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.
Yep the John Birch Society.
Remember Hillary was a Goldwater girl...
Not at all. All one has to do is read the Patriot Act and CFR to understand. He is a traitor to you and I. He would have us jailed for speaking out in the 60 days prior to an election. He agrees that the mere perception that "any person" is a threat to government or any other person, would warrant our imprisonment without formal charges, without bail, without the ability to speak to an attorney or see the evidence against us.
Traitor is the nicest word I can say on this forum about George W. Bush.
B.S. I grew up in AZ. Went to High School in Yuma AZ. I still have family there. And no, McCain couldn't fill Goldwater's jockstrap.
I agree, you could have called him a DemiDog.
You're absolutely right. It is "the way that you act, think, and just generally live your life [that] determines what you are." And your basic principles, values and temperament need not change. But the world is going to change and the issues it presents to you are going to be constantly changing. Conservative solutions that worked in the 19th century may not be adequate to deal with 21st century problems.
Now, what happens in 2004? His dad couldn't win two in a row. Bush has alienated at least a portion of his base. Folks, I'm telling you right now that you are living in a dream world if you think Bush is going to skate in 2004. The fact is that liberals will vote for the real liberal, not a liberal lite. And once again the Repbulican party will pander to the liberals and leave their base blowing in the wind because they think they can't not vote for the Republican candidate. I say you have a real problem brewing.
You guys can make fun of us Buchanan supporters all you like. You can call us names, laugh at us because we stood by our ideals in 2000. You can post the actual election numbers and basicly laugh your a--es off, patting each other on the back. The fact is, you've got a problem. We tried to tell you. And now you're going to have to make up the difference between what you got last time, and the rest of the disaffected conservative voters who'll have left your ranks by 2004.
If you think you've seen losses up until now, you wait until Bush pushes through Hillary Care ala Ted Kennedy, and the Medication Prescription addendum. This is going to get ugly. We told you it would, and all you could do is call people names and laugh.
Okay, laugh.
Really? Even Gore didn't know the extent to which Clinton was involved with Lewinsky...
"Traitor" has become a throwaway word to you libertarians. You apply it to anybody who doesn't buy into your sex, drugs, and rock n' roll view of life.
Oh, and it also applies to those who support Israel as the likes of you blame America for the actions of Al-Qaeda.
Buchanan supporters telling Bush how to win elections? You got to admit, THAT'S funny.
99% of the time pragmitism such as you suggest is the correct and mature option, not now however. Maybe it's time to start burning s### down and send the message that we won't be used and betrayed anymore. Your contention that if we just keep eating it we'll eventually somehow find ourselves electing stellar conservatives is not workable. We've had a slow devolution all along then we elect a Republican who only adds another 2 lanes on to the highway to socialist utopia.
I'm sorry JR but at the end of this month, I will have just gotten done working for an entire half a year to pay off my goverment, 51% = majority ownership. Our country honestly doesn't have a freaking "generation" to set things right.
I'm no longer supporting pols because of fear of the alternative as I and we have been doing all along.
The first word one comes across when they surf here is "FREE". You're causing me to lose sleep (I'm not kidding) when you suggest that we become weak, conformist and compliant. One reason why FR is where it is today is because of your huge set of nads.
You wanna be "free" let's be free. We don't have a "generation".
It is in fact. It is not a "Christian" conservative principle, but it is a conservative principle (or what used to be conservative. Goldwater was also for the repeal of the Income tax and the end to drug prohibition. Those were in fact at one time conservative principles based on a strict interpretation of the Constitution.
Neo-conservatives have no principles. They are guided by Dewey's philosophy of Pragmatism which asserts that what is right is conditional upon the end result.
If the end sought is a good cause, then the means do not matter. The problem with this in politics is that the government will never achieve the means. Thus, you will always be left with the pragmatic choice taken to "get there" and are forced to abandon principles.
Freepers would do well to study the Pragmatic philosophers including John Dewey and open their eyes.
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.