Don't forget why Bush was elected

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.

Yeah, I am listening.

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.

Liberals like what he is doing.

I don't.

With Algore or any other democrat in office right now we would be speaking arabic and our wives would be wearing burkas.

I disagree.

We would not let Al Gore get away with what we have let Bush get away with.

How can we conservatives let him go on with this agenda?

Yes! And don't forget why Bush-41 was not reelected...

Because he tried to show the left he was a moderate, and angered his base in the process?

I voted for him and his son, and they're both upstanding gentlemen (a welcome change from Slick, to be sure), but it's not the conservative base's fault that they've been alienated more than once or twice.

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.

Popular enough to get away with advancing conservative principles, maybe?

This is the part that disappoints so many of the "Bush-bashers": When will there ever be a better opportunity to advance our cause? If the country continues to drift to the left even in the short time since 9/11, there's no stopping it in sight.

Did you notice that when the Urban Park Renewal/Restoration Grants were awarded week before last that not one city in CA recieved one? We got 8 here!

Cogitate on the significance of that. I mean, like do you dudes out there have bad grant writers or is Dub sending a message?

Yeah, but your candidate WON'T WIN!!! Once you figure that out and Yeah you can disagree with the borders, but do you want a democrat with liberal ideas--judges, abortion, Godless society, higher taxes to run the country, less military, or do you want a president like Bush who might not agree with you 100% but holds conservative views that are important. It is hard for me to understand that the border "thing" is the reason you would not vote for Bush. Even Buchanan admits now that he won't run b/c he finally got it--people don't like him for a president b/c he is too ultra right!!!. Now if PJB does not run, would you then vote for Bush or would you go ahead and vote for the democrat as that is whom you don't care if they win.?

Did you notice that when the Urban Park Renewal/Restoration Grants were awarded week before last that not one city in CA recieved one? We got 8 here!

Cogitate on the significance of that. I mean, like do you dudes out there have bad grant writers or is Dub sending a message?

Here's the message I wish every politician in America had the stones to say...
Keep the grants, and tax us less.
I don't want grants, and neither should you. Nothing more than vote-buying with money taken at gunpoint. That's the problem, not the solution.
If the President is playing these kinds of games, it might be simple political arithmetic to you, but if folks get wind of it and don't like it, don't complain if your ballots don't add up the way you thought they would.

Were you opposed to this funding act in 1973 when it was enacted? How about a similar funding act from the 60s?

Of course you know that the feds need some way to disburse those funds they collect as royalties.

-people don't like him for a president b/c he is too ultra right!!!.

Similarly, I've been a staunch conservative for 30+ years.
I have no intention of sacrificing my principles just because
"compassionate conservatives" want to swing the party leftward.
I am firm in my resolution that my vote has to be earned.
If Dubya wants to alienate the conservative base, that's his problem, not mine.

Yes! And don't forget why Bush-41 was not reelected...
Because he tried to show the left he was a moderate, and angered his base in the process?

If we got Clinton for 8 years because Bush's base got angry, then this so-called base is one the problems our country faces. For 8 years, the Left has been filling all three branches of government at all levels (federal, state, and local) with socialists, communists, progressives, liberals, etc. They will be there for generations. They've taken over our colleges, the entertainment industry......you name it. It looks like the base is way off base.

....and then the Democrats ignore or intentionally screw up our foreign relations and our military so that any Republican President has to spend most of his time fixing those problems and not correcting the Liberal damage being done domestically.

If we got Clinton for 8 years because Bush's base got angry, then this so-called base is one the problems our country faces.

Wrong lesson. Our politicians owe their loyalty to us.
Bush 41 didn't have it, so he lost. No one's fault but his.

For 8 years, the Left has been filling all three branches of government at all levels (federal, state, and local) with socialists, communists, progressives, liberals, etc.

Why is the left so much more dedicated to advancing their agenda than Bush is to advancing Constitutional government? During a good portion of those eight years, Clinton had a Republican Congress with which to contend, and he still moved us to the left, thanks to the weak-kneed Republicans in the Senate. Why is Bush so timid that he can't use his wartime popularity to push the conservative side?

It's not as if we're asking for every left wing program to be rolled back over night but, for God's sake, could "our guy" at least go a couple of days without proposing socialist programs of his own?

It looks like the base is way off base.

Which is more likely: that all the conservatives upset with Bush changed overnight, or that one man (Bush) has sold out that base?

No, Willie, it will be YOUR problem when the democrats start running the country.

Friends, neither Beltway party is going to drain this swamp, because to them it is not a swamp at all, but a protected wetland and their natural habitat. They swim in it, feed in it, spawn in it.
-- Patrick J. Buchanan, "A Plague on Both Your Houses"

Go Pat Go!!!

Go Pat Go!!!

What part of the swamp do the liberal judges swim? What part of the swamp do the higher taxes go to clean up? What part of the swamp will allow guns.Where oh where will the abortions take place? And of course the borders will remain open!!! Oh, Lordy, Let me see--I will waste my vote and vote for GORE!!!

Why even bother to work hard to get the majority --Gore and Clinton raised taxes in 1993. Go Gore and Clinton!!!!

PJB indeed has great rhetoric. I even enjoy listening to him. But no one votes for him. You are a cheerleader of 2 (I think Stevie 50 has PJB pompoms). But you know PJB announced the other day on Hannity that he was not running. So who you gonna vote for now?

Similarly, I've been a staunch conservative for 30+ years.
I have no intention of sacrificing my principles just because "compassionate conservatives" want to swing the party leftward.

Then you will be a "principled" runner-up (as in Loser).

I am firm in my resolution that my vote has to be earned.

Hillary appreciates your firmness and she looks forward to being your President.

If Dubya wants to alienate the conservative base, that's his problem, not mine.

Alienation is not an option. There's too much at stake.

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.