Enough With The Neocon And Paleocon Carping—I'll Stand With George W. Bush In 2004

Enough With The Neocon And Paleocon
Carping—I'll Stand With George W. Bush In 2004

Like most Toogood Reports readers, I observed this year's battles within the conservative ranks with profound discomfort. In my mind, there are far too many real enemies out there to waste time and print fighting one another.

It seems that the world of conservatism has been split up between the "conservatives" and the "paleo-conservatives" or between the "conservatives" and the "neo-conservatives." Both sides present themselves as the bona fide article and the other side as the one in need of a prefix.

Personally, I just want to spit up this strife the same way the bleachers of Wrigley Field do the opposition´s home run balls. This qualifies as a "which side are you on boys" issue. It is my goal to conserve America's wonderful, non-living Constitution, and to forever preserve the personal and economic freedoms that embody our way of life. If you agree with me about these basic propositions, then you're on my side and the rest of your views are of secondary concern. Simply revering the spirit of the Founding Fathers puts you in the top 50 percent of the population on the Chap-o-meter.

Not only is an inter-journalist, inter-intellectual, conservative civil war fruitless, it is also detrimental to the nation as a whole. The country needs all of our efforts just to have a chance of mitigating the damage the culture war has wrought.

Our daily resistance may be the biggest obstacle to the federal pacman swallowing up fifty percent of the economy. We cannot afford to bicker amongst ourselves. The odds are too great. Obsessing over who said what about Taki, Buchanan, Frum, Lowry or any of the other public figures who make up the American right is counter-productive.

The neocon/paleocon debate is as bewildering as it is petty and misguided. Sadly, some conservatives now feel more comfortable with leftists than they do their own kind [I know of one who astonished me by saying that he regards the American Enterprise Institute as "The Death Star"]. Certainly, internal disagreements are to be expected, but they are trivial in comparison to accepting the positions advocated by the other side of the political spectrum. Socialism, cultural Marxism, white guilt, and radical feminism are eternal obstacles to advancing society. Other conflicts pale in importance when compared to them.

I propose that we abandon slurs like paleo-con and neo-con. Instead we should all evolve into "Logicons." The Logicon refuses to slash at the brethren who march alongside him because maintaining some level of public harmony is the only logical way in which we will succeed. Logicons realize that our fighting strength should not be diluted by internecine combat.

Much of the controversy currently centers around President Bush and whether or not one approves of his job performance. I've written here and elsewhere how much I personally admire him, but I also acknowledge that certain criticisms have been valid. Those who label him a big spender are correct in their assessments. He has not used his veto to curb the size of government and has developed a habit of hugging Ted Kennedy's voluminous appropriations.

While this is unfortunate, to pretend that Bush is not the best bet for advancing the country's interests is shortsighted. There are many conservatives out there who could do a better job of slashing outlays, but it is highly unlikely that any of them could get elected by our emotive and squishy electorate. On our side, George W. Bush "feels their pain" better than anyone. He brings in moderate voters the way my old Erie Dearie lures used to bag walleyes .

The problem is one of perspective. We can spend time complaining about steel tariffs or the administration´s pathetic capitulation on affirmative action last summer. Yes, I would have been greatly pleased if he disseminated a Michigan Law brief of his own after the decision entitled “O´Connor a Known Fruitcake,” but the fact is that he didn't and there´s nothing we can do about it. However, we must keep our outlook global by remembering what the alternatives are.

What would Al Gore do with affirmative action? How about Howard Dean, the neurotic would-be-king, with Al Qaeda? Makes you shudder doesn´t it? After the election, Al Sharpton would take his standup around the world as our Secretary of State and we´d hear Patricia Ireland lambasting “patriarchal textbooks” in her role as Secretary of Education.

In actuality, my examples really aren´t all that farfetched. The radical left has been carrying the Democrat Party since 2001 and, now, if the Democrats win, bills will need to be paid.

Rather than fantasize about an ideal future, conservatives need to think about how things can, and will, get devastatingly worse, should Bush lose. Be it Dean or Kerry or whatever burrito they decide to roll out of the Taqueria next summer, the fate of the country will be in jeopardy. By this time in 2006, there will be a foreign policy coward in every pot and a benefit check in the hands of every college drop out. Think France, think Germany, and then be grateful we have a president who doesn't spit after saying "tax cuts."

Besides, the Bush Presidency has produced many hidden benefits. His appointees may well be our salvation even though he backs obese budgets. In the latest issue of The New Criterion, we see that his appointments to the National Endowment of the Arts have had a wonderful effect. Under Dana Gioia, the agency is sponsoring Macbeth for military bases and has resurrected traditional Shakespeare at the national level [Shakespearean plays are now staged as in the days of old which means brothels and bath house scenes are no longer mandatory].

