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.
When you said "I've been seeing a lot of your graphics over at DU, and the other leftist nutbag websites, They seem to appreciate your work of late" to Registered, you were attempting a guilt-by-association fallacy. Laz didn't put anything in your mouth.
Looked at the OSHA org chart lately? It's still a division of the Department of Labor (an executive agency), reporting to the head of the executive branch. Do you know who that is? Really, Roscoe, this is beyond ridiculous. You Bush-is-really-just-a-powerless-moron apologists are doing no one any good. He's not powerless, and he's not a moron. Why do you keep pretending he is?
So I take it, by your failure to renounce the implied association, that you do in fact believe Registered shares viewpoints in common with most members of DU?
If you will look a the number at the bottom of a reply, it might help your confusion.
This is a perfect example of the Politics of Absolutism: If you oppose any of Bush's policies, you are a traitor. If you question how Padilla is treated, you are a terrorist. And so on.
The purpose of the Politics of Absolutism is to silence the opposition. I will not be silenced, and I will point out any use of this intellectually-dishonest rhetorical cudgel whenever I see it.
With the responsibilty of applying the laws enacted by Congress.
If you have a legal basis for judicial review of the OSHA activities at issue, say what it is.
If you have a law or case precedent that allows a President to order regulatory interpretations by decree, cite it.
No. Let us expose him -- again -- for the disdain he holds the Bill of Rights in.
But as I reminded him when we last had a RKBA discussion -- there were a lot of people who voted for Hitler, too, so I am not suprised there are people who disdain the Bill of Rights.
No, I am not reading minds. But I am asking you if you would distance yourself from the implication, that because Registered's graphics are showing up at DU, is that he shares viewpoints in common with people at DU?
You have not distanced yourself from that implication. If you fail to, the reader can only be left with the conclusion that your intent was, in fact, to smear Registered.
How about taking this occasion and renouncing any false associations that you may have inadvertantly made?
Instead of complaining about Bush, clean up your own house.
I guess I'm supposed to apologize to Registered because his graphics are being used by the RATS?No, word readers. Your words have meaning. If you didn't mean what your words say, say so and then say what you mean.
If I'm reading between the llines though, I'd guess that you're against attempts at mind reading. Or are you...?
Ah, that would be a "no" to your attempt at a straw man fallacy.
But I don't really mind... If you owe anyone an apology, it's because of your earlier attempt at a guilt-by-association fallacy.
That is a False Dilemma. He may attempt to clean up his own state and ALSO complain about the leftward tilt of the Bush administration.
2. But as I reminded him when we last had a RKBA discussion -- there were a lot of people who voted for Hitler, too, so I am not suprised there are people who disdain the Bill of Rights.
World class hypocrisy, Laz. Congratulations.
It's Fallacious Cornucopia Day at Free Republic!
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.