Posted on 07/09/2002 6:42:20 AM PDT by mondonico
Don't forget why Bush was elected
http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com | How quickly we forget.
When George W. Bush ran for President against Al Gore in 2000, the motivation of many Republicans who supported him was not affection for his policy. In fact, many stalwarts were reluctant to sign on -- remember the pundits' reassuring promises (and the Democrats' reassuring warnings) it took to convince that Bush was a "real" conservative? Significant numbers of Republicans were more to the right than the candidate, but got on board anyway.
These days, as many right-wing writers, conservative soothsayers and omniscient analysts rack up grievance lists of Bush's departures from the conservative hymnbook, it is time to remember why so many other Republicans-and to some extent, those whiners and more than a few Democrats-voted for Bush in the first place.
In no small measure, Bush was elected to ring down an explicit rejection on the elastic ethics of the Clinton gang. Casting a vote for Bush was a way for voters to do what a few fickle Republicans in the Senate would not in the impeachment trial. It was a way to register disgust with the ongoing tawdry approval of and occasional praise for eight years of lying for fun and profit. By simply defeating Al Gore, George W. Bush achieved not only most of what voters were asking for, but also most of what was needed: a clean sweep of the people's house.
Of course, a house swept clean is often taken for granted, as today's conservative writing often shows. Republicans would be wise - and a bit more grateful -- to make their criticisms of the President more kindly. Bush is a popular leader, and this is a useful thing for Republicans-especially considering how rare such popularity is. His approval ratings have stood at superhuman levels for months. As the 2004 election approaches, those numbers will come down as party loyalty reappears, but the longer the numbers stay high, the deeper Bush's hold goes into the consciousness of mainstream voters-those who do not much follow policy but vote on instinct.
Voters' instincts these days tell them that Bush is the real deal. In a just-released Des Moines Register poll taken in late June, voters in Iowa who handed Bush a 5000-vote-margin defeat now favor him over Gore by better than 2-to-1 plus ten percent, 64% to 27%. In California in 2000, Gore easily beat Bush, and by a dozen percentage points. Today Bush beats Gore in the liberal stronghold by seven points.
This is powerful stuff, but many Republicans think and vote like third-party crackpots, imagining that it is somehow smart to let the liberal win than to vote for someone who doesn't parrot the appropriate lines on every single issue. Those voters will feel free to tear down Bush for the next two years, subtly planting doubt in the minds of mainstream voters who make the biggest difference between winning and losing.
These activists don't have both feet in the real world because they reject the unpleasant compromises that are part of both coalition parties and governments. They think little about the practical upshots of a liberal administration under an Al Gore, Tom Daschle, Dick Gephardt or John Edwards, any of whom would have more likely launched an Interpol investigation after September 11, and not a war. Those who doubt it should recall the records of those who surrounded Bill Clinton, especially Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, and project their past writings and actions onto the months after September 11.
Not to say that Bush's departures from his agenda are insignificant. He signed campaign finance "reform" legislation, which, if the First Amendment is read by either literal meaning or the lights of contemporaneous documents, is patently unconstitutional. He signed off on protectionism for the steel industry, which will create marginally higher prices throughout the economy. And he watered down education reform and attendant "education market" pressures that were major pillars of his campaign. These compromises are not only significant disappointments but also genuine losses to the way we ought to be allowed to live.
But the hard political truth-the thing that made possible these particular compromises in the first place-is that there aren't enough mainstream voters to matter who will reject Bush on any combination of these positions. The die-hards yelping just now should remember that being President is also about staying President, and that it requires playing politics along the margins. Recall that Bush has not yielded in the main; that is, on the thing that matters most, the war on terror. He is what Americans said we wanted in 2000: a man of character whom we can trust in perilous times.
I Totally Agree!
Go Pat Go!!!
FAR AWAY!!!
Certainly not. But it is a good reaon to vote for Pat Buchanan in 2004.
Same thing.
Contrast this with the economy that Dub stepped into.
Bush's chance for re-election is not likely to hinge on the fringe right or any Democratic policy advantage, but whether he can reach the voters. The media will do anything in its power to unseat him.
You are misperceiving that I have a misconception! Either that or you are completely misrepresenting or misunderstanding the points I am trying to make. Please re-read my post 96. I clearly state that the Democrats did a remarkable job of playing up a minor recession into much more than it was. I am in full agreement with you that the economy was on the way back well before the election ever took place. My point is that the major reason Bush lost is because of the economy issue in the campaign. Real or not, minor or major, it doesn't matter. It was the predominant issue of the campaign. And the electorate was convinced it was a major problem and, rightly or wrongly, they punished Bush for it.
I think the maddening part is that the President is not using his popularity, he's not talking to the people. He is not making any effort to hammer the Liberal agenda. Instead, we get prescription drugs, CFR, abject capitulation to Mexico, and on and on. All needless compromises. Which begs the question, is he conservative, or a get along? I'm not sure.
Well IMHO, you're the type of person who makes excuses for lax security of our nation's borders.
I love America enough that I have no inclination to pay attention to opinions emanating from the People's Republik of Kanada. Tend to your own affairs.
Maybe or maybe not...do any of the Bush bashing threads accomplish their goal of getting someone to sit at home on Election Day 2004?
I agree, some Freepers tend to vastly overestimate the size of the far right.
1. That's never been my goal, nor do I recall seeing it in others. As it stands, I intend to vote for Bush in 2004, though I make no guarantees.
2. Yet, apparently, there is concern that some conservatives might not vote GOP...
Why do you suppose that is?
The lesson of 2000 is that even Presidential elections may depend on every ballot cast. Or do you consider a few gross of votes to spare to be a comfortable margin?
The real question of Bush's re-election will hinge on whether not the new voters he may reach will outnumber the old ones he might lose... and that's totally up in the air.
No. And I don't think Dubya will either.
So in that respect, Dubya = the democrats.
OTOH, there is no doubt that PJB would more strongly enforce our
borders, which is one of many reasons he earns my vote.
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.