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.
What did I say? Touchy aren't ya? LOL
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. |
But be of good cheer:
http://www.castlemountains.net/flashmar/A_Cup_Of_Joy.swf
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.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?"
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.
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.
Lincoln logs and Cub Scouts don't count.
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.
Only for pardon. Who were you before today? It is obvious you are not a newbie?
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.