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.

[Jim Robinson]

Go Nader! Between him and the insanely stupid Gore voters who punched out the chad for Buchanan, they kept Prince Albert out of the Whitehouse. And thank you Patrick J Buchanan for getting your name on the Florida ballot. The Lord works in mysterious ways.

[DoughtyOne]

Well as usual you have a hard time getting your facts straight don't you. I said that if the Republicans ran George again, I'd probably sit home. I also said it was early on yet and that I might change my mind closer to election day. But that was directed at voting for the Constitution party and not George Bush. If he's going to spend 40% to 60% of his time signing liberal legislation, I'll never vote for him.

[Torie]

I try to influence folks with my point of view on particular issues through argument. I enjoy the debate. I am also here to learn, and my views on some issues have been influenced, say on CFR which comes to mind. Some of my "moderation" is merely strategic, some of it substantive. I also want lurkers to see that not all that participate here believe things that turn more moderate voters off, even if they are conservative on some matters, such as economics. I am also into politics as a sport, and enjoy conversing about campaigns. I hope that helps.

If Jim Robinson thinks I am a negative influence, or detract from the purposes of his forum, I assume he will let me know. He hasn't yet. Maybe he just hasn't noticed me. :)

[DoughtyOne]

I'm trying to figure out which one was more stupid, the Florida voters who said they voted for Buchanan, or Buchanan for thinking they actually did by mistake.

[Twodees]

No, Hager didn't look good either. I'm pretty new to Virginia and didn't know who was who. I can recognize a liberal when I see one, usually. Coop still ain't talking to me, BTW. ;-)

[oline]

"Probably because we have a low tolerance for people that call themselves conservatives..."

Excuse my daftness - but who is "we" are you saying that you're not a conservative and republicans don't like the conservatives in the party....seriously I don't know what you mean...

Anyway I'm not concerned about changing my principles in order to attract new voters -- the potential conservatives need to learn that conservatism is *right*.

[jla]

Can you tell me tax increase Reagan did not sign?
159 posted on 6/5/02 2:24 AM Eastern by Texasforever

No offense, Texasforever, but I have to doubt your credibility.
Besides, I asked the lady.

[Texasforever]

Texas, the left has the government now.

Then what the hell is your solution?

[Don Myers]

"Then what the hell is your solution?"

Duck, cover, and hold.

[Texasforever]

You may want to read post 336. I am sure you agree with it.

[Howlin]

Oh, excuse me. I thought you said we'd be better off if Bush has been crushed in 2000.

[DoughtyOne]

Well that is another subject, but yes I did. And I said it because the Republican party will continue to foist RINOs off on us until they find that low and behold, Republicans are through voting for posers.

[Texasforever]

Gosh that's nice of you. Are you my father now or just a trusted friend?

No just seeing if you were capable of anything but whining. I guess not.

[Jim Robinson]

"...independent, grass roots, conservative, website, working to roll back decades of governmental largess, root out political fraud, corruption, and championing causes which further conservatism in America?"

Yes, and this is a long term proposition. Securing the blessings of Liberty does not happen overnight when you first have to root out a century or more of liberalism. I'll take a moderate Republican Bush any day over a socialist liberal such as Gore or Hillary.

[Howlin]

[Don Myers]

Texas, if you want to get into a good fight, I am posting in a Muslim website whose purpose is to convert Latins to the Muslim faith. I am posting there as Phoenix. It is actually a guestbook, but we have a good, little name-calling slugfest going there. The URL is,

http://www.latinmuslims.com/guest/guestbook.html

[DoughtyOne]

Funny, I've seen a lot more whining from you Howlin and the other Bush "supporters" on this thread than I have from others. I guess whining is in the eye of the beholder hugh.

At least we are trying to come up with a plan that sees a conservative in the White House. What's you excuse?

[Howlin]

Well, go ahead, teach the American people a lesson.

[Twodees]

Yep, you've got it. It's a matter of principle. If conservatives don't have any principles, we can be manipulated by a party that wants to put socialists like Dole in office. If we don't vote for their candidates, they have to start giving us candidates we'll vote for. Encourage them to run liberals for office and they'll run liberals for office.

In case you haven't noticed, republicans can do as much damage as democrats can. It makes no sense at all to vote for Dole when you wanted a conservative. Vote for what you want, even if there's a chance you won't get it. That makes much more sense than voting for what you don't want, knowing you're definitely going to get what you don't want.

I'm amazed that anyone has to have this spelled out for them.

[Torie]

Whose the "conservative" and what's the plan? By the way DO, on a couple of issues I find you considerably more "liberal" than I am. Cheers.