I don´t care if you insult him or trade in Karl Rove conspiracy theories, but, in November of 2004, this particular rightist is going to stand by George W. Bush just as the bumper sticker on my car promises. Our hopes for a better tomorrow rest in the White House on his bed. We must support him because heady days await and also because his reelection keeps the Democrat Party headless. Let´s proudly stand by our man as he loudly subsumes the popular positions of the left while promoting many of ours in the shadows though his judges, appointees, and minions.

Yes, the CONTRACT WITH AMERICA helped, but a fat lot of good that did, when all is said and done.

Earth to nopardons! Come in nopardons!

The CWA was the deciding factor in the '94 elections. You're the first person I've heard say otherwise. I'll agree that it did a fat lot of good because Newt never had any intention of following up on it. But he did do a nice sales job (I voted straight GOP that year).

And if Bush 41 didn't deserve to lose that election, then no President ever did. When you sell out the basic principles of your party, then don't expect your party to support you. I really wonder if his son is paying attention.

That would be your privilege, my privilege is that I get to vote in the next election and I am excited about it.

Actually, it is your right to vote. Not to be nit-picky, but words matter.

I, too, support the war on terror. I have no problem commending the President when I agree with what he is doing. But, unlike many other posters here, if I see that he is way off the beaten path then I have no problem criticizing him over it. And when he's WAY off (as in this issue), then he's too far gone for me.

Do your homework and vote accordingly. I'll be doing the same. Glad to see someone your age this involved.

Good post Wolf!

I am about fed up with these idiots. I am slightly ryled up right now and lucky for them I am out of their immediate reach.

There have been fewer Presidents better that Mr. Bush. (Who I still refer to as "SIR") Particularly under the current conditions and circumstances.

These "Arm Chair Quarterbacks" are quick to condemn him for just about everything. It is obvious that they know very little about his true nature but they are quick to point out his failures for things they know very little about.

Can anyone imagine what this country would be like with a Democrat (Howard Dean) in office? Especially with all the coming vacancies on the Supreme Court after 2005? The list is too upsetting to even continue.....

I simply say this; UNITED WE STAND, DIVIDED WE FALL!

Earth to John R. ( BOB)! What precipice are YOU about to fall from ?

There was far MORE, in the GOP wins of '94, than just the CONTRACT WITH AMERICA. You, obviously, will fall for a smooth talker, no matter WHAT is being " sold " and the devil take the high road. Consequently, with blinkers still firmly in place, you tune out/ignore everything else, which doesn't validate your own position. Shame on you.

Clinton and the Dems, which you either don't recall, didn't pay attention to at the time, refuse to even talk about, because it completely undoes your narrow position, had done so much to anger the populace, by the election of '94, that they, of course, took up the GOPers and the CONTRACT WITH AMERICA helped too, but was not, NOT , the sole, only, one reason that the GOPers won big in that election.

And, whilst we're at it, why don't you just admit that you're a fringer, don't 't like the GOP, and are debating from your own, dreary, little agenda, without being factual, temperate, cogent, and unemotional.

How about having the guts to allow the Republicans to lose? Read the comments I made above to nopardons about the '92 and '94 elections and think back a decade to what happened with the Contract With America.

The problem since then has been that the GOP didn't follow through with the CWA, but too many voters have been afraid to withhold their votes from the R's because they are afraid of the D's, and so the R's have been allowed to slip ever more towards the center or even to the left of center. They are not afraid of what happened to Bush 41 happening to them, so they act in whatever manner pleases them rather than upholding the principles of the Repubican Party platform. If they did that, I would vote for them in a heartbeat. But they don't, so I won't.

It's not about claiming a moral victory. It's about convincing the politicians on the right that if they do not uphold the principles we sent them to Washington to fight for that we will let them lose the next election and replace them with someone else. It's about being willing to lose some battles in order to win the war.

I fail to see where you can validate the claim that President Bush has violated his oath of office. Was there some trial or Senatorial hearing that has accused him of this? And while you're at it, read # 203. As far as your statement calling me a coward and a discrace to my Uniform for not questioning him or challenging his decisions, Mine is not the reason why......

And thank God you and I are not standing face to face right now! Particularly after that "discrace to my uniform" comment. You may as well splap my wife in the face in front of me!

Nopardons, you amaze me. Anyone else on np's side in this debate willing to agree that the CWA wasn't the decisive (not the SOLE issue, because I never claimed that) factor in the '94 elections?

As to not liking the GOP, I've been there. I was a city committee chairman for the GOP in a city of 100,000 people. I've seen how the "system" works (or more accurately does NOT work). My bet is that the "backroom deals" you think you know about, I have actually participated in. I'm not some unlearned, inexperienced know-nothing.

