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.
Well. It might fit. [[clearing throat, turning up nose at other posters, polishing fingernails against lapels]]
Then again, Cultural Jihad's picture might be more to the point.
I thought it was a secret code?
You really should stop sharing your mental problems with us. Too much information.
He did for 2 years. I remember the AW and Brady laws were passed during that period.
I wasn't bragging about being retired, you dummy. That was your buddy Twodees who was bragging. And as for tpaine, he needs all the help he can. A medical doctor would be his best bet. After calling me an ass, completely out of the blue, you have created a fictional account of events that doesn't jive with reality or come close to the truth. And now you're trying to convince CJ of your lies. That won't work.
One thing is for sure. You're still a dumbass!
He's pulling your leg, Angus. Dan is highly respected here, even among those from Detroit and Lansing.
Gee, another rude post. Wonder where they all keep coming from?
Realists understand that life is one long series of compromises and politics especially so.
Realists aren't inclined to allow perfect to be the enemy of good-enough.
On the other hand Utopians, being the zealous but impractical reformer of human society that they are, allow for no compromese.
Soviet Communists were Utopians, the Khymer Rouge were Utopians, the radical Islamists are Utopians.
So make your judgments about which side of the fence you fall accordingly.
No, just smart. You're the ass.
I like the variation 'Psychotic, heal thyself'. Since there are very few medical doctors on Free Republic -- and since there is a substantial level of mental illness that is displayed on-line (all over the net, not necessarily here) -- I think it is more appropos.
Well then, I'll ask him to apologize. He might have mistaken you for one who'd put up with transgressions upon our constitutiom were it done by a republican president.
Tom, how about an apology? She's a freeper afterall and an Iwo Jima vets daughter to boot. Put one in the plus column for the good guys.
Thanks for explaining what you (all) were thinking. I can't tell you how glad I am to know that this was NOT what was happening.
I've already commented on you calling me an ass, out of the blue and with no provocation on my part. I said nothing to you. And as for starting the attacks on this thread, you've been here on FR since early 2000. You should know better then to make a ridiculous blanket statement like that. This thread is fast approaching 1800 replies. I started nothing. But I'll be around to finish whatever you and other attack dogs, may want to start.
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.