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.

[Reagan Man]

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

You give yourself far too much credit for someone playing both sides of the Bush fence. I don't keep track of your past Bush bashing antics, or anyone elses bad behavior for matter.

I side with JimRob. In fact Jim's recent rhetoric of unity among conservative Republicans, so we can retake the Senate and improve our governing majority in the House, is something I've been preaching for a long long time. I have nothing against people who critcize the President. I do it myself, from time to time. As with the education bill, CFR and the farm bill. I also write letters, make phone calls and email the WH, the RNC and my old political friends, when I believe Bush is wrong. What I don't do, is castigate and trashtalk the leader of my country and my political party. Not to mention the leader of the free world. IMO, it serves no good purpose and only lends aid and comfort to the enemy, Democrat liberal socialists. After all, Bush isn't Bill Clinton either. far from it.

The time to s**t or get off the pot will be coming soon. I hope you're with us conservative Republicans. If not, I'll know exactly why.

[WIMom]

I've read every post on this thread. First, Sabertooth, you've got to get rid of that latest version of the cat. It's horrible. Second, What do you (you is a generic term for everyone on this thread and like threads) all expect to accomplish by rehashing this tired old war? Take this energy you all have and use it to defeat the liberals in your state. There are maybe 20 of you arguing, like that matters in the big picture. The rest of the country could care less about what you have to say. Use your intellegence where it matters, at the local level. Either side of this issue on this forum won't budge. Fine. We all want to restore our country to the original constitution. Some think the slow approach will work, some think otherwise. Whatever your position, use it where it matters. Sheesh. How many you're-not-as-conservative-as-I-am threads do we need to be subjected to before you actually get away from your computer and take action?

[Dan from Michigan]

No way. Gore elected would have possibly been a nail in the coffin of conservatism. It would have cemented Klinton's legacy.

[Texasforever]

I saw it.

[Sabertooth]

You and I disagree on immigration and the President's stand. I have not seen you carry that disagreement onto other threads.

I knew I was forgetting something!

There are many who are appearing on this thread who disagree on every single thing the President does.

Seems to me there was some baiting going on at #1, no? Perhaps some folks should be more careful what they ask for.

I don't like the scary tiger, and I am glad you switched.

How about this?

[Reagan Man]

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

If we were ever to be face to face, you may call me a boring big fellow. In fact, you'd call me mister and I wouldn't even have to ask you to.

[tpaine]

How many? -- Ask CJ or tex, They're our resident experts on questions from moms.

[potlatch]

rawe, this article explains how many of us feel.

[Dan from Michigan]

but the other thing the liberals have going for them is that they work together in coalitions better than conservatives, I think.

Yep. That's why we need to take control of the party. Go to all the party meetings, run for precinct delegate, and get good people elected and good local party chairs.

If all the party chairs were like the one in my county, things would be in much better shape.

[tpaine]

Rich & Tough.

Wow! Whatta regen mam.

[WRhine]

You're not going to convince Joe Schmoe that less is more, when he's staring at failing schools. American mentality always reverts back to "throw enough money at something and it will be fixed"...is going to take literally showing them their kids unable to read in spite of the massive amounts of money thrown at the schools for the vast, unwashed masses to come around.

Are you implying that Bush and the republican leadership should continue to go along with the democRats on education by throwing ever more billions of the taxpayers money at it until the whole system collapses so as to prove a point with the electorate? If so, it sounds a mite warped to me.

I noticed that you made no mention of Bush's lack of leadership on turning around our educational system by doing the right thing. Do you have something against our president going directly to the American people with the facts about why our public schools are in such a mess and what the solutions are for fixing this disaster once and for all?

I'ts a war man, and you win wars with bombs, not ideology.

What???

We have to win...by any means necessary.

Please tell me when this war is going to start and what side we can espect Bush to be on.

[Dan from Michigan]

Any guesses as to who could've beaten Clinton in '96?

John Engler(back when he was conservative). Possibly Tommy Thompson.

Governors win elections. Not senators.

[Cultural Jihad]

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

Um, it looks like the Admin got the Red out.

[Amelia]

You obviously didn't check out the link I gave you.

You have not given me anything but your opinion on what the American people believe; I've at least tried to give you sourced information and something besides my opinion.

At present, however, I've tired of reading this thread. It's turned into nothing but name-calling and toilet talk, so I think I'll mosey along and leave you little boys to have your fun.

Have a nice day.

[Texasforever]

OOOPS

[Dan from Michigan]

BTW - If Dole didn't have that dumbass Scott Reed as a campaign manager, he MIGHT have been able to beat Klinton.

[WIMom]

Just because I use mom in my name doesn't mean I'm necessarily a rah-rah bush type. Why do you have to resort to those types of posts?

[Mudboy Slim]

"Do you call your remarks, criticizing Bush or bashing Bush? You can't have it both ways."

To many of the BushBackers, that appears to be a distinction without a difference, my FRiend. You know many--I'd say a significant majority--of us would love to jump on the "RahRahDubbleYah Bandwagon" if we thought TheMan was doing all he could to reign in the Federal Leviathan, but Bush appears willing to sacrifice this goal in a HailMary attempt to attract those who you and I adamantly disagree with!!

"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 point here is inarguably valid, IMHO...Dubyuh is no Slick Willie, nor will he ever sink to those depths. Still, he's MY POTUS, one that I voted for--and contributed hard-earned money to--and I'd like to see him work towards the limitization of the Federal Leviathan's size and scope!! Compromising is all well and good, but only if it moves the datum point towards less government intervention, not more!! I don't see that enough out of this Administration (nor his father's), and we're trying to alert Dubyuh and his advisers to this impending disaster sooner rather than later, more rather than less!!

FReegards...MUD