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.
It's been debunked already on this very forum.
Pity you cannot find any other SOURCES except that stuff.
If we have reached the point where BOTH parties are acting as one to install socialism then our enemy is BOTH parties. I think we are in that "heap of trouble" you refer to in your last reply. I just don't have faith in the republican party ever providing anything but a RINO for national office as long as voters are willing to pull that "r" lever no matter what.
Had we elected Gore in 2000 instead of Bush, it might very well have strengthened the resolve of the conservative movement to the point of actually providing a "conservative" candidate for which to vote in 2004. In addition, there is no way that the conservatives in congress would have allowed Gore to push through even half of what Bush has already signed into law. Jim, you know how much I despised the Clintons in particular, and the democrats in general. Gore was and still is a total idiot but he would have done wonders for swelling the conservative ranks.
General, vague wars against things that have existed since Adam's sin are not won or lost, they just perpetuate - that's my point.
I am in agreement with you on several things:
1. We live in a two-party system...something that is unlikely to change in our lifetimes.
2. Any Republican is better than any Democrat...because of the way majority control works in the Congress, (and because there is no such creature as a conservative Democrat anymore).
3. The choice of judges is at the very top of the list of the critical priorities which are facing the Republic.
4. Bush is our President...and is likely to be for the next six years, barring an act of God.
Where we might differ...I'm not sure...is what that situation means for us, the conservative base of the Republican Party.
The liberal factions of the Party are having a heyday currently. The money and power in the Party are being used to support the most liberal candidates possible in primaries. Many liberal policies that wouldn't pass the smell test if they were pushed by Dems are being implemented.
So what do we do?
Do we take our ball and go home? I don't think so.
Here is what I believe principled conservatives must do to be relevent in this new 'moderate' age of the GOP:
1. Don't give up or give in. Stay in the arena.
2. Go on offense. Pull out every stop to grab hold of the Republican levers of party power in the next two to four years...and of course continue to target Democrats with all we have.
3. Fight like hell for the principles we believe in, without fear or favor. If the liberals are going to end up with two parties instead of one, let's at least let them know that they had to fight to get it done.
Who knows, we might just win.
Here in South Dakota this fall, I am faced with the choice between Tim Johnson, Daschle stooge, and moderate-conservative John Thune, who voted for CFR.
I hate the fact that Thune represents the exact sort of compromising Republican that I fight constantly. But I'm going to vote for him...because the alternative is worse, and I've got my eye on the bigger prize...the dethronement of the Daschle Democrats en masse.
I hate the fact that the national GOP has been pouring money and talent into primaries in support of RINOs and against conservatives...Ganske in Iowa, Riordon in CA, etc...but I'm not going to surrender because of these things...I'm going to find ways to redouble my efforts to do what you said...send reinforcements to the many wonderful conservative leaders who already are in the Congress.
The GOP has been the majority Party for awhile now, but conservatives are still far in the minority. Until we do the hard work to change that, we will continue to witness the long slow slide into socialism.
But we won't accomplish that by simply sitting and complaining, or by meekly keeping our mouths shut when the other side implements another plank in their manifesto...we will win by continuing to boldly speak out for our principles, and by continuing the hard work of educating the electorate.
Regards,
EV
It is my belief that terrorism should be stopped at the border and once allowed in, people should be free to move about the cabin, rather than, as with the War on Drugs, all people are made guilty until they can prove their innocence. I shouldn't say that since those from terrorist nations are not in any way allowed to be "profiled". Eighty year old grandmothers are far more suspect than a guy from Saudi Arabia with wires sticking out his shoes who is allowed right on the plane, lol.
I am paranoid and I admit it about Home Land Security. It seems to me to have been thrown out there with no real definition to make the public feel that something was being done to protect them when there is no real intention, that I can see, of dealing with open borders, flights from Saudi Arabia with no passenger list info, visa's, immigration from terrorist nations, flight schools, etc.
As far as Bush attacking Iraq, he can't right now, and I don't lay the blame at his door, but at Clinton's for gutting our military and placing PC generals in charge of our brave troops. As soon as we are ready I do believe that Bush will take old Saddam out.
But your right about an open ended war, it is the perfect way to kill the Bill of Rights and bears watching. Seems like all we do is just watch it all go, but we have little alternative.
Funny stuff....
redrock
Hogwash.
I didn't make myself clear, I do that a lot.
What I meant was that we aren't operating from a position of strength when we over and over again keep accepting the lesser failure for fear of getting a greater one. We just keep getting differing degrees of failure. Electing socialist Repubs for fear of what may happen is operating from a postition of weakness.
Ef the LP. They have some great Americans but their I'd rather have anal warts then have to accept that platform.
You know, every time Repubicans actually stand up for conservatism (Ronald Wilson Reagan and the contract with America are perfect examples) we win in every way, including the polls.
If you're asking what the alternatives are I don't have all the answers. Maybe a "cleansing" of the party is in order, maybe handing out a few defeats in the primaries. Maybe we need to send W a clear message to quash his arrogance NOW before election time. I dunno, I'm just throwing stuff out there.
All I know is that the "we have to support these schmucks because we may get a dem" angle is way past being worn thin. We deserve better, YOU deserve better.
I can't figure you out JimBrother. You're like this brilliant guy who helped change the world yet you can't seem to get past simple DC party politics when this particular subject comes up. It's honesty the only area where I've seen you not be able to think outside the box. It's frustrating to the point where I want to just smash my head through my office wall.
How can a person be so dynamic and so dang conformist at the same time? I liked you better when you were pissed off and you were posting a lot of articles written by dead writers. I need to know that you're still on fire man, it really would make me feel better.
Ok, so you vote to declare victory and get on with things. We can't win so why try. We can't define an end date so don't bother. We will just address every 911 as a simple criminal act and let the county Mounties handle it.
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? :-)
Absolutely not...I think you're right on target...you have stated what the proper conservative stance should be at this point in our history, IMO.
Since Bush is helping them out, it doesn't matter which is in control. They passed the Patriot Act in a "bipartisan" fashion and Bush signed the damn thing.
But, then on the other hand, when I remember how you reacted to the attacks on American citizens on our own soil and how you steadfastedly refuse to defend the country you profess to love, then I'm not so amazed afterall.
Don't resort to lying please. It is quite convenient of you to pull such nonsense out of your hat since the censors here have (I assume at your behest) pulled the evidence of posts I made after 9/11 which were quite specifically warning folks here of rushing to give the government power for which I predicted it would be asking.
The first was called "You will Pay for This." I don't even have a copy of that one anymore. I'd appreciate it if you'd re-instate that thread and we could see who is telling the truth here.
The other, is still here and details American involvement in raising up Al Quada with our tax dollars. In Afghanistan, Bosnia, Serbia, Kosovo etc. We created that monster. Fact. Since we have, It is imperative that we stop supporting them.
AS OF THIS DAY, we are sending dollars to the KLA which is in fact a creation of Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda. Bush approves of that.
There is something terribly wrong with that. And I DO NOT SUPPORT AMERICANS BEING FORCED TO FUND TERRORISTS. Bush apparently has no problem with it since he has continued support for the KLA. That makes him a liar AND a traitor.
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.