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

Skip to comments.

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

Posted on 12/10/2003 8:59:00 PM PST by 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


TOPICS: Editorial; Extended News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: bigbudgetbush; biggovernmentbush; bushbots; bushdemocart; bushisclinton; bushsocialisim; carping; changeminds; democrats4bush; election2004; gwb2004; neoconbush; paleoconbush; rino; rinobush; rinorinorino; sandradayoconor4bush; saudisforbush; socialists4bush; standonleftwithbush; votefordean
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 321-324 next last
To: FairOpinion
Not to mention, ask yourself where do the Dems stand on the issues you are criticizing Bush about?

Will you be happier and better off under Dean or Kerry or Hillary, than you are with Bush as President

In answer to this question,yes, for having this would allow the pleasure of unspeakable misery to cause goosebumps for the Principled martyrs .
61 posted on 12/10/2003 10:34:39 PM PST by gatorbait (Yesterday, today and tomorrow......The United States Army)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: nopardons
Excuse me? CHildish? LOL YOu must be joking. YOU are the one who is childish, going along with anything the Nanny state prez says to do.
\
"Actions and votes have consequences. " That's right, and I intend to hold GWB accountable for his actions! That consequence will be the lack of my vote.

Wow...you people have things backwards! It's up to him to uphold the Conservative platform...not up to us to capitulate because he's "cute", Republican, "hunky."
62 posted on 12/10/2003 10:35:06 PM PST by ETERNAL WARMING
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: ETERNAL WARMING
The SPIN stops here: It wasn't 'our votes' that got us 8 painful years of Clinton, it was GHW's failure to uphold Republican values.

Wrong....cop-out... We all know, as you do, that "It's the voters, stupid." And that includes the ones who stayed home.

63 posted on 12/10/2003 10:35:37 PM PST by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: nopardons
Excuse me? CHildish? LOL YOu must be joking. YOU are the one who is childish, going along with anything the Nanny state prez says to do.
\
"Actions and votes have consequences. " That's right, and I intend to hold GWB accountable for his actions! That consequence will be the lack of my vote.

Wow...you people have things backwards! It's up to him to uphold the Conservative platform...not up to us to capitulate because he's "cute", Republican, "hunky."
64 posted on 12/10/2003 10:35:40 PM PST by ETERNAL WARMING
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: nutmeg
bump
65 posted on 12/10/2003 10:35:48 PM PST by nutmeg (Is the DemocRATic party extinct yet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ETERNAL WARMING
It's up to them to EARN our votes

Good to know Dean has earned your's, or at the very least he's earned your help in greasing the skids for him by not voting for Dubya.

66 posted on 12/10/2003 10:36:05 PM PST by squidly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion; kayak
Actually, I must give credit to kayak, I 'borrowed' the quote from her. It is quite handy.

I disagree with some of what President Bush has done, no doubt about it. But overall, he has been an excellent President. And in light of the possibility of Al Gore being president, well, the thought is frightening. But some would still give their vote to Perot or Buchanan or Alan Keyes or whoever, and have a Gore, or another clinton, or Dean in the White House.
67 posted on 12/10/2003 10:36:08 PM PST by Utah Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: ETERNAL WARMING
Why don't you answer a simple question, yes or no.

Do you realize that if Bush loses, that means a Democrat -- one of the nine dwarves of Hillary WINS?

And you can answer the second question:

Do you prefer any of the Dems as President, to Bush?

68 posted on 12/10/2003 10:37:36 PM PST by FairOpinion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Consort
Wrong....cop-out... We all know, as you do, that "It's the voters, stupid." And that includes the ones who stayed home.

Great comments. And to those who are going to stay home and not vote in 2004 because President Bush didn't meet their vision of a pure conservative, they lose the right to whine if they don't vote. I can remember voting for Bob Dole in 1996 on a gray day in November. I knew he wasn't going to win, but I voted anyway.

69 posted on 12/10/2003 10:38:03 PM PST by Utah Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
Don't YOU get it -- it's only a question, based upon Mr. Bush's performance to date, of how quickly the Marxist 'Rat crowd ultimately prevails? Mr. Bush is focussed upon his reelection -- fine, no problem.

However, I never confuse ends and means; his means to his end are despicable -- continue and expand the Ponzi schemes of his predecessors, keep loading debt onto generations yet unborn, equate citizenship with simply sneaking over the border... and how many other examples, based in hard fact and not opinion, would you like to have just this minute?

70 posted on 12/10/2003 10:40:23 PM PST by SAJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Utah Girl
"I disagree with some of what President Bush has done, no doubt about it. "

===

As do most of us -- I don't think there is anyone who agrees with everything any president does.

But when one looks at the overall situation, Bush is the best president we could have during these critical times.

Also remember, some of what he does that we may not agree with, is a result of having to make compromises with the Dems, because there are still too many of them in Congress -- so what we should do is send more Republicans, so Bush can have a free hand to advance the conservative agenda.
71 posted on 12/10/2003 10:40:39 PM PST by FairOpinion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: SAJ
There will NEVER be a revolt, no matter how many times someone decides to post such utter foolishness to FR.

There NEVER has been, nor shall there EVER be a president who will satisfy, even 75% of what is claimed to be wanted, by some political naifs here. NOT EVER !

