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.

Ah yes, the final resort of the losing end of the argument, elitism and snobbery.

You unilaterally attack my character and mental and emotional state, and then state that I am the one not being civil. Accuse the opponent of what you are doing: another Marxist tactic.

Let me put it plainly: the farm bill is European style socialism. The liberals won, the conservatives and Bush lost, period. You keep trying to dismiss this as politics, but the fact is you are trying to claim victory in defeat, and that defeat will make us victorious. And that makes you no different than the people you criticize.

This is about raw politics.

Your method of 'politics' is Bill Clinton style triangulation. It is do and say whatever it takes to remain in power. Except at least for Clinton rarely lost much, and he got alot of his agenda accomplished below the radar when he did. Bush walked away with NOTHING on the farm bill. He is walking away with NOTHING on immigration.

No, this is about reality. The laws of the universe, and the laws of economics could care less about shifting-state-of-flux politics. You do not create reality with politics. The farm bill as it is now will continue to expand and aggrevate the economic disassociation and disaggregation that are causing problems for farmers trying to make a living. It will subsidize overproduction, leading to more over production, leading to lower prices and more financial difficulties for farmers, leading to a vicious circle of farmers' dependence on the govt. Simple supply and demand. Utimately it will lead to the collapse of the farm economy. Unfortunately, politics can't change that reality. Or at least, most of us with our heads in reality don't think so.

>>>Ah yes, the final resort of the losing end of the argument, elitism and snobbery.

I haven't lost any argument to you. You think liberals won on the farm bill and conservatives lost. I'm not as defeatist as you are and don't see it the way you do. I said, ... it doesn't fit the agenda of conservatism, but not everything in politics and governing does all the time.

>>>You unilaterally attack my character and mental and emotional state...

I wasn't attacking you personally. But I was questioning your rhetoric, your political state of mind and emotional outbursts. Damn right. If you make off the wall comments, expect to be called on it. And if you can't take the heat, stay away from the fire.

But you haven't 'called' me on anything. There was no rhetoric, no political mindset, no emotional outbursts. All these were manufactured by you as a character attack on me to win a rhetorical advantage. It is you that are doing these things and are attempting to accuse me of them. You have made all sorts of subjective proclamations and blustering machismo, but not refuted anything I have said, other than to say something along the lines of 'all is relative'.

The laws of economics aren't relative. They aren't subjective. Reality isn't subjective. It is not about 'perspective'. Your opinion is irrelevant when it pertains to the facts. The farm bill is destructive socialist economic policy that will do real harm on the American farm economy. That's the facts, take it or leave it.

"The farm bill is destructive socialist economic policy that will do real harm on the American farm economy. That's the facts, take it or leave it."

It is also a blatant assault on our supposed FreeTrade mentality, and more than likely a violation of a number of Free Trade agreements? Who has standing to bring suit to have these illegal tariffs overturned?! Or perhaps Dubyuh's collectin' the tariffs so as to have more to barter away in future trade negotiations. In any event, it is horrific legislation based solely on political vote-buying!!

FReegards...MUD

>>>That's the facts, take it or leave it.

I'll leave it and for good reason. These are your interpretations of the facts. You're entitled to your opinion, but you're not entitled to pass off your opinion as fact. This last post of yours was another personal rant and nothing more. The problem you're having is, I won't accept your interpretation as reality, nor will I agree with the conclusions you've reached. You're not satisfied that I don't agree with Bush on the farm bill and think it was a mistake. You want me to trash the President to make you happy.

>>>There was no rhetoric, no political mindset, no emotional outbursts.

That's all there was. You manufactured everything.

Very nice. I look forward to replying, but it will be sometime tomorrow evening before I can devote the effort that your reply deserves.

There are at least two sides to every debate. And the reason to conduct the debate is to influence the thinking of the involved parties in such a way as to discover the best possible course of action. As a prelude to my argument, I think we have been trying your approach for over 70 years. We are losing ground, and I would suggest there is a clock running on every empire. So far, all empires in history have crashed and been replaced. Remember how ballistic the media and the left went over Reagan's comments about the Soviet Union?

Tell the truth, did you expect or predict the Soviet Union to simply disintegrate? Have you looked lately to see how well America is managing her money?

