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.
Except for a few folks complaining it was too small and too far in the future, I don't know of anyone against Dubyuh's tax cut, and I believe the Right will rally behind Dubyuh if he seriously endeavors to cut back on the Size and Reach of the Federal Leviathan!! Of course there are internal factions on various issues, but Dubyuh's spent the last nine months pickin' up chits from the Left and Center by adopting much of their Agenda...it's time he started demonstrating how the GOP really IS different from the RATS!! I still believe they are, but we need to make the case--prominently, proudly, and indisputedly--to the American Sheeple between now and November. We convince folks how much better life will be with a GOP-controlled Senate, and we'll get the numbers necessary to pass some good legislation for the next two years.
"THERE IS NO CONSERVATIVE BASE."
I absolutely disagree!! When Reagan ran a bold campaign in 1980 and 1984, the Base showed up and was counted!! In '94, when the GOP boldly ran on the "Contract With America," the Base showed itself again. The Base, IMHO, believes that the Federal Guv'ment is not the best place to fix all of this Nation's problems, no matter who's sitting in the White House. Dubyuh needs to throw the Base some bones by setting out a few good, solid RightWing Agenda items that he can take directly to the Voters...Personal Retirement Accounts, Optional School Vouchers, maybe even shrinking a Federal Department or two, we need to differentiate ourselves from the RATS!!
"I don't blame him for telling many of us to take a hike."
He's never told me to take a hike, although he has ignored some pretty solid advice I've generously forwarded to his attention over the last nine months...LOL!!
FReegards...MUD
Don we never "had" the country in the first place. No one "has" the country and never has.
I think the answer is best stated in Texasforever's post:"If you want true conservative governance then you have to have a true conservative voting public. Even then there is no actual "conservative" base."
However, IMO, if you just can't stomach the choices, you'd be better off voting third party than not voting at all. That way you send the message that you want another choice (as opposed to you're too apathetic to be bothered with going to the polls) loud and clear.
If you consider the country as only land, you have a point. If you think of the country as its people, you do not have a point. If the left controls the thought and actions of the people, they have the country.
If you think that conservative success requires that we remake this country to look like it did in 1787, or 1857, or 1927, or 1957, then conservatism is doomed.
You should stick to twiddling around with the squaws from those pathetic DitL threads. Over there they think intellectual pikers are cute and funny.... even sexy.
Perception is all, isn't it? Do you want the conservatism of the Reagan years?
Dang, another one bitesthe dust.
And another one bites, another one bites, another one bites the dust....bomp bomp bomp....another one bites the dust....
The real threat is that there will be so many people riding in the wagon, and so few pulling, that the whole system grinds to a halt. At that point, most of the average Americans you describe will be standing around asking, "hey, what happened to my government check??"
The productive Americans (perhaps already a minority) are starting to realize the extent to which they are being robbed. (Watch what happens to the pharmaceutical industry in the next 2-3 years for a clue). I think we have maybe 20-30 years to reverse this trend before we hit the point of no return.
And the difference between YOUR posts and the LIES of the LEFT are
Dang. I can't think of any. Oh well.
It is actually quite simple. Either Israel is a sovereign country and Sharon is the leader of that country or it is not. If a Palestinian state is not acceptable then he should stand up and say so and tell Bush to stick it. If not then he is just a whipped pup and he AND Israel have no business pretending they are a nation.
We see now how civic minded you've become, or not... There's more about voting than just voting for someone... Its called citizenship...
Saturday night and no date again huh? I feel your pain here…..put some ice on it. LOL
How many thousand times am I going to have to post this on the forum for people who know absolutely nothing about this subject? Well, here goes anyway.
Buchanan was attempting to join the Reform Party as per his agreement with RP leadership. He asked Fulani for her help and she agreed. He only told her that he would not ask for the Black vote then ignore them for the next four years if he got it. Fulani recognized this as different that the two main parties and agreed to support him. He did not agree to support her. You do know the difference? Right?
One thing that always amazes me with regard to those who have a problem with Fulani and the Reform Party, until Pat sought to join the party and use Fulani's position within the party, it never bothered anyone that she was there. Ross Perot's supporters never damned her the way you guys have. I doubt you ever cared when she was supporting Ross. What's up with that?
Fulani had run for president herself in 1990. Laugh if you will, but Fulani was astute enough to get her name on all 50 state's ballots. That's a huge undertaking and Pat needed her help to accomplish that for himself. As it is he and she facilitated getting his name on 49 state ballots.
As for going over and seeing Shapton, I'm sure no other candidate in history has every shaken the hand of someone they didn't care for in order to facilitate votes. Does this mean that Pat became a socialist? Does this mean that Pat was a supporter of Fulani or Sharpton? LOL I'm thinking you do.
Toward the end of Buchanan's campaign Fulani started to make demands on Pat. Pat severed their relationship. That's how much clout she had with Pat.
Now, what was it you were saying about howler monkeys wingnut and Stalinists? Those are some interesting comments from a guy who also critcizes me with regard to credibility when not one single point you made made sense or had any connection to reailty.
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.