As to having "blinders" on, I would submit that continuing to support a party or its candidates for no other reason than they are slightly better than the other choices is a long-term recipe for disaster. You can't win if you play the game by their rules, np. And you are most definitely losing. Look at where the GOP has gone since Reagan left office and then say with a straight face that it is a "conservative" bunch.

I fail to see where you can validate the claim that President Bush has violated his oath of office.

The oath of office for the President states:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

When Bush signed this CFR bill into law, he made the statement that many of its provisions were un-Constitutional. And yet, he signed it anyway.

He knowingly signed into law a bill that he knew violated the Constitution.

Does that sound like "preserving, protecting, and defending" to you?

THAT is my validation. I defy you to refute it.

And thank God you and I are not standing face to face right now!

Who's the neanderthal now? Go on, Tarzan. Beat your chest a little more.

As long as your okay with 'someone else' selling ballistic missile technology to China, fine. 'Someone else' can wring his hands at malaise, ayatollahs, and U.S. hostages. I'm sure 'someone else' would have tried to understand why the terrorists hated us, and asked for a stern U.N. resolution for them to not do it again.

Like I said, you either vote against the bad guy, or you vote against the worse guy. This next election, you'll either vote against Bush, or against Dean. Having the guts to let the worse guy win only proves that his positions are more effective, and you'll be seeing more of them in the future from both parties.

Tarzan?

Well I have swung from a few vines from time to time.

But just where does the CFR bill take away our rights to Free Speech? It merey places regulations on elections primarily because things were being abused. Our full Constitutional right to Free Speech is still in tact. You are not only not making sence, you exaggerate as well.

Bob, YOU amaze ME! To imagine that being the city committed chair, for the GOP, for a city of 100,000 is a BIG deal and has informed YOU, of just how the BIG BOYS wheel & deal, is mind boggling; to say the least.

There are those here, me included, whose bona fides, in the political arena, make your's look like all you were, was the Senior class president of your high school. Get off that high horse of your's, stop looking down your nose at others because, in your mind, they aren't nearly as " good ", nor were they ever as " important ", as you imagine you were/are. Therein lies one of your continual, huge mistakes.

Unlike you, I don't pat myself on the back publicly, about my supposed " importance ", nor do I drop names. But, frankly, Bob, your political credentials/acumen, is far from impressive at all. And yes, mine actually ARE far superior to yours, which is just one reason why I know what I'm talking about, understand " backroom deals ", " get " politics, and can factually and reasonably debate this with you;which you are incapable of doing.

Where have YOU been, on the threads about the things that President Bush has done correctly ? Nowhere, or complaining about it all; that's where. Where have YOU been, in the debate, except carping, Clintonizing others' posts/words ? NOWHERE; that's where!

Do us all a favor, dear, go off to some other site ( where Bushbashing is not only the norm, but the ne plus ultra and their raison d'etre !), or post factually, without the personal attacks, lies, and misrepresentations here.

But just where does the CFR bill take away our rights to Free Speech?

Are you serious? Get a life.

It says I can't combine some cash with my friends and run an ad supporting Pres. Bush in the newspaper within 30 days of an election.

But I guess idiots say that's okay if they don't like freedom of speech.

But just where does the CFR bill take away our rights to Free Speech?

You're kidding, right?

It is now unlawful for a person or a group of people to take out an ad in the print or broadcast media within 30 or 60 days of a federal election that advocates for a particular candidate or against another. How does that strike you?

If political speech can be "regulated", then so can any other form of speech.

There is no exagerration on my part whatsoever. This law is a clear violation of the First Amendment, and all three branches of government have colluded to deny us one of our most fundamental rights.

To Chapin, being a conservative is like being a Red Sox fan. He ought to sell jerseys or something.

I'd love to see what Margaret Thatcher would say about Mr. Chapin here. Conservatives shouldn't feel bad about what conservatism stands for.

The fact is that GWB has delivered on the left's agenda in a way that the left could never have done. Only Nixon could go to China, as it were.

Turns out only Nixon could bring us the EPA and wage and price controls too.

You have to be VERY VERY careful of compassion in conservatism.

Where have YOU been, in the debate, except carping, Clintonizing others' posts/words ?

WHAT debate?!? If you utter a dissenting word around here the Bush supporters are out in force calling you a traitor!

This is becoming a back-slapping party for those who enjoy seeing the Constitution gutted, and who voice their support for those doing that gutting.

But, hey, as long as he's after Osama and Saddam then whatever else he does it okay by you guys, right? I mean, it's not like our social programs are being overwhelmed with the illegal aliens he's inviting over the border. And there's no problem at all with the "assault weapons" ban, so let's just get that thing signed back into law. And we're not spending enough on MediCare already, so let's add a prescription drug benefit.

I have no problem giving credit where it's due. But, unlike you, I also have no trouble putting out the criticism when it's well-earned.

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.