Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What Has Bush Done For Conservatives Lately?
Accuracy In Media ^ | August 23, 2002 | Paul M. Weyrich

Posted on 08/25/2002 12:50:21 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe

Recently, I did an interview with Focus on the Family in which I stated that pro-family conservatives are not motivated to vote in the upcoming elections in November 2002. While I stand by that statement - because it is true - I was contacted by a high level White House staffer who pointed out all the reasons he believes that pro-family conservatives should be motivated to get out there and support President Bush. Taken together, it is a pretty impressive list. I will mention some of the items on his list, but by no means all of them, for purposes of discussion.

First there is the passage of the tax cut and the effort to make it permanent. Then, there is the nomination of excellent judges and the defense of those nominees who are encountering opposition for partisan purposes. President Bush rejected the International Criminal Court. He got us out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, and thus paved the way for a missile defense system. The Ashcroft Justice Department, directed by the President, opposed partial birth abortion in the Ohio case and opposed euthanasia in the Oregon case.

The President opposed human cloning and has pushed for the right legislation in the Congress to ban it. The President opposed taxpayer-funded embryonic stem cell research. The Justice Department has supported the correct view of the Second Amendment.

The President has pushed for energy independence. He signed the parsonage tax credit bill and the Born Alive Infant Protection bill, during which, at the signing ceremony, the President made the strongest pro-life statement coming out of the Oval Office in a couple of decades.

The President signed the Child Custody Protection Act. In the Prenatal Health Insurance Bill, he insisted that the definition of eligibility include the fetus. In the House he pushed for a welfare reform bill where marriage, work and the family are central.

The President rejected the United Nations Rights of the Child Treaty. He rejected funding for the United Nations Population Fund. He raised abstinence education funding to a record $300 million.

In addition, the President has praised single sex schools, highlighted the Boy Scouts, and condemned the Ninth Circuit Court's ruling removing "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance.

My White House friend says that the whole demeanor and atmosphere in his place of work has changed. He is right about that. No more pot smoking, condom swinging, late night liaisons with teeny-boppers at the White House. It is a dignified place to work once again.

Now, in fairness, all of this has to be weighed against the sight of the president and Teddy Kennedy working together to pass the budget-busting education bill that threw out vouchers on day one. And there are liberal holdovers at the Justice Department and others departments pursuing policies that should be rejected by a conservative administration. Moreover, the administration seems to have a weakness toward homosexuals. Not only have there been a number of high level appointments, but the Justice Department, under the leadership of one of the heroes of the religious right, had a so called Gay Pride event. The President signed into law the so-called campaign reform law which has hurt the ability of every pro-family organization to explain to the voters the records of the Members of Congress or the positions of the challenger candidates. Then there is the huge agriculture subsidy bill that undoes most of the excellent "Freedom to Farm" reform effort of 1996, with most of the money going to big farm conglomerates, doing little for the family farm.

And now the Department of Health and Human Services has ruled that the government can share medical records with employers and insurance companies without your consent. And HHS is pushing a plan to deal with 9/11 type medical emergencies that all but does away with any remaining states' rights.

Again, I could go on. You will have to determine which list means the most to you.

But of the many good things the president has done, almost no one knows about them. I was speaking with some Midwest grass roots activists, who pride themselves on knowing what is going on. I read them the list from the White House staff member. They were shocked. They had heard of only about a quarter of the items mentioned. If folks like this haven't heard the good news, it is a lead pipe cinch that folks in the precincts know less.

If the Bush Administration expects to motivate voters for this fall, it had better learn to tell its story, short and sweet. One way that might be done would be for the president to cut a series of radio spots to be played in states where the stakes are high.

But what the heck, my advice on such things is never followed anyway.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 241-249 next last
To: Dane
You have a right to your opinion.

You're still wrong.

But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.....

Perhaps you indeed are so intellegent that you know better than I, just what "my" agenda is.

ok genius, enlighten us.

