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.
Second the motion, Jim. This is not about discussion or negotiation or any of the other Liberal talk-solutions. The terrorists are not listening. They do not respect words.
You're giving advice to Free Republic on how to run a website?
That's funny.
Agreed.
We'll take it one by one.
After 17 months probably 50%
The Bush Enigma
How then can one explain George W. Bush, the man on whom so many Americans placed such great hope? All we can say is that there are several theories to choose from, all of which fall in the realm of speculation.
One theory holds that he is a good man with fine instincts and excellent intentions, but is such a hater of confrontation that he has effectively been steamrolled by the non-conservatives who surround him.
Another theory holds that he was never a real conservative in the first place, but i8 a very capable orator who can read a good speech and produce a convincing image. The United Republicans of Texas published such a view after having experienced all of the years that George W. Bush governed their state.(37)
One individual who shares the view that Mr. Bush's political effect has never been conservative is Thomas Gale Moore of Stanford University's Hoover Institution. In a syndicated column appearing in, (38) he discussed the much-publicized Bush plans to cut spending and reduce bureaucratic regulation. But Mr. Moore then cautioned:
Skeptics find President Bush's record as governor, often alluded to during the campaign, far from reassuring, especially since he used much the same rhetoric during his gubernatorial campaigns as appeared later during his campaign for the presidency.
While in Austin, he converted the state income tax into one of the most progressive in the nation, introduced withholding taxes, raised sales taxes, and sharply increased taxes on business.
While he was in office, Texas government expenditures increased faster than was typical of other states. Notwithstanding his campaign rhetoric, welfare expenditures alone escalated 61 percent in real terms during his two terms as governor.
That is hardly a record that should merit the label "conservative."
So was killing off the indians, err, Native-Americans.
The real danger of subsidization is that in the end it may staunch drug innovation.
The real danger is that it exercises government power not expressly granted by the constitution.
I think one of the reasons we're seeing this is because the liberals in the party are the ones with all the money. But that's always been the case, pretty much. I don't have an answer to that problem, but the other thing the liberals have going for them is that they work together in coalitions better than conservatives, I think.
I like it more everytime I see it.
Thanks for posting it.
You: 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.
How do you jump from my comments to your conclusion?
Phew! I give up! I think it would be easier to teach my 7-yr-old nephew advanced calculus.
Frankly, it disturbs me, because I know this is the mindset of the majority of my fellow Americans. God help us!
Okay, I have to try: I did not say we need an END DATE. I said we need a definite goal. Killing all terrorists on earth is as practical a goal as killing all German Cockroaches on earth. (In case you don't realize - that is an impossible goal). And if we continue to support the terrorists in Kosovo, advance "multiculturalism," and shred the remaining liberties of the American people in the process of this perpetual "war," then we will end up with nothing left for which to fight.
Until you type something that indicates your EEG wouldn't flatline, I'll continue to ignore your stupid comments.
Not bad, considering the Dems control the Senate, the Republicans hold a tiniest sliver of an advantage in the House, and Bush lost by an eyelash the popular vote for president. A less able man would be lucky to be pulling down 10-30 percent.
Thank God Patrick Henry never made it to adulthood then..
...give me liberty or Give me death!
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.