Posted on 06/22/2002 9:46:05 AM PDT by quidnunc
This summer will mark the 47th year since I took my first Republican job: as public relations director for the party in Minnesota. Since then I have rarely strayed from politics, or my party. I served as a staffer to two GOP congressmen, to a GOP governor, as a federal appointee to Richard Nixon and as a corporate executive who supported in Washington and Springfield much, if not all, of the Republican agenda.
You can describe me as a conservative. Thus I am qualified to say that although I dearly love conservatives, they tend to be querulous, disagreeable and threaten revolt when Republican office-holders don't please them. So it is now with George W. Bush. Here is a president who has surprised us all with the firmness and resolve he showed after 9/11. I must tell you I voted for him with less enthusiasm than I had for many of his predecessors. But his administration has pleased me often — most notably on two issues: defense of America and social policy.
Yet, Bush has to get re-elected in a country that is evenly divided on philosophy. Thus he must occasionally — on matters that sometimes offend conservatives — dip into the other side's ideology for support. He has done so on three notable occasions: on the issue of steel protectionism, where he departed his free-market proclamations; on the signing of a campaign finance bill tailored by his enemies, and allowing his attorney general (in the words of Libertarian Nat Hentoff in the Washington Times) "to send disguised agents into religious institutions, libraries and meetings of citizens critical of government policy without a previous complaint, or reason to believe that a crime has been committed."
In a perfect political world, where conservatives are in the majority, these things would be sufficient to encourage a boycott of the polls. Either that or a protest vote for the Democratic opposition. But we are not in a perfect world. We conservatives have a president who didn't receive a majority of the votes, and has one house of Congress against him. He must make compromises to get re-elected. Conservatives who do not understand the nature of politics ought to stay in their air-conditioned ivory towers and refrain from political activity altogether. If they cannot adjudge the stakes in this election and the difference between Bush and an Al Gore or a John Kerry (D-Mass.) or a Dick Gephardt (D-Mo.), they are foolish indeed.
-snip-
To read the remainder of this op/ed open the article via the link provided in the thread's header.
Adios
So-called moderates are ruining the country, and will ruin this wonderful site if allowed to.
The columnist has 'splained the situation, but it's so much easier just to complain, and complain, and complain.
You've nailed it - as have Roeser and some others on this thread, which is reassuring. Let's remember that the bulk of the complaining (on FR) is mostly from the ultra-right fringe and one-issue folks and of course, the ever-present DU trolls who are quickly dispensed with by the moderators.
The President's high approval numbers are a fair sign that the fringe doesn't speak for the country, for Republicans or certainly for those of us that are long-time political conservatives. They'll never - as Barry Goldwater suggested - 'grow up'. Too easy and rewarding to whine, complain and name-call while accomplishing little but personal ego-feeding, and that's ultimately useless except to strengthen the liberals they say they despise so much. Most mature political activists and most Republicans understand that a viable political party and some compromise are both necessary ingredients to winning elections and effective governance.
Fortunately, George W. Bush also understands this and acts accordingly. Is he right all the time? Of course not and when he strays we disagree, complain and send e-mails to the White House to let him know of our displeasure. Even so, we do not abandon the President and the party over routine policy disagreements. That's childish, pointless and ultimately self-defeating - as should be obvious, but apparently isn't - to some fringe conservatives. They'll always be among us and are especially noticable on FR but they do not represent anything close to a majority of Republicans or even most rational conservatives as their anger, hyperbole and hysteria on FR prove, every day.
Didn't you hear? They are pushing for an 'ignore' button...and they are simply practicing.
After all, we wouldn't want to spoil their fun by forcing them to engage in debate...after all, their vision of FR is to make it a pep rally, instead of what it has always been; a place to promote conservative ideals.
Well you're right, there is name calling on both sides.
But now post #132 is, IMHO, the right way to answer a legitimate concern by someone.
Nonsense.
The scrapping of the IBM treaty with Russia, rejection of the Koyoto treaty, tax cuts and a buildup of the military (proposed well before 9/11) are just a few of the Bush accomplishments that extend far beyond simply 'wanting to be President'. Jimmy Carter 'wanted to be President' and made a mess of it. George W. Bush is doing a good job against high odds and much resistance from the congressional Democrats, the media and even the fringe conservatives.
Bush is a moderate-conservative and ran as one. He called it 'Compassionate Conservativism'. Those who didn't like it then don't like it now and won't like it next year or in 2008 but that what Bush is and he acts accordingly.
I certainly don't agree with every Bush policy (CFR, the Education and Farm bills, tariffs) but I support the President in general and will vote for him in 2004 unless drastic changes occur in the meantime. The only candidate that would satisfy some folks is the one with the face that looks back at them in the mirror every morning. No others will ever be 'conservative' enough.
Your characterization of Bush as a 'moderate' wanting power and nothing else is way off - but you're welcome to it.
My point is we have plenty of people who feel that Bush should have done this or done that. However, he isn't just the President of Conservatives. He's the President of these United States. Not Canada, England, or even those hideous French ankle biters. Nope, he represents the likes of Larry Flynt, Pat Robertson, Martha Stewart, and Freepers.
Disappointment? I can easily be disappointed in myself or a fellow human being. However, when you've got a relationship with God. You realize these disappointments are merely human emotions. Not God's.
Anyways, I did enjoy the article. Thanks for posting it!
Conservative does not equate with republican. From the opening bell, Bush has been running for re-election. To my mind the country should have been first, however he has chosen to put himself above that by enlarging on, or bringing about more socialism. If one seperates the the domestic policy from the foreign, Bush has been an utter failure to a conservative. Therefore in the next election we will have no choice, republican socialism or democratic socialism, take it or leave it.
Their idea of the way politics should be conducted is to get into peoples' faces and deliver interminable, uncompromising, tub-thumping diatribes — sort of like the way Fidel Castro does it.
Their personal role models are the likes of Pat Buchanan, Alan Keyes or whatever the demagogue du Jour is.
They are irksome, but the racket they make is out of all proportion to their actual numbers — like tree frogs.
The whingers (a little British lingo there) may be safely disregarded.
Don't they have ignore buttons in chat rooms??
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.