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.
If we don't take back the Senate this year, or if we lose the White House in 2004, the Leftists will control Supreme Court and federal appellate court appointees, the nation will be absolutely SCREWED, and it won't matter one little bit what was Bush's policy on, for example, steel tariffs.
And how does this article and than manner in which you presented accomplish any of that?
Is it likely the "bushbashers" will listen to your voice of reason?
Have you or the writer gained a single GOP vote?
Sure, I'll probably vote for him again, but for now we need to make him work for our votes.
The American Right can't be anyone's bitch--we've seem just how much it's helped certain ethnic groups to become slaves servants of the Democratic party. The more in thrall they are, the worse they do.
There is a lot to what you say. I have no problem with criticizing the President and letting him know when he hurts the cause. However, as I just sid in my reply to sabertooth, my first priority is saving the courts. If we lose the courts, it won't matter who's in the White House because the Supreme Court and federal appellate courts will dismantle the Constitution with impunity. Therefore, while I am all for criticism, winning the Senate and retaining the White House, both critical to saving the courts, are a higher priority for me. With possibly three SCOTUS justices about to retire, and countless appellate judgeships open, I feel that the Constitution is better defended at this point in time by the nomination and confirmation of judges who are true to the Constitution, which requires the election of republican presidents and senators and thus preserving the courts.
Neither is our northern border. I recently traveled the route from Toronto to Montreal along the St. Lawrence River, and two guys in a boat could ferry a whole lot of people across the river.
If the proposed limitation on length of visas for Canadians goes in effect, look for a lot of river crossings.
Is it likely the "bushbashers" will listen to your voice of reason?
Have you or the writer gained a single GOP vote?
Perhaps some readers aren't quite as set in their thinking as you appear to be (no offense intended). Conservatives who don't like some of what Bush has been doing and who are trying to decide how to deal with that dissatisfaction might read the article and give some thought to their political activities this year.
Obviously, rabid "bush bashers" and "bush bots" won't be affected by anything they read on Free Republic or anywhere else. But maybe there are still some FReepers who don't fall into either camp.
While Bush 41 certainly contributed to his own demise, I don't think we can underestimate the fact that Republicans had held the White House 20 out of the previous 24 years, the economy had gone through a slight recession the year leading up to the campaign, and the Cold War was now in the past. That combination would have been a very tough re-election campaign for anyone in that situation. There was a momentum for change that would have been difficult to overcome, regardless of the candidate.
Exactly right. RR was very popular, and he didn't back off on his conservative agenda to get that popularity. GW's father was quite popular until he broke his "read my lips" pledge. Conservatives were outraged, and that capitulation by Bush opened the door for Clinton to slither in. Does anyone think Gore, or any other liberal, could have defeated Reagan? Or that Clinton would have ousted GHW Bush if Bush hadn't broken his promise on taxes? I don't. If he had not caved in to the liberal tax-and-spend gang he would have been a two term president, courtesy of conservative voters, and Clinton would be just the corrupt ex-governor of a small backwater state.
If GW had stuck with all the positions he somewhat reluctantly adopted in the campaign, he would more than make up in popularity with conservatives what he might lose with wishy-washy centrists. I wonder how many of the centrists who are giving GW's popularity ratings a big boost will pull the lever for him in '04? My guess is not many. Most of his popularity in that group is based on his response to 9/11, not on his support of policies they like. But how many hard-right conservatives will stay home next time around because of their disappointment with GW's compromises with the leftists and centrists? Quite a few I'm afraid. The media pundits would have us believe the majority of American voters are liberals like them, and that the key to winning the White House is somewhere in the mushy middle. I don't believe it, but I'm afraid Bush and the GOP strategists do.
BTW, I voted for Bush, and will again in '04 if I'm still on the top side of the sod, but I know other conservatives who won't unless Bush stops compromising with leftists. I'm a bit more pragmatic than they are, but, unlike these emotion-driven FR Bush worshippers, I can respect their principled stand.
You misunderstand... the President hasn't yet lost my vote.
I think you also misunderstand that where there is division in the GOP over the President's actions... the responsibility for that division lies with the President.
When the President swerves left on issues like a brand new entitlement on prescritption drugs or extending Clinton's Section 245(i) Amnesty for Illegals, who else is going to keep him in line? Those aren't issues where the President's policies are giving us half of what we want, which is a smaller welfare state and fewer Illegals, they promise more of what we don't want.
If the President doesn't want division, he can stop doing divisive things... But that's not going to happen if he thinks he can take our votes for granted.
And if the President's loyalists don't like division, they might want to take a second look at divisive tendencies of their own... presumption being high on that list.
I'LL SECOND THAT ---on both counts!
Great line, right on the money.
Outstanding, concise and to the point. Will they get it?
Not a chance. Emotion-driven hero-worship is usually too strong for common sense to overcome.
Comment #38 Removed by Moderator
As I implied in my post #87, Bush's broken pledge definitely contributed to his defeat. However, I don't believe for a minute that it was the primary reason. Bush received nearly 10 million fewer votes in 1992 than he did in 1988. That is indicative of something much more than simply a bunch of conservatives staying home because they're dissatisfied.
Let's face it - the Democrats did a remarkable job of portraying a slight recession as the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression, and of portraying Bush as being too focused on international events. And the people bought it. That, plain and simple, is the biggest reason Bush lost. When there is a recession, the incumbent loses. It's why Bush lost in 1992, it's why Nixon lost in 1960, it's why Carter lost in 1980, etc.
Now, one might argue that Bush's broken pledge contributed to the recession in the first place, thereby indirectly sealing his fate... that I might buy. But I don't know enough about economics or the timeline of events to comment as to whether that is a reasonable hypothesis or not.
I take my vote very seriously.
Candidates must EARN it...
I don't give it away to wishy-washy appeasers.
I guess you never heard of Ross Perot? He made fools out of a lot of people.
I'm not sure what your point is. As I recall, Perot's main issue with Bush was the poor economy, was it not? And my point is that it was the campaign's focus on said poor economy that was the principal reason for Bush's defeat in 1992.
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.