his actions to pander for votes. We should have no 'presidential election' for the masses in this country. Senators should be appointed. Most federal programs(like social security, welfare, medicare, medicaid, the department of education, etc.) should be ignored by the State as unconstitutional and if the federal government continued in its law breaking ways, the States should quit giving them tax funds.

[Cultural Jihad]

"Er, I think the man was joking. You, on the other hand, are whining (again)." - Jim Robinson to tpaine
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/704265/posts?page=860#860

[quidnunc]

Miss Marple wrote: This entire thread is the reason I do not post as much as I used to do, and in fact don't read as many posts here as I once did.

Illegitimus Non Carborundum

If you think the howler-monkey wingnuts are annoying to you just think about how terrible it would be to be them, to never know a moment's happiness, to never have friends who weren't raving cranks, too look in the mirror and see yourself looking back.

I'm not saying you should pity them, I'm saying you should derive some satisfaction from their self-torment.

[Twodees]

Need not apply? You mean we have to ask permission to vote for your candidates? Boy, you guys really are intent on losing, aren't you?

I don't really care what you think of me. If I went around worrying about what liberals think, I wouldn't get anything else done.

[tpaine]

So? -- I answered:


To: Jim Robinson

Er, I think the man was joking.
You, on the other hand, are whining (again). - JR

---

Well, I doubt that he was joking.

-- And you far too often accuse your critics of 'whining'. -- You're confusing deference for your power with submissive behavior.
#903

[Twodees]

Nevermind, Saber. Some people clearly have a single outlet for their opinions: FR. Nobody will listen to them face to face. Whether it's bad breath or delusional ranting, folks run from them and they have to get it out somehow. I would rather he let it out here than risk committing suicide by cop taking that act out into the streets. ;-)

[Reagan Man]

You're so predictable.

If I ever want to be insulted, I'll be sure to look you up... or tpaine, or DoughtyOne, or one of the other several dozen or so losers that dwell here on FreeRepublic and are convinced, their opinions and rhetoric really means something. I've got news for you, what you say has no bearing on anything in the real world.