Conservatives, Cut Bush Slack

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.

To read the remainder of this op/ed open the article via the link provided in the thread's header.

"Feel free to read ALL my posts to JR on this thread."

Heh heh heh...1661-post thread and you want me to find all yer posts to JimRob, maybe another time.

"I certainly have no intention of asking him to referee MY disagreements with others, -- for OR against. --Thats me whole point, and always has been. - I want a level playing field for everyone. -- [within a conservative framework]"

You've been around here long enough to see JimRob depicted as everything from an avid GoPatGoer to a shameless BushBot, but I've always felt he's been fair in allowing most opinions to be aired. If we keep it civil, I don't see that changing in the foreseeable future.

"The boosters of partisan politics at FR do not agree on the structure of that framework. Thats the rub."

I'm sure there are those who feel that way, but many of the folks with whom you've been butting heads on this thread are simply defending a position they sincerely believe in, and don't belittle it as "boosting partisan politics." It's a tough nut to crack, with the DemonRATS controlling the Senate--with help from more than a few RINOs--and moderate GOPers holding the balance of Power in the House...how do we get the rock-ribbed Conservative Agenda that you and I agree on instituted legislatively?! The GoPatGoers almost had me convinced that we'd have to tear down the GOP and build up a Conservative Ruling Majority from its ashes...but I've still not seen a Republican POTUS with a Republican Legislative Branch for more than a few short months, so I'm not quite to that point yet. Admittedly, Dubyuh's apparent willingness to shun our views for the last nine months gives credence to that viewpoint; however, IMHO, we oughtta ride out this Fall's election cycle and see if perhaps the GOP shows some boldness and gets behind some solidly conservative legislation for implementation once we increase our majority in the House and retake the Senate. Or, if we continue on this tack of giving the RATS everything they beg for and hope for the electorate to reward us at the ballotbox, I reckon we can pick up this pieces in '03 as the minority oppostion Party in Congress!!

In any event, please keep in mind that many of those we are arguing with ultimately agree with our political philosophy...they just disagree on the tactics of how to get us to the point wherein we can implement same.

FReegards...MUD

Polling data reflects what people tell polsters at the time. Who knows how the population to be polled was selected or whether the people being polled answered truthfully or were reading the person conducting the poll and trying to please or antagonize the polster?

The short answer is no, I have no data regarding polls. But in three elections, where the people were presented clear precise conservative choices against two liberal Democratic candidates and in one election where ten precise conservative issues were presented, Republicans won landslide victories of unprecedented proportions. And if Americans really prefer liberals and socialism why do Democrats try to mask or disguise their liberal views and completely avoid the word socialist? Why do they try to hide behind the term progressive? Why do they try to coopt some conservatism on something to make them selves appear conservative? Their clumsy attempts are little more than charades for public consumption and everybody knows it. If the American people are liberal and socialistic, why do Democrats and the media resort to these charades? Ninety per cent of the media vote Democratic? Why do they attempt to appear unbiased and deny their prejudice? Why does the media go to such lengths to hide their liberalism and one-world socialistic views. If most Americans were liberal and socialistic, would the media go to such lengths to hide their views which would be no different from the public's at large?

I have a few more questions for you and any others who have doubts. If Social Security, the Democrat's exemplary socialistic issue, is such a great deal for the people, why is it necessary to compel participation by law? What would the American people do if given a choice, would you rather participate in Social Security or opt out and be completely responsible for your own disability and retirement program? Most of you may not remember, but back in the late sixties and early seventies, many groups were not covered under social security, doctors and dentists for example. When the government decided to include doctors and dentists it was not optional or voluntary. It was compulsory and mandatory. Does that sound like a popular program that Americans can't wait to become participants? And if it were really such a wonderful program, why does it not apply to members of Congress? How many Americans are unaware that FICA is not taken out of your friendly local Congressman's paycheck. Members of Congress have their own retirement plan separate and completely isolated from Social Security. If it is such a fair and wonderful plan, why did they carefully exclude themselves from participation? Why haven't they climbed on this bandwagon? They have certainly not been bashful about getting in on any other good deal.

And my last answer is that if Americans are actually liberal and socialistic, then stop this train, I want to get off. I don't want to live in a country that is socialistic and intend to do everything within my power to change the minds of the people and/or secede from the country. I have no objection to people voluntarily having any programs or form of government that suits their own purposes. But I draw the line when they want to impose socialism and their corrupt form of government on me or my family. Socialism is corrupt. It is a crime against freedom and mankind. It is a form of slavery and an abomination that should be eradicated from the earth. And I don't intend to continue allowing other people to continue imposing involuntary servitude on me or my family in perpetuity.

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.