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.
Puh-leeeeazzze, my FRiend, JimRob's got no responsibility in steering FR's various factions to a Common Goal!! That's the beauty of this Forum, IMHO, it's a FRee-fer-All fer hashin' out our various conservative philosophies!! JimRob's got his personal opinion, but he's never been one to impose that upon the rest of us any more than necessary!! We can continue to argue for a more confrontational White House or one that folks consider more palatable to the unenlightened masses, but we needn't call on the founder of this wonderful website to referee our disagreements.
FReegards...MUD
You'll always have me, my FRiend...MUD
C'mon, when the Left says that Bush is an empty suit, controlled by Cheney, Rumsfield, and Powell, everyone here says that is a lot of hooey. Bush is his own man.
But we're supposed to believe that he's getting directive from other politicians on the domestic front?
I don't believe that either.
Seriously, FV, how can an individual who would vote for Gephardt for Speaker or D'Asshole for Majority Leader be a supporter of the Constitution?! Or was your statement entirely hypothetical?
FReegards...MUD
I was talking about you being the antichrist. And you are right, you are too insignificant for that.
How about the anti-intelligent? Yeah, that fits you.
You're the dumbest guy on FR, and that's saying plenty.
Other people feel that any non-conservative compromise is giving in to the enemy. I do not agree with this way of thinking. I understand that people hate to see long-cherished principles unsupported by the President, but I am looking at other goals, like winning the war and taking back the Senate.
It is quite possible that you are correct, and we are giving away too much. On the other hand, it is also possible that the course that the President has selected (and which I support) is correct.
The President did not campaign on jailing Bill Clinton, abolishing the departments of Education and HHS, or pulling us out of the UN. Gripes about those positions are ridiculous, as far as I am concerned. Becaue Bush is more conservative than Gore (which he is) it is unfair to gripe that he isn't taking the most extreme views of conservatives. He never said he would, and I did not expect him to do so. He campaigned as a uniter, not a divider.
Now, on certain issues I am less than thrilled...education for one. However, I look at the sum total of the President's work, and I also keep in mind what we could have had instead.
If you are worried about certain issues, call or write the White House. That is what I do. It gives them an idea of what the average person is thinking. However, I ask you to also keep in mind that when we have a democrat Senate, a popular vote minority, and a hostile media, President Bush has accomplished a lot in his first 18 months. Is it eveything we want? Of course not. But is it pretty good? I think so.
Do you write or call the White House to praise those things you agree with? Did you send a note of encouragement after we pulled out of the World Court? How about when he ditched Kyoto? How about when he pulled out of the ABM treaty? Those are things that would have NEVER happened with a dem as president.
In my opinion, those who are griping about domestic issues are allowing the media to set the agenda. Who in the heck would have really cared about that farm bill if Rush hadn't ranted about it for three days? Most people don't even know about it to this day. And most of the gripers don't ever dare mention that Reagan passed a farm bill as well, nor that Quayle was on Fox supporting the President, even though he had passed this dreaded bill.
That is where I stand on this. Those who think the country is in peril are correct...but it is not because of passage of CFR, the Farm Bill, or the Education Bill. We are in peril because we are at war, we have a fifth colummn in this country made up of non-Arabs as well as Muslims, and we have a hostile media.
LOL! Funny guy...
I've never seen Walter Williams post here (not disputing what you're saying - just letting you know I was not aware of it). I have not seen Thomas Sowell post here, either. If they are the sort of "learned" men what's-his-name was referring to, all he had to do was say so - but he had to be condescending and rude. To me, that says a lot about someone.
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.