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.
Challenger Targets Tancredo Over Gun Control
Denver Post ^ | 5 Apr 2000 | Mike Soraghan
Challenger targets Tancredo over gun control
By Mike Soraghan Denver Post Staff Writer
April 5 - Conservative Republican U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo, the congressman from Columbine, is supporting the statewide gun-control initiative to close the "gun-show loophole." "I support anything that is designed to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them, and this fits," Tancredo said. "This is a reasonable gun-control provision." That's consistent with Tancredo's move toward the middle on guns since the Columbine High School massacre last April.
May be it's time you found another politcal forum to whine and complain on. I mean FreeRepublic doesn't meet your standards anymore. So, move on, crybaby.
Their view is that since they voted for someone based on Party and little or no other criteria, we have to do it, too. Otherwise, they will decry us as being 'smug' when we tell them that we voted for individuals based on our principles, rather than which Party they belonged to. And, if we cannot find any candidates whose principles we agree with, we are declared poor citizens for not holding our nose and voting for somebody -- usually somebody of the Party they support.
I vote for the person I feel is best for the job, whatever their Party. I have never hidden that fact or stated otherwise. I will do so in the future. I will not vote for Bush. I will not vote for Gore. I will not vote for Clinton.
I *did* vote for Buchanan; not many others did. He lost. That's how our elections work. I don't feel at all ashamed I voted for someone who lost. I *would* feel ashamed if I voted against my own principles and the person won -- even moreso if that candidate proved even worse once elected than advertised. I don't vote for winners; I vote for whom I think is best for the job.
Party, in itself, means nothing to me. It may give me an indication of the person's principles, but I can usually learn those while the candidate is campaigning and, if applicible, by the candidate's voting record. Parties may be inevitible in our form of government, but it doesn't mean I have to support them.
Tuor
Give me liberty or give me death.
Not only no...but HELL no!!!!
redrock
This is BS. He supported no special rights for gays. He never supported Clinton. He said that Republicans should stop with the whitewater investigations. He was right. They should have stopped the whitewater investigation since it had the unfortunate affect of actually bolstering Clinton's support (mean ole Republicans) and was about a 10 year-old land deal that made most people fall asleep when one attempted to explain the details.
cal-um-ny
1: The act of uttering false charges or misrepresentations maliciously calculated to damage another's reputation
2: a misrepresentation intended to blacken another's reputation
Whatever works, huh Demidog?
What I'm saying is that wars need to be finite, and against a determined group of people, with a recognizable victory its goal. Wars on Terror, or Crime, or Drugs, or Poverty, or Cockroaches aren't won, they are fought indefinitely, at great cost to life, limb, property and, most importantly, freedom.
A war on Al-Queda I support, but not a "War on Terror." A "War on Terror" terrifies me as much as any terror attack, especially given who conducts it (many of them part of the same crime machine Clinton is a prominent part of). Even the defeat of Al-Queda (may God grant it) will not have much of a long-term effect. The defeat of "multiculturalism" would have a much more efficacious effect.
No protracted war can fail to endanger the freedom of a democratic country.Alexis De Tocqueville
Thanks for reading my rant!
LOL Ignore button..and no debates..I've heard that as well on another thread. :) Just to make it clear, I've only read the above post on this thread.. Thanks for the ping Christine.. :)
I am not sure just what "conservative solutions" will be required that is different from the past. I remember a phrase that goes, There is nothing new under the sun.
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.