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.
Why is it you have to resort to name calling? Maybe because you're argument is too weak to stand on merit. Ah yes, that's the trick...when you can't argue the facts attack the person instead.
I guess it depends on what you expect from the highest elected official in our land. Comparing him to Clinton I'd say he's doing extremely well on keeping his promises. Comparing him to myself, I'd say he's failing miserably. For some odd reason I expect my President to at least have the same integrity and honesty level as I do. Can you say campaign finance reform? Also to say he passed an education bill as he promised is silly--that was a complete flip flop. Go back to August before the election and find one Republican that outlined an education bill as Bush ended up passing. Review all of GW's speeches and notes on education and not one resembles what was passed. Vouchers were the only reason a lot (if not most) conservatives agreed with Bush on Education and it's the only thing that isn't in the bill.
I could go on and list a longer list of broken promises, but I'm not here to beat the guy up. I just want him to do a better job at keeping his promises.
I'm still on his side. For me, I'm reserving judgement until this years elections. Whether we win congress back or not, I expect a drastic shift to the right and a move to fulfill his broken campaign promises. Also if we don't win the congress back I'd have to say for the party his first half will be considered a failure. If we win it back, I'd say it was a resounding success. I'm not one of those wishy washy types that will change my opinion based on the outcomes to keep my self happy.
Twodees has a point, it's as if Bob Dole got the nomination because he had "paid his dues." I was only wondering if there was somebody out there that could've beaten Clinton in '96. Personally, I don't think so . . . .
How? Look for the signs they wear around their necks?
I'm glad we have an adult for President.
You're an ass.
Many learned men have posted to this board roscoe, warning that it quite easily could.
What "learned men"?
1385 posted on 6/23/02 11:16 AM Pacific by DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1383 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
This is the first thing I said to you. You claim you made it clear you were talking about "columns/articles"? I guess it depends on what the meaning of "many learned men have posted to this board" is. Apparently it means something different to you than it does to others.
Now, I've had as much of your condescending act as I care to digest - so just leave me alone.
Don't worship me.
You didn't expect better from him, did you?
No, I didn't. There's no shortage of people without manners around here.
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.