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.

[lentulusgracchus]

A freeper told me (unsourced mention) that GW would re-sign the 'Assault Weapon' ban.

Figures. He'll do it on a weekend, no publicity, dark of night....and wait for Hillary's office to issue the press release in New York.

[Sir Gawain]

Gawain's best post ever.

WTF? What an insult! You're on my ingore list now! Lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala I can't hear you!

[Uncle Sham]

"You're quite correct, of course. I know this and usually do but they need to be challenged here once in awhile lest they become even more shrill and self-important than they already are, were that possible, which is quite doubtful."

What's "important" is the TRUTH. Some on this site actually are providing it. Be thankfull.

[Registered]

Oh, don't you wish. No way, shape, or form are you mainstream.

This made me chuckle. You know, I don't mind not being "mainstream" myself, because I know what mainstream means; it means compromising on the Constitution, it means accepting Socialistic ideas like federally provided health care, it means changing to meet public opinion, it means lying to your constituents to get elected, it means accepting less than the ideal, it means negotiating on the truth (like abortion and gay "rights"). Frankly, being mainstream means you accept and operate within the realm of deception.

I thank my lucky starts that I've not sunken into the mire of the slough of despair that I call "mainstream". That was the nicest compliment she could have paid you and the biggest insult that she could have paid to herself and others like her. LOL.

[Texasforever]

The "bushbots" are too busy correcting the hyperbole associated with EVERY ACTION this president takes. No matter what the subject there is a faction on FR that will spin it into a "Bush caves" tirade. The fact is that, for every thing Bush has done there is at least one so-called "conservative" group that applauds it while there is another so-called "conservative" faction that hates it. THER IS NO CNSERVATIVE BASE. There are only balkanized factions based on single issue litmus tests. No matter what Bush does he is going to "lose" the support of that "base" of conservatives. It is a no-win situation and I don't blame him for telling many of us to take a hike.

[Howlin]

You've marginalized yourself by being so strident.

[Sabertooth]

They have the gall to call Bush supporters "Bots"? Hell at least we don't imply racial motives to those that we disagree with when supporting our guy..

That's android motives, Tex. Sheeeesh!

[EternalVigilance]

Polls do not suggest discontent among some conservative activists has spread outside Washington.

Polls lie.

Maybe someone needs to get outside the Beltway and talk to the rank and file a bit more...there is a ton of discontent out there over policy.

[Lazamataz]

It is a no-win situation and I don't blame him for telling many of us to take a hike.

Then hike I shall.

Have fun trying to meet that 589 vote margain again.

[Dan from Michigan]

He nearly lost it with CFR and the PAtriot Act. I don't care for the education bill either.

If he signs a gun grab, he's lost my vote unless he pulls a big rabbit out of his hat(repeal another gun law, strict constitutionalist judges). I have to draw a line in the sand somewhere.

It's a lot more than guns with me. I'd about freedom. If govt can't trust me at a gun show, then why should I trust them with power.

I don't THINK he's sign a gun grab, but I didn't expect CFR either.

[Uncle Sham]

Thanks for the listing. Where is the response?

[lentulusgracchus]

So I did. Sorry, I must have been replying to another post and hit yours instead.

Well, I disagree with you then. But not enough to have a cow about. Call me a "moderate" <hurling noises> on the subject of filters.

</hurl>

[Howlin]

And the whiners are busy talking among themselves about how special they are, how much more they know about and love the Constitution than anybody else on the face of the earth; basically saying, "Hey, I'm special, and if you don't agree with me, I'll say you're a BushBot, locksteppers, goose stepper, facist, socilist."

They sneer at us because of one reason: their very existence depends on being right.

[EternalVigilance]

You've marginalized yourself by being so strident.

I don't know anyone who fights harder or more stridently on this forum than you.

[Texasforever]

see ya. Just put your pants on before hiking.

[Lazamataz]

You've marginalized yourself by being so strident.

"Moderation in the protection of liberty is no virtue; extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice."
-- Barry Goldwater, 1984

[sneakypete]

No one wants to shut the "Axis of Whining Weasels" up, they're too much fun to watch as they snivel in misery... :o)

Not as funny as the "Bawling Bombastic Bush-Bots",though!

[Torie]

I thought the gun show thing was about applying the same strictures that apply to gun shops - sort of leveling the playing field. I don't see the applicability of the word "grab." There may be grabbing with respect to AW; I suppose regarding that it comes down to definitions. Nukes are AW's; grab them. Anthrax is an AW; grab it. Boozokas (sp)? Well, let's talk.

[Howlin]

I'm fighting as hard as I can so YOU and your candidates won't be in control of this party.

[Dan from Michigan]

Exactly.