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.
DD
Sorry but you come off like a girl, a little one at that.
I don't have to prove anything, I just didn't want you to "feel my pain" anymore, you seemed so concerned.
If by putting "wife" in quotes you're insinuating that I'm lying I can prove I'm not, if you're willing to put $1,000 where your big mouth is (to go to Freerepublic of course).
I know you won't take that bet being that people who talk without having their facts usually blow over pretty easily.
Would be nice. But will we also stop supporting these same terrorists in the Balkans? Yes? No?
Also, do you reckon they will hunt down and kill those terrorists who gunned down my friend in Arkansas, for being a liability to the Clinton regime? Will Mueller suddenly turn on those he used to defend, and go after the Arkansas mafia, too?
In short, will we kill all the terrorists who ae striking American soil without becoming a police state, where the terrorists speak our language and demand our allegiance?
I'll pinch myself if any of this happens, but we can dream, I guess.
The voters gave us a second term of Clinton. Any guesses as to who could've beaten Clinton in '96?
BTW, Dole's lifetime ACU-rating was 82.
I don't doubt she is your "wife".
You never answered my question Jim.
Libertarians have nothing to do with this. Bush is steadily forwarding the democrat agenda. It's republican fantasy to believe that this is part of a grand strategy which will ultimately serve the country.
Proof of the other can be had easily. Do you support our military effort against the terrorists? (Yes or no).
We don't have a military effort against the terrorists. In Afghanistan we are allegedly wiping out Al Qaeda even though the State department agreed to let Pakistan airlift many of them out of harms way.
Al Qaeda is still going strong and receives support from the US military in Kosovo. That's what you call a military effort AGAINST the terrorists? Surely you jest.
I support the only constitutional option against organizations that do not represent a nation. When others here investigated the constitutionally appropriate actions and concluded that letters of Marque and Reprisal were what the founders prescribed for such an occassion, I was the laison between FR and Ron Paul's office. Ron introduced the bill into Congress and those announcements (unless pulled since) are still here on FR calling for Freeper support.
Rather than merely complain that the Congress had failed to issue a proper declaration of war, I and others acted. And we talked to the only Congressional representative who still believes that adhering to the constitution is the best policy.
You lie when you claim that I am against America. I am all for an America that conforms to the "Supreme Law of the Land." Contrary to the misguided opinion of alot of folks, constitutional adherance is not anarchy. Refusing to adhere to this law is what results in anarchy and mob rule.
See, you can dream too Jim
Perhaps you will get a conservative with your approach. Perhaps not. Perhaps my suggestion will do the trick. Perhaps not. I know this much. One of us is on the right track. This is good news for conservatism in general.
Just remember this much about what I propose. After ONLY two years of Cinton and the democrats controlling all three branches of government, the voters of this nation handed power over to the republicans for the first time in forty years thanks to the contract with America. You might not think that this can happen again. I do.
So a full 75% of our fellow Americans are our enemies? Is that the view, you as a "real conservative", wish to portray?
I'll close this futile exercise tonight by echoing your choice words, Joe.
Thanks for the forum, Jim (It's technically better than ever).
It's been real. It's been fun. But it hasn't been real fun.
I think you are being elliptical here. I think you have something more specific in mind don't you, something that emanates from a certain portion of the circle on the compass?
The word meanspirited has absolutely nothing to do with liberalism, but does define tpain and you Twodees, to a tee.
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.