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.
CONSTITUTION (Better?????) "I am SURE you have the Rosetta stone that will unlock its true meanings and why we have LOST it." |
|
"lost": That's pretty simple ... we lose a little of it every time another unconstitutional government program or hand-out is implemented via congress or executive order. It becomes a shadow of what it once was. As Walter Williams said, "Where in the Constitution does it say anything about midnight basketball?" There is a means for implementing these programs and hand-outs and it's called an amendment. "true meanings": What are you talking about? Who said anything about true meanings???? But if I had to answer your question, I'd say that the true meaning of the constitution is that it is our set of rules by which we live. It is not a living (ever changing) document. That makes it worth less (2 words). ..."when you think about it that's exactly what non-adherence to the constitution and the political whores have turned us into.... a democracy heading down the path to destruction like every democracy before us." |
|
Visit: Freeper Tips and Helps for posting photos, links and other HTML goodies. "Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." ..... Somebody Very Smart..... |
Too bad the founders did not agree with you.
To: Bush Bo... Bush Supporters
From: RNC Central
Subject: More Bothersome Terminology
Just a reminder folks. This is a...
That's right. It's "a moderate turn signal." Very good.
Thank you.
Ideology is preferable, but when there's no ideologically pure choice, do you vote for the GOP candidate so that hopefully our side gets control of the committees and the agenda, and can get some judicial nominees confirmed and hopefully some conservatives on the Supreme Court....
or do you take your ball & go home? And whine?
As deep as blind loyalty?
I wil ask you. Who should replace Bush, regardless of party?
Ma'am,
This phrase stood right out when I read it. Could I ask what you meant by these conservatives?
Mind you, I've nothing at all against the 'Bush Bot' gals. I think you're good , decent ladies.
But I've always assumed that we all aspired to conservatism, but disagreed on which road will lead us there the quickest.
Have I been mistaken in my assumption? Do we really wish for the same type of government?
I ask this sincerely so I can better understand if there is any chasm between us.
I don't think we can progress without the fine ladies of the G.O.P. standing alongside us.
And while your at it, consider the House delegation.
And while you at it, consider those electoral votes for Clinton and Gore.
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.