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.
I'm a genius. That's it! What we need to do, I mean, we got all this tension in Congress between the Democrats and Republicans right? We just need to make them all Republican! Get them to sign the papers, get him his official membership card, and voila, problem solved!
Hell, you realize how HUGE this is? We can ensure that there will never be another Democrat again by simply making them all Republicans! Daschole --- Republican, Gephardt --- Republican. Bernie Sanders --- Republican! Yep, you guessed it, Bill and Hillary Clinton --- Republican! Now don't squirm, the Republican party is big enough for all, you just gotta be open minded. Doesn't matter what they believe, if their Republican communists, they will be our Republican communists. At least they won't be a Democrat!
If we can make all comers Republicans, we will never ever ever have to worry about ever dealing with a Democrat again. Imagine if you will a Republican in every office in the land. Hell, imagine nothing but Republican voters everywhere! Democrats will be nothing but a memory. America will be the Promised Land, cuz we will never have to worry about Democrats fouling things up again.
But why stop there? Why limit this big Republican tent to the US? I mean, we got a big problem with Castro and Cuba that has been dragging on for 50 years right? Make him a Republican! Then he's our guy, so problem solved! He may be a communist, but he'll be OUR communisst. Arafat --- Republican! Mugabe --- Republican! Yes folks, that big Republican tent is big enough even for Saddaam Hussein. Come on in Saddaam, we luv ya man! Osama bin Laden...yes folks even Osama. He might be a terrorist, but at least he'll be our Republican terrorist!!
Now come on T, we got a mission before us. We gotta think big, gotta make 'em ALL Republican. The sky is the limit. Get 'em all in the tent, and when we do that we will create a global universal harmony. Republican harmony, that is! Imagine, all the worlds problems, solved because we made everyone a Republican! It's so easy, you just gotta have faith! Embrace 'em man, embrace 'em all. It ain't about what you BELIEVE man, it's about what your label is! It's about being Republican!
He takes his little graphics to places beyond the posts of Free Republic yet uses the screennames of Freepers. Not only does it indicate an inability to get over his personal grudges and a vendetta, but it also shows a near abuse of this forum by takng a person's identity (albeit fictitious) and using it elsewhere in a defamatory manner.
If you choose to subscribe to that lack of ethics and it's pettiness, so be it. Some of us find it in extremely bad taste. I personally don't know who he aims to please. For all I know, the DU is his largest fan gathering. I know his fans are dwindling here.
Be warned that he will probably now remove his graphic as often happens when he feels embarrassed or wants deniability. Trust me that there are plenty of witnesses to his pictures.
BTW....I am sidestepping FR etiquette and not pinging Registered. He will see it anyway and I refuse to post to the man.
How is this information "selective"? According to MJY, the graphics are showing up and being enjoyed by Democrats on DU. Period. Take it for what it's worth.
Propagandists use another tool - and that's hiding information. If this is the plain truth, there's no reason to break out in hives over it. Nobody here thinks the creator of this anti-Bush stuff is really a Democrat. What they might think is that his materials are being used by the opposition - and whether they think that's good or bad probably depends on whether they, too, have a problem with this Republican president.
I'm amazed at the reaction you guys are having to this. Talk about "kill the messenger". Sheesh!
I have to go now - but I really don't have anything more to say about this anyway.
When he supports left wing legislation like CFR and the UnPatriot Act, he's DAMN WRONG.
Something to do with your underwear? Genitalia?
You and the other absolutists have no chance of influencing the debate in any meaningful sense. You are not electable. The pro-dope and pro-porn agenda just doesn't have much sales appeal--especially to the traditonal families of America (the bedrock support for the Republican Party)--despite your best attempts to disguise the foul smell of these things by dousing them with the cologne of fundamental fairness and liberty.
All you can do is play the margins and try to tip close elections to the advantage of the liberals out of spite.
George W. Bush, on the other hand--for all the faults of his administration--does have power and is electable. His task is formidable: slow down the liberal leviathan. He must be in power to have any chance at all. Buying into your pile of horse manure would only leave leave him whining fecklessly on the sidelines with you.
ROTFLMAO, Now I'm using propaganda, This is getting better by the second, What would you call the Marxist jpeg Laz posted?
He takes his little graphics to places beyond the posts of Free Republic yet uses the screennames of Freepers. Not only does it indicate an inability to get over his personal grudges and a vendetta, but it also shows a near abuse of this forum by takng a person's identity (albeit fictitious) and using it elsewhere in a defamatory manner.
...Be warned that he will probably now remove his graphic as often happens when he feels embarrassed or wants deniability. Trust me that there are plenty of witnesses to his pictures.
I was going to ask for evidence and links. Should I bother?
I can vouch for it. I have seen at least one.
I've seen them.
Humorous hyperbole. I didn't take it seriously, and don't suspect he did either.
If I'm mistaken in taking your post as being meant seriously by you, let me know.
Satire of the concept of excessive Bushbot-ism.
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.