I can't seem to link the image, but here is a link to the page. Scroll down to the chart under #3Core Problem concerning the magnitude and rate of growth of America's debt.

There is no opinion, no interpretation, no perspective. The laws of economics are not subjective. The only way you aren't able to accept that is if you don't believe in things such as facts, and that all reality is relative.

That's all there was. You manufactured everything.

Only in a world where rhetoric and opinion is fact could that statement be true. Life must be so simple when you can create your own reality and subject all around you to it. For some people I guess things are more solid when they are in a perpetual and relative state of flux.

The name of the game is added value agriculture. We are talking WAY beyond ethanol. We can forget about world grain supply levels, tariffs, lower foreign input costs, etc, if we just pour our resources in creating a farm policy that revolves around added value agriculture.

The technology exists right now to be able to take any plant, break it down via a cold milling process, and separate out anything you want: fuel, chemicals, nutritional supplements, medicines, protein...basically if it is in the plant it can be taken out. The beauty of this is that all the technology to do this is proven, inexpensive, and commonly used. What has never been done is bringing it to together to make the manufacturing process, not a big deal really, a much smaller hurdle than creating and testing the technology components of it.

Let me give you a scenario. Take corn for ethanol. What is not commonly known is that the protein in the corn actually gums up the process of ethanol. That protein is very valuable, even more valuable if it's vitamin content isn't destroyed by heat. It is a very profitable high dollar product. With this process you can take out the protein, and make ethanol, cheaper ethanol, because the protein isn't gumming up the process, requiring more energy to make it.

But you aren't done. On the back side, you can take out polylactic acids, which go into making polyester clothing. There may be other chemicals there too you can extract that have value. Finally, what you are left with are the DDG's or cellulose, which have no value, but can be burnt to make steam to make electricity...and you can subsidize the energy usage of making the ethanol, lowering production costs.

This process can be done with any plant product. Now, rather than having to grow wheat, corn and soybeans, farmers can now grow anything and everything, and do so profitably. By diversifying production, you will lessen supply and raise prices of WCS. The farmer is profitable again. All sorts of new products can brought to market, which mean it will bolster the manufacturing sector of the farm states too. It's a win-win for all. So why aren't we pursuing it, and getting away from subsidization?

The passing of the farm bill into law, was pure politics. Period. Long term economic ramifications for the farmers is bad enough. My concerns are for the taxpayer money that is funding this legislation. I told you several times I didn't agree with the farm bill, but whether it was triangulation or not, politics was at its core.

>>>There is no opinion, no interpretation, no perspective.

WRONG! That's exactly what FreeRepublic is all about. The exchange of opinions, interpretations, perspectives and FACTS! After a few exchanges it was clear, we both thought the farm bill was wrong. But when I chose to disagree and not bash the Bush administartion, but rather point out the policical motivations, you went into overdrive and started spewing inflammatory BS. That's were we parted company. Bush isn't a socialist and I'm no Marxist.

Throughout your posts, you showed emotions of anger and frustration, along with irrational and illogical rhetoric. Add to that an ignorance of politics that I found quite astounding.

It's your turn at bat.

Didn't say Bush was a socialist, just said he made the mistake of capitulating to his enemies. And a weak enemy at that. You want to talk political reality? Politics goes in cycles, and right now we are in a conservative one. We have the upper hand, this is no time for capitulation, this is the time for advancement. Bush could have created one hell of a farm bill and really done something for farmers, but he missed the opportunity. The Republicans do this every damn time, they compromise before they have even get out of the gate. We could have kicked their arse on the farm bill with the terrorist attacks making home grown anything very popular, especially fuel. It was the perfect time to switch to a more value added/free market approach. You just don't get opportunities like this every day.

Bush may be better than the Democrat Presidential candidate, but that is only a portion of the requirements for defending our Liberty.

Thank you for saying that.

It is a habit of "the Left," that it will tell the public eye, when a conservative or Republican disapproves of a feature of a bill, than that conservative or Republican is against the title of the bill, that is, against the idea of kids having lunch at school, or school rooms having roofs, etc. When in fact, the conservative or Republican recognizes that the matter of lunch for kids at school and fixing leaky roofs is within the authority of the sovereign states and not the federal government --- the message being from Reagan, that one must be firm with the resolve to defend our liberty from federal intrusion, such as in this example.