There are two major political parties; just TWO. Fringe parties haven't a snowball's chance in you know where, of ever being anything other than a " spoiler "; if that.

Ergo, you have two choices and only two. You can either vote for a GOP candidate, who may or may not be deemed, by you, to be close to your positions, or you can give aid and comfort to the enemy of EVERY SINGLE POSITION you hold dear. That's it.

When Clinton was president, most of FR was a very cohesive place. Yes, some fingers, even back then, were attempting to shred any and all GOPer, but I digress. We were all miserable, so of course, the UNAPPEASEABLES were happy. Now, all of that has changed.

Conservatives, of every stripe, need to come together, stop thinking in fractured ways, see that we all have the same enemies, and those enemies are not to be aided, even though some here have their noses out of joint due to real and only perceived " wrongs ".

The only " tragic joke ", is that so many posters, who assume that they have even a wee bit of political acumen, have absolutely none whatsoever !

72 posted on 12/10/2003 10:41:45 PM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
I trust Lieberman on defense. But I'm not going to let others dictate to me what I should worry about.

Are Islamist going to be roaming the streets killing and maiming at will? No. And no President will allow it regardless of who they are. Besides, I can defend myself quite well and live in a remote enough area and have land in even more remote areas.

Maybe I'm a cynic, but why would life be worth living if the national debt skyrockets to unattainable levels and the dollar collapses? (which is why I hedge with gold)

Why is being "free" worth having my political speech curtailed? Or I'm taxed to death to pay for the healthcare of well to do and rich seniors? Or I'm drained of my money that gets thrown down the rathole of bureaucracies that are NEVER held accountable by ANY President or administration like federal education spending?

Then there are all those wonderful regulations that make us all lawbreakers on a daily basis. And the fact they tell me what and how much to eat, how much water can flush down my toilet at one time, what kind of car I can drive with their ridiculous CAFE laws, how long I have to stand in line at the airport because they are too politically correct and won't just watch the young Arabs with no luggage going one-way on a cash purchased ticket?

And on, and on, and on, and on. Exactly what is worth being "safe" when my life is micromanaged by pinheads who think they know better than anyone else? I guess our definition of safety and security and freedom just differ.

Also, in 1991, after living in Arkansas from 1970-1983, I made all of your arguments to anyone that would listen about Clinton over Bush 41. Now, I'm not saying Clinton was a good president (he wasn't) but he didn't "destroy" the economy as I predicted back then. He didn't shove far left wing liberalism down our throats (thanks to Hillarycare and 1994), etc. that I predicted.

He did have sex in the Oval Office. I predicted that! I knew his behaviour and knew there was no way he wasn't going to take advantage of the most powerful office in the land when he relished it as governor of Arkansas.

And just like 1991, everyone on the "right" is saying "Dean can't win". If I had a nickel for everytime I heard "Clinton can't win", I'd be richer than I am. And the only factor Perot brought to the situation was that he was more to right economically than Bush 41 and that shows the weakness of Bush, not Perot.
73 posted on 12/10/2003 10:42:03 PM PST by Fledermaus (Fascists, Totalitarians, Baathists, Communists, Socialists, Democrats - what's the difference?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: nopardons
Heck, you can stay, just for this post alone; not to mention the fact that we're usually friends and I anjoy talking with you. LOL

Oh thank you, thank you! ;-)

74 posted on 12/10/2003 10:42:54 PM PST by Fledermaus (Fascists, Totalitarians, Baathists, Communists, Socialists, Democrats - what's the difference?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: SAJ
They don't understand our point of view, eh buddy?
75 posted on 12/10/2003 10:43:45 PM PST by Fledermaus (Fascists, Totalitarians, Baathists, Communists, Socialists, Democrats - what's the difference?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
Sorry, can't listen, keep hearing everything in spanish around here.
76 posted on 12/10/2003 10:44:13 PM PST by MissAmericanPie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Utah Girl
And to those who are going to stay home and not vote in 2004 because President Bush didn't meet their vision of a pure conservative...

Yes, the Ideologically Correct on the Right might be just as bad as the Politically Correct on the Left.

77 posted on 12/10/2003 10:45:18 PM PST by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: nopardons
Thanks for the ping. Unfortunately, the damned UNAPPEASEABLES, will still continue to refuse to see the light

Some of them I believe see the light, they are just working with the other side(demos), to turn it off.

78 posted on 12/10/2003 10:45:43 PM PST by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Fledermaus
In other words, you'd like to see a Democrat in the White House -- I guess you learned nothing during 8 years of Clinton.

We may never know for sure, but Clinton's inaction allowed Bin Laden to build up a strong, worldwide terrorist organizartion, which led to 9-11.

79 posted on 12/10/2003 10:46:05 PM PST by FairOpinion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: SAJ
ONLY 2 dozen? You disappoint me, Batsy (w!).

I'm getting lazy in my old age! lol

Merry Christmas and many wishes for a wonderful 2004 to you and yours my friend.

80 posted on 12/10/2003 10:46:11 PM PST by Fledermaus (Fascists, Totalitarians, Baathists, Communists, Socialists, Democrats - what's the difference?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 321-324 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