No, but I apologize for your confusion.
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.
No, but I apologize for your confusion.
Who are my buds?
You left out half a word again.
So where do you stand? Do you call your remarks, criticizing Bush or bashing Bush? You can't have it both ways. Either you support the President and criticize him, when he's wrong, or you bash him. As far as I'm concerned, no real supporter of President Bush would bash him, at any time. Your support seems to be lukewarm at best.
>>>Though he's come close to losing it, for now, on balance, the President has my vote. Where have I said otherwise?
Your inconsistencies are constant and your self-professed support for the President is doubtful. We'll see what happens in the future. For right now, you've convinced me of nothing.
I get a fair amount of comments, both pro and con. I don't really worry about it.
It’s a conspiracy I tell ya!
There are many who are appearing on this thread who disagree on every single thing the President does. There are a few who were griping because he was promoting physical fitness, because they didn't think it was constitutional. Those are the people who are my complaint, along with those who use vulgar attacks.
By the way, I don't like the scary tiger, and I am glad you switched.
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.