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.

[Texasforever]

That post just proves what a MFer you are. - Thanks

What did I say? Touchy aren't ya? LOL

[Amelia]

CBS News Poll. May 13-14, 2002. N=647 adults nationwide. MoE ± 4.
					.
"What do you think is the single most important problem for the government -- that is, the President and Congress -- to address in the coming year?"
		%
	Terrorism/War/Military	23
	Economy/Jobs	15
	Education	5
	Social Security/Medicare	4
	Health care	4
	Taxes/IRS	4
	Foreign policy	3
	Other	27
	Don't know/No answer	15

 

From here. Does it surprise you that so many people think the government's top priority should be something that isn't even constitutional?

I'd encourage you to look at the linked page - the polls taken before 9/11 were even more revealing.

[Cultural Jihad]

Pulled? There's too many gems all the way through it. This thread is a watershed of sorts. Demidog, tpaine, and any of the few bad activist from the L.P. might wish it were pulled, though.

But be of good cheer:
http://www.castlemountains.net/flashmar/A_Cup_Of_Joy.swf

[Twodees]

Let him rant. Let'em pull it. This bunch only thinks they're accomplishing anything with their silliness.

[Sabertooth]

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.

You're splitting hairs. By telling you so, I imagine I've failed your loyalty test.

If one turns both the hot and cold faucets on full, the result is lukewarm. However, I prefer to call it "tepid."

Will I be on the "list?"

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.

If my inconsistencies are constant, they should be easy to find. As for convincing you of anything, neither of us should worry...

I'm sure I fall short of the requirements for membership in your coalition.

[Reagan Man]

>>>Did I say something to hurt your little feelings?
>>>Tell you what, discuss the issues and stop with the personal attacks.

You're incapable of being treated with any civility.

And you're one of the FR KINGS of personal attacks. Now all of a sudden you want a truce! Not on your life, mister loser.

[tpaine]

Touchy? How droll.

40 years of construction & 3 of the army pretty well makes 'MF' a term of endearment.

[Texasforever]

40 years of construction & 3 of the army pretty well makes 'MF' a term of endearment.

Lincoln logs and Cub Scouts don't count.

[Twodees]

Thanks, Miz Amelia, but a CBS poll proves what, exactly? CBS polls showed increasing public approval for Clinton while he was being impeached until at the end they seemed ready to go over 100%.

What the media tells us we believe isn't necessarily what we believe.

[Texasforever]

Let me guess. Recently banned and begged you way back in?

[Dane]

Actually if you haven't noticed we are getting there, but faster than we were in '92.

Yawn, more wingnut doomist blather. There has been a tax cut, a thumb in the nose to the UN, and a declaration that the second amendment is an individual right.

Yep that all happened when Clinton took over in 92.

[tpaine]

"This thread is a watershed of sorts. Demidog, tpaine, and any of the few bad activist from the L.P. might wish it were pulled, though."

---

Care to give us a clue why you have this insane 'pulled' idea, CJ?
-- It's amusing as hell, just as you posted it, -- but any further explanations will make it a classic howler, I assure you.

[Twodees]

Oh well. I guess since I didn't ask for a truce, I can't be too sad when you refuse to declare a truce. ahaha

You're really a boring little fellow, you know it?

[Dan from Michigan]

I looked for that thread for about an hour.

[Texasforever]

I had a bit of trouble finding it myself. I couldn't remember the title. LOL Oh well it didn't get that much interest anyway.

[Dan from Michigan]

Rudy was a good mayor, but he's still very anti-2nd amendment. I like the guy, but disagree with his issues too much to vote for him.

[tpaine]

Yep, those too. - And don't ferget me Eagle Scout years.

[-- Well, - almost eagle. We never lived down the chicken on the survival hike]

[Texasforever]

Nope. I never beg. How about you?,

Only for pardon. Who were you before today? It is obvious you are not a newbie?