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.
Delusions of grandeur.
Ya just can't stand it when someone (anyone) actually stands up for their beliefs...and refuses to go along with the crowd.
BTW....Falwells ass should have been kicked.
redrock
The founders didn't envision 50 "clones", but separate states that had their own identities. Otherwise, why have separate states at all?
"If you carry a gun, people will call you paranoid. That’s ridiculous. If I have a gun, what in the hell do I have to be paranoid about?"
Clint Smith (director of Thunder Ranch)
Stacking the pro and con columns up, Tancredo is still a better option to me, especially if his views on gun control can be turned.
OMG, BIG deal. You're a first class whining C*R*Y*B*A*B*Y Go cry yourself to sleep.
I'm not thrilled with the domestic policies of the Administration, but I do think they mostly have the right idea in defense and foreign policy.
Also, I'm under no illusions that GOP control of Congress will restore our Constitutional Republic.
I come down on the side of working to get rid of the RATs in 2002 and then see where we are in January 2003.
Too soon, IMO, to make any meaningful political comments about 2004. Politics in 2004 will depend on such things as how the War on Terror is going, the economy and the stock market.
Regardless of what happens, what better place to watch it all from than FR!
Yeah the guy that STARTED the Religious right movement that actually gave the GOP a fighting chance and gave us Ronald Reagan
I knew that was a biggy to you and thought you should have a heads up so you can research it more yourself since you named him as a possible better choice for yourself.
Then we are in approximately the 4000th year in the war on terrorism.
BTW, there were 5 bomb blasts in Spain this week (Basque terrorists).
The Arkansas Mafia is a terrorist group, too, as far as I am concerned, and they still have cronies in the highest offices in our land.
Our children are being taught in the governmental indoctrination camps that Islam is just as good a foundation for culture and society as Christianity.
We better re-evaluate our priorities in this war quickly.
Agreed. Buchanan has nothing to offer anyone on strategy.
I think there is a problem on the extreme end of both of these sides.
It does conservatives no good to just throw the people we worked to get elected overboard at the drop of a hat.
It also does us no good to keep quiet when our politicians stray too far from the principles we expect them to uphold.
The challenge is to not veer too far in either direction: neither becoming unprincipled cheerleeders or irrelevant naysayers.
Modern politics dictates that politicians will move as far from their base as they can, until they reach the point where moving any farther will lose them more votes than it gains them. But they need feedback from their base in order to judge where that point is. That's our job, as I see it: to offer constructive criticism on policy that will make it back, one way or another, to Rove, the RNC, etc.
Does this make me a moderate? :-)
Beer in sinus cavity ... Not good, hurt bad !!
You read every word I posted and I never said Goldwater advocated "special" rights for gays.
But he advocated gays in the military, something that most knowledgable people agree is detrimental to discipline and good order.
That alone militates against Goldwater being a conservative during his later life.
Goldwater morphed into a liberal libertarian, why don't you just admit it and move on?
He's still, by far, the greatest conservative president in my lifetime.
If that makes you a moderate then count me on your side! I couldn't agree more with what you just stated!
Please tell me, other than leading by example, what the president could do, within the confines of the constitution, to stop abortion?
During a recent meeting with President Fernando Henrique Cardoso of Brazil, President Bush asked in surprise, “Do you have blacks too?” Joe Sobran.
Actually the Brazilian press reported the question as "Do you have blacks also?"
The Editorial quoted above was called "A retumbante ignorância." Translated to English that's "A resounding ignorance."
Of course it was first reported in Germany's "Der Spiegel" here: Gibt es Schwarze in Brasilien?
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.