And that.

The Principle of Enumeration is whereby the Constitution limits the federal government to only what is on a list….We, the people, are not so limited in our rights.

And that.

(That’s not to say the rest of your essay wasn’t exemplary, too.... :)

Jayne....See #64

>>>We have the upper hand, this is no time for capitulation, this is the time for advancement.

Without the Senate, Republicans have no hope of advancing jacks**t. The Daschle lead obstructionism that exists in the Senate is holding up some 50 bills from reaching committee status and before being debated on the Senate floor. Bush still has administartion appointees and judical nominees that are being held up by Daschle&CO. Things don't look good for the good guys. That's why its critical all conservative Republicans work hard to take back the Senate and improve our majorities in the HoR.

>>>Didn't say Bush was a socialist, just said he made the mistake of capitulating to his enemies.

Well, you call it capitulation and I call it compromise. The truth is, this farm legislation remains bad law. And you did infer that Bush was a socialist and you pegged me for a trail lawyer or a Marxist. I don't like most lawyers and have no need for any communists. Fact is, I consider myself, an American patriot.

Then how pray tell did Clinton manage to advance things even though his party had minorities in both houses? Is Daschle so fearsome that Bush dare not get into a public sparring match with him? Call him what he is: an obstructionist. This is why Republicans always lose. Our opposition takes a stance, and we back away and compromise. They advance, we compromise. We have a majority, we act like they are a minority. And we won't take on a buttwipe Senator who is unpopular and reeling from a series of failed attacks against a popular Republican President.

Damn right. If you use Marxist style debate tactics, expect to be called on it. And if you can't take the heat, stay away from the fire.

>>>Damn right. If you use Marxist style debate tactics, expect to be called on it. And if you can't take the heat, stay away from the fire.

I have no idea what Marxist style debate tactics are and could care less about your stupid label. Here I thought we both had calmed down with the rhetoric. I was mistaken. So be it. I'm a good Republican and I never forget a back stabber.

Since you are so politically ignorant and emotionally challenged, I'll help you out. Clinton went along with Republican policy for the entire four year reign of Speaker Newt Gingrich (1995-1998). Clinton's sub50% victory over SenDole, along with the government shut down tactics he employed, were the only highlights for Clinton. As with most second presidential terms, Clinton was uninspired and politically flat.

Gingrich and his conservative agenda prevailed. Clinton supported and signed into law a majority (65%) of the items contained in the Contract with America. Clinton was a two-faced liberal, who saw the handwriting on the wall. He decided to turn from his 1960`s liberal roots, to become the ugliest creature in politics, a moderate. From 1998 through 2000 we had big surpluses and a return to excessive spending by the Republican controlled Congress.

Hopefully retaking the Senate this fall and with PresBush at the helm, we can start to slow down government spending again, work on more tax cuts and get some fiscal responsibility back in the Congress. I'm optimistic. Besides, no one I know of here on FR or anywhere else, for that matter, has a better idea/plan right now.

Oh yea, by the way, KMA sucker.

Since you are so politically ignorant and emotionally challenged..... I never forget a back stabber.

And I care little for your stupid labels and proclamations too.

I have no idea what Marxist style debate tactics are

A tad ignorant yourself I see, since that is what we are fighting. I'll give you a hint...you just used one.

Ok, I'll bite on your assertion, and take it at face value. Does that mean then, with one house of Congress in his camp and the other with a one vote deficit, that Bush should give back all the Republicans won since '94? Much of the spending is unilaterally coming from Bush himself, not D'asshole, and even Clinton used the veto even if he got overidden. Bush is in a much stronger position than Clinton ever was, so why give in at all?

I don't know, but saying someone is on the "empty void of reality" doesn't sound too positive to me. Also calling people "misfits", "malcontents", and "militants" is actually more of a slam than calling someone an ass.

The funny thing by reading your posts again it really appears what you described was yourself.

Anywho, I'm ready to move on. I've made my point and no new points are coming up. Have a good night, and hopefully, this discussion won't spill over to other threads that we may both post on. We've trashed this one with enough garbage...no need to dirty up another. I'm not saying we have to disagree, but hopefully we both can discuss the issue(s) without resorting to name calling.

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.