21 posted on 08/25/2002 2:08:27 PM PDT by WhiteGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: All
Whatever happened to "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country..."?
22 posted on 08/25/2002 2:16:13 PM PDT by woofie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
Wyrich is one of those "fund raiser conservatives" who can only make money if he is looking at the half-empty glass. His job is not to run the government, develop programs, or indeed contribute to conservative victories. His job is to make money for Paul Wyrich via mail solicitations.
23 posted on 08/25/2002 2:17:08 PM PDT by wildbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Perhaps Mr. Weyrich should get a quarter and buy a clue.

I knew ALL of those things because I bothered to find out, instead of counting on the media to do it for me. The White House web site has all the information available, and all you have to do is go there and READ it. Instead, Mr. Weyrich whines, and when it is pointed out to him, he blames the White House for the media black-out. What a dolt!

Those of us who are Bush supporters have been sending e-mails, talking to people, and flooding radio call-ins with the message. But Mr. Weyrich didn't see this on NBC, so he thinks nothing has been done.

Contrary to his opinion, most of the cultural conservatives have this information through other sources, and will show up at the polls in November.

And, I stand by my opinion posted the other night. A lot of the unappeasables are merely plants here to stir up trouble and cause doubt among the troops. I am done being polite to them.

24 posted on 08/25/2002 2:18:43 PM PDT by Miss Marple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
What Has Bush Done For Conservatives Lately?

Ask not what Bush has done for conservatives but what have conservatives done for Bush ;-)

25 posted on 08/25/2002 2:26:31 PM PDT by varon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
"What Has Bush Done for Conservatives Lately?"

We shouldn't "put all our eggs in one basket" in hoping politicians will advance our agendas. Politicians (includes those we like as well as those we don't) are about one thing: getting elected.

Perhaps some recent historical perspective will help. Taking all presidential administrations since WWII, conservatives can probably agree that Reagan's was the "best" (as far as its conservative leanings) and LBJ's was the "worst".

That said - let's analyze a little further. As conservatives, we should all oppose bigger government. Has the size of government IN ANY ADMINISTRATION been reduced? The answer is no. Perhaps the RATE of growth has certainly been smaller in a Reagan vs. LBJ administration, but it has grown nonetheless.

How about judicial appointments? Well, our "friends" have let us down there, too. Earl Warren was appointed by Ike; and Nixon was responsible for some of the worst Supreme Court justices ever. And Bush I gave us Souter.

My point is simply this: I don't know exactly what it is going to take to return us to a Constitutional Republic, but I do know it's going to take more than getting "our man" elected president.

26 posted on 08/25/2002 2:29:44 PM PDT by KeyBored
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eccl 10:2
Well I guess that it is better than nothing, but not much. Nothing refers to what it would be if algore were potus.
27 posted on 08/25/2002 2:33:30 PM PDT by gunshy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: lsee
50-49, boy I sure would hate to see what the dems could do if they had a 51-48 margin.
28 posted on 08/25/2002 2:40:38 PM PDT by gunshy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Diddle E. Squat
Ahhh, a convert to the religion of Government.

News Flash.....we are not Jews looking for the holy land, nor is GWB the Almighty Lord, no matter how much you may want him to be.

29 posted on 08/25/2002 2:42:34 PM PDT by bat-boy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: section9
Seems to me that the dems did pretty good under clinton when the pubbies had both the house and the senate.
30 posted on 08/25/2002 2:43:48 PM PDT by gunshy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: woofie
That went out the door the minute I had to work six months out of the year to pay my taxes. What my country can do for me is let me keep my hard earned money and LEAVE ME THE HELL ALONE
31 posted on 08/25/2002 2:45:46 PM PDT by bat-boy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: gunshy
EXACTLY!!!!

I've often wondered how come republicrats need a majority in both houses (AND the presidency to boot) to pass their supposed agenda, yet the democans seem to never have any problems passing their socialist agenda.

