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.

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

calve?????

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

lavec.

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

Frankly my dearie, -- go flag someone who cares what you think.

Okay.........ping.

BTW........Have you seen my clave?

[Mudboy Slim]

"The bottom line is, we need to rid the country of liberals by whatever means."

"Fighting here isn't going to do it. That's mostly why I've decided not to post to these threads. I just don't have the energy to fight amongst other conservatives...These threads are counter productive at this stage of the game. "

While it does become tiresome, I can think of no better venue for airing our differences, and now's early enough in the election season to allow for some fence-mending before November.

"Once we have a 'conservative' senate and congress, let's fight for real constitutional reform. Until then, the liberals have control. They want the judiciary. They want to not nominate conservative judges. Their MO has been to legislate laws using the courts and not the system established through the constitution. Think about your own state, or, think how the Florida supreme court tried to legislate the Gore v Bush decision. We all have people and contacts, use them to advance your conservative agendas. Most posters on this forum want the same, smaller government. The means to get there is different. We have the power in numbers to make it happen."

Yep...MUD

[Cultural Jihad]

Am I not allowed to post here then?

VED earned his banning. If you keep a civil tongue and follow forum rules you are more than welcome by the owner. The fact that you picked tpaine as the first person to talk to, especially after VED, does not bode well. Perhaps you will beat the odds. We welcome you to the best conservative forum in cyberspace.

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

Rudeness works for the left in American universities. Glad to see the ruthless and dishonest tactic has been taken up by the "right".

Well, we certainly do aim to please. Y'all come back and see us again soon.

[Cultural Jihad]

Angus Deayton

[Mudboy Slim]

"Clave."

Awww-Right, who let in all the Frenchies?! Now I know we're doomed to surrender!!

LOL...MUD

[Tauzero]

"if Americans are actually liberal and socialistic"

That is the simplest explanation, IMO.

[unsycophant]

When you say "we", do you mean the people you pinged, or do you mean "we, the Moderators", or "we, the people who are pro-Bush", or what? Just curious about why you flagged those names to this particular post.

It looks like you're inviting people to come back and LOL@tpaine's expense, CJ. I hope not.

Thanks in advance.

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

That's clave' to you, Mudboy.........lol

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

LOL!

[dixie sass]

Ping-a-ling

[Cultural Jihad]

[Reagan Man]

I consider most FReepers intelligent adults, or at least they have enough common sense to know better. tpaine is a twelve year old and likes insulting folks and shooting spitballs at people who disagree with him. Which means about 90% of FreeRepublic finds him rude, crude and socially unacceptable. Just pay attention for a short while and you'll see what I mean.