Great Society:
Newspeak Translation=
"Compassionate Conservatism"
Maybe it's a Texas thing; bigger this, bigger that, bigger handouts.
Posted on 07/24/2003 4:00:40 AM PDT by RJCogburn
Edited on 07/24/2003 4:39:12 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
THIS IS THE is the summer of conservatives? discontent. Conservatism has been disoriented by events in the last several weeks. Cumulatively, foreign and domestic developments constitute an identity crisis of conservatism, which is being recast ? and perhaps rendered incoherent.
George W. Bush may be the most conservative person to serve as President since Calvin Coolidge. Yet his Presidency is coinciding with, and is in some instances initiating or ratifying, developments disconcerting to four factions within conservatism. The faction that focuses on foreign policy has four core principles: Preserve U.S. sovereignty and freedom of action by marginalizing the United Nations. Reserve military interventions for reasons of U.S. national security, not altruism. Avoid peacekeeping operations that compromise the military?s war-fighting proficiencies. Beware of the political hubris inherent in the intensely unconservative project of ?nation-building.?
That seems a bit simplistic. He could've refused to comment or politely voiced a differing opinion. By agreeing with her he put the GOPs stamp of approval on her decision - it remains for each Republican to decide whether they support that position.
If you do anything that helps the greater evil, then you are no better. That's the way it is.
Not from where I'm sitting.
Your sitting in the wrong place. Change seats.
No difference at all.
Open your eyes. Are they the same on abortion and partial birth abortion? On support of school vouchers and homeschooling? On support of the military in war AND peace? On tax cuts? On tort reform? Etc, Etc. The Dems WILL out spend and out tax the Republicans...count on it. The GOP is ignoring illegal immigration...the Dems are encouraging it.
The proper thing to do is to make an inconsequential statement and appoint replacements that he HOPES will be more conservative in their interpretation.
And I am speaking of the tone on this board generally, in that I see an awful lot of people who want the President to "make statements" attacking members of Congress, Supreme Court Justices, Clinton, the French, whoever.
It isn't going to happen. He is not that type of person.
I have noticed an awful lot of people who attack legislation without looking at its content. In my opinion, Bush is trying to move things in the nation to the right gradually. You have to look at the entire body of actions and legislation, not one single thing.
I realize there are people who want every single piece of legislation to be conservative. They are bound to be disappointed.
I stand by what I said. Too many people want speeches that make them feel good and do not look at long-term goals. The primary thing is to get judges appointed that are strict constructionists. Coming out and criticizing a Supreme Court decision raises all sorts of red flags with the left, and allows them to block any candidate with the excuse that whoever Bush names will be unacceptable. With an election approaching, it is necessary that the democrats NOT have judges as an issue. Any public statement that is critical of the moderate justices will have a negative effect on getting a larger Senate majority, which is what we are going to need when a vacancy occurs.
Now, some will say this is politics, not principles. But politics is what is used to build a majority, not shooting oneself in the foot for a momentary feel-good moment for conservatives.
It's time to make some demands. I just hope Bush is listening to his base, because people are getting upset, and I don't want Howard Dean as my president.
Great Society:
Newspeak Translation=
"Compassionate Conservatism"Maybe it's a Texas thing; bigger this, bigger that, bigger handouts.
Precisely! And sometimes I wonder if we don't act just like them too: loyal to a fault. But how can we clean our own house without destroying it?
That's too bad, because what we need right now is a leader on domestic issues, who can harness popular outrage at SCOTUS, to give one example, and at least make their overreaches a really big political issue next time around. But because Bush has remained silent, it is more difficult for him to make the argument successfully that Tom Daschle wants to appoint judges who will (figuratively) sodomize us all. That's the way politics works--speeches do matter, because they set agendas and contain promises.
The disturbing thing about Bush is that he often seems unwilling to embrace conservative positions even when it is entirely in his political interest, as in that case.
He should be troubled by the fact that NR and now George Will are after him. These aren't just nutty freepers attacking him.
It is evil to support any form of evil, however benign it may appear.
This is simply untrue. Try as I may, I cannot picture the angry, outraged protestors coming to the defense of Sandra Day O'Connor.
This would be a great political issue that would make any reasonable conservative forgive almost anything else Bush does.
You can support it by action and by inaction. One way or another you will support it, so go for the lesser. Why make things worse?
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.