Could it be that the agenda of both parties is to expand the government?

32 posted on 08/25/2002 2:52:31 PM PDT by bat-boy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Yes, nothing can be offered that will appease me, not a thing. I will take nothing in trade or in substitute for a sovereign nation based on a Constitutional Republic form of government with inforced borders and attention paid to what and who is being imported.

The Cherokee side of my family stopped accepting wompum, trinkets and beads for things of real value long ago.

33 posted on 08/25/2002 2:55:12 PM PDT by MissAmericanPie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: WhiteGuy; Dane
Don't let Dane get you down. I have yet to read a thread where he is not singing the praises of government and belittling those that feel government is over-reaching.

He is your typical yellow-belly bootlicker. Just be satisfied in the fact that Samuel Adams was speaking of people such as Dane when he made the following statement:

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." -- Samuel Adams 1776. Cheers!

34 posted on 08/25/2002 2:58:02 PM PDT by bat-boy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: MissAmericanPie
The Cherokee side of my family stopped accepting wompum, trinkets and beads for things of real value long ago.

Is it the Cherokee in you that makes you want to vote for Tony "Pablo Escobar" Sanchez for governor of Texas?

You my-way-or-the-highway types are never happy, because you don't know or don't care that a Constitutional Republic involves politics.

With the country pretty well split down the middle ideologically, you guys are going to miserable for a very long time.

35 posted on 08/25/2002 3:04:53 PM PDT by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: gunshy
That's demonstrates that it's not Republicans vs Democrats, but rather Conservatives vs Liberals.
36 posted on 08/25/2002 3:10:36 PM PDT by gitmo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: bat-boy
Could it be that the agenda of both parties is to expand the government?

I think you may have stumbled onto something here. But let's keep it quiet, a lot of freepers will be pissed off at you if they find out.

37 posted on 08/25/2002 3:36:37 PM PDT by gunshy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
I understand your flustration, you're from the old school of, no vote for Perry is a vote for Sanchez, I dropped out of that school. They are both the same, they are like the buy one get one free sales it makes no difference which one you buy.

I understand a Republic is politics, but politics is suppose to be two competing ideals, it's not that anymore. Now it is the same idea and the same destination, it's just a matter of do you want to take the bus or fly.

Bush has said he is for open borders from here to the tip of S. America, is there something about that that is escaping you? It's fine, if you agree with that, vote for him, I won't.

I'm not saying I will never vote for a Republican again, just not this Republican with this agenda. And the sooner the Party gets the message the better off people like me will be, and if we are not better off, we can't be worse off. At least those that forgive anything Republican will be back on their toes fighting the good fight.

38 posted on 08/25/2002 3:41:35 PM PDT by MissAmericanPie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple
I am a big Bush fan, but the next thing I will be criticising him for is signing onto this hideous uneconomic massive expansion of the ethanol boondoggle, which was discusssed at length in the WSJ on Friday. Bush does have a tendency on these more marginal issues to go along to get along.

I also want to see the evidence about the state of Iraq's nuke program before we go in there, and have a clearer statement of exactly what the causa belli (sp) is. That is a much bigger issue of course.

39 posted on 08/25/2002 3:43:11 PM PDT by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
Even if Bush hasn't been 100 percent pure conservative since his inauguration, that's no reason not to support conservative candidates in the 2002 election. Many solid, true-blue conservatives are running, and they deserve our votes. Refusing to vote, as a sort of "take that, George Bush," is just cutting off your nose to spite your face. Having more real conservatives in the House and Senate - to hold Dubya's feet to the fire - is what we need.

I implore all to vote in November. Bush isn't running, his policies are not on the ballot - but the future direction of this country, the appointment of constitution-loving judges, and victory over terrorism are.

Oh yes, and support Jay Wolfe, candidate for Senate in West Virginia, with your money and vote.

40 posted on 08/25/2002 3:49:45 PM PDT by mountaineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 241-249 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson