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

Toogood Reports ^ | Thursday, December 11, 2003; 12:01 a.m. EST | Bernard Chapin

[BobbyK]

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.

By
Bernard Chapin

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

Hey "BOB" you're in enemy territory!

Get over it~!

[John R. (Bob) Locke]

The fact is that GWB has delivered on the left's agenda in a way that the left could never have done.

This point cannot be overstated. If Bill Clinton had tried to push through the level of increased governmental spending that Bush has championed (and not just on defense, which has been increased to a lesser degree than social spending), the people here would have been up in arms.

But because Bush wears the magic "R", and is "their guy", he is given carte blanche to run wild.

[John R. (Bob) Locke]

I'm guessing I'm not going to get a well-reasoned response to post 208.

I'm not, am I?

[At _War_With_Liberals]

"Every network on Wednesday highlighted the angry reaction of nations excluded from receiving U.S.-paid contracts for the reconstruction of Iraq, but CBS went the furthest in treating the decision to limit the contracts to the 63 nations in the anti-Hussein coalition as some kind of scandalous punishment when it could also be seen as a reward to those who helped or as an incentive to others to join up. Dan Rather managed to work “Halliburton” and “war-profiteering” into his introduction of his lead story. CNBC’s Brian Williams noted how critics warned that Bush’s “with us or against us” rhetoric had too much “swagger,” but now, he worried, “it is much more real.”

Howard Dean appeared on all three broadcast network morning shows on Wednesday morning and, other than CBS’s Harry Smith pointing out to him that unlike him “most Americans supported” the war against Iraq, none really challenged him on anything and largely stuck to the horse race. Smith also delivered a sarcastic question about Bush policy: “Today we learned the Pentagon has barred Russia, France and Germany from bidding on reconstruction projects there. Is that how we get them to send more troops?” And NBC’s Katie Couric very strangely contended that Al Gore “is considered sort of a hardcore centrist.”

http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2003/cyb20031211.asp


...While the networks and the leftist media will run propaganda like this right up until the moment the polls close.

This plays right into the hands of totalitarian minded Dem socialists.

[af_vet_1981]

Bush is the only choice for 2004 that does not lead to defeat, surrender, treason, retreat, and dishonor.

[John R. (Bob) Locke]

And I guess by "enemy" you mean "those who offer no regard for the Constitution", because that's what I am confronted with here.

[Qwinn]

"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."

If you honestly think that a loss by Bush would be interpreted by the media, by the voters at large, and even by the Republican Party that he was not conservative -enough-, I don't know what you're smoking, and I definetly -don't- want any part of it.

There is no way whatsoever that your withholding a vote for Bush will be considered a rejection of him for being too far to the left. It will be considered that he was rejected for his being too far to the right. That's the way this election has been framed, like it or not. The predictable reaction to a loss by Bush in 2004 will be that the Republican Party should move even -further- left in order to be able to stay elected. If he wins, then no one would suggest that Bush was too far to the right to be electable.

That's where your entire thesis falls apart. You expect that the message you are intending to send would be correctly interpreted. That would actually assume that the Leftist media would channel your chi. You're nuts if you think that.

Qwinn

[John R. (Bob) Locke]

Bush is the only choice for 2004 that does not lead to defeat, surrender, treason, retreat, and dishonor.

You actually believe that, don't you?

Can I get you to read post 208 and give me a reply? I can't seem to get np or P-F to belly up to the bar.

[af_vet_1981]

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

Well that's it then. You are so persuasive. We simply must have 435 new Democrat Reps, 100 new Democrat Senators, and 2 new Democrats (Dean/Clinton) in the WH in 2004 ... or even sooner.

Go on, Jane. Show us how important it is that we get 4 more years of Hillary in the WH.

[af_vet_1981]

You actually believe that, don't you?

I actually know it. Go shill for Dean somewhere else.

[RinaseaofDs]

No. My point is that it is our job as his base to move him to the right where he belongs.

Rove should feel like MILLIONS of core conservatives may stay home in November.

I think it would be appropriate to start a list of people who might not vote in the presidential election in November if he doesn't come back to the right. I think that is something that we can organize here.

GWB obviously doesn't feel like there is any risk to the cake he is feeding liberals for breakfast.

We Freep polls all the time here. I think it may be time to start making some noise.

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

When you insult people you lose their support! You or any one will not sway my opinion!

You all exaggerate the magnitude of this law but mostly you create division amongst ourselves.

The leftist scum over at DU are lurking-in on these threads and are cheering over what they see as a great victory for their cause. Does that make you proud?

[af_vet_1981]

There is no way whatsoever that your withholding a vote for Bush will be considered a rejection of him for being too far to the left. It will be considered that he was rejected for his being too far to the right. That's the way this election has been framed, like it or not. The predictable reaction to a loss by Bush in 2004 will be that the Republican Party should move even -further- left in order to be able to stay elected. If he wins, then no one would suggest that Bush was too far to the right to be electable.

You are correct. After 8 long years of BillnHill I am in awe of how stupid, absolutely stupid some people are to think they can shill for the Democrats and get the same response Perot got in 1992.

[John R. (Bob) Locke]

There is no way whatsoever that your withholding a vote for Bush will be considered a rejection of him for being too far to the left. It will be considered that he was rejected for his being too far to the right.

Are you of the opinion that this is what happened to his father in '92?

And as was shown in '94, what the media thinks or says matters very little when the GOP runs on a strong, conservative platform. I don't recall any of the leftist media being in favor of the Contract With America. Quite the opposite, in fact. And yet there was a sweeping victory for the GOP based in large part (I would say a very large part) on the ideals laid out therein.

But the follow-up has to be there or you end up with more and more people like me who are willing to walk away for an election cycle or two until they clean up their act. The onus HAS to be on the elected officials to carry out that which they were tasked with. If they fail, then they need to be replaced. If you demonstrate to them that you will hold your nose and vote them back into office simply to avoid the Democrat, then what influence do you think you can possibly hold over them?

[nopardons]

Maybe...though frankly, you're not worth a decent reply; it's like debating a teenager, who imagines he knows more/better than any adult. :-)

[Fledermaus]

When you insult people you lose their support! You or any one will not sway my opinion!

Grow up. Next I expect you'll whine to your momma.

I don't give a hoot what a DU'er thinks, but you seem to. So who is being naive now?

I don't exaggerate anything, I read the LAW as it's WRITTEN. Maybe you should try that. Or are you afraid the Du'ers will call you bad names?

[Qwinn]

"If you demonstrate to them that you will hold your nose and vote them back into office simply to avoid the Democrat, then what influence do you think you can possibly hold over them?"

If you instead don't vote and allow the Democrats back into power, what sort of influence do you think that will -actually have-? Do you think any sane or rational Republican politician would consider that the proper response to a Democrat winning an election would be that Republicans need to move further to the right?

Qwinn

[At _War_With_Liberals]

Does anyone know why Bush has had no support from Congress, while being viciously attacked for 7 months now?

That is a better question to ask. Bashing intelligent people for expressing the truth, voicing concern for the Constitution and the state of Republican ideology in general is subversive.

The same posters have been pounding away with no rhyme or reason for 24 hours straight.

[John R. (Bob) Locke]

I actually know it. Go shill for Dean somewhere else.

I'm not supporting or voting for Dean, or any other Democrat.

And you've already surrendered. You'll vote Republican no matter what, and they know it. You are neutered politically, and the sad part is that you can't recognize it. They could vote a 50% tax hike and you'd pull the lever out of fear that the Dem's might go 60%.

What a sad state of affairs this nation is in.

[Steel Wolf]

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.

If your standard is that you will only support a President that doesn't violate the Constitution in any way, shape or form, I sure hope you're not holding your breath. You may be in for a bit of a wait.

I'm not saying that its right. I'm just saying that either Bad Candidate or Worse Candidate is going to win, and by either action or inaction, you're going to help one of them. Any other way you care to dress it up is illusion.

As far as the issues of Constitutionality, the candidates don't care any more than society does. If it's a low priority issue to society, there's no hope that the candidate will care. It's easier to blame the guy in office then 300 million strangers, but that's the deal.