This is a question I've been looking at a lot lately. I'm not the only Republican voter who has been... less than satisfied with some of the decisions of George W. Bush.I've disagreed with the president on a lot of things right from the beginning, but he got my vote because letting the opposition he was running against win instead would have been so very much worse. So I have supported the President, albeit with some reservations.
Recently I dropped out of the "Blogs for Bush" blog roll, and deleted it from my sidebar. I've replaced it with "The Victory Wing of the Republican Party", which I have applied to join. I really want victory for the Republican's in 2008.
I dropped out of "Blogs for Bush", not because I wanted to bash Bush (I don't), but because he is not running again. I supported him when he was our horse in the race; I will continue to offer support, in those areas which I can agree, while he's still in office. But with no elections ahead for him, I did not want to continue to carry his banner. The Republican's will have a new horse in the race in 2008, and I don't see the point of waving the Bush flag anymore. Frankly, I'm hoping for a new candidate that's a bit closer to what I want.
Does that make me a Bush Basher? I hope not! Too many on the Left are doing that already, and my disagreements with the President are very different than theirs. There are also grumblings from conservatives too, not all of which I agree with either.
Dee at "Conservatism with Heart" has an excellent post in defense of W, "Going Out on a Limb--Why Bush Will Be a Winner!!". She rightly reminds us of the many good things W. has accomplished, and things he also tried to do. Even if you can't agree with all his efforts, can there be any doubt that from a Republican perspective, the end result has been better than anything Al Gore or John Kerry would have done?
For many years, I was registered as an independent, even though I voted Republican. I agree with about 90 percent of my state's Republican Party Platform. The other 10 percent of it just annoyed me.
I eventually realized that I was letting that 10 percent stop me from participating in the party I was voting for anyway, and that was silly. I finally registered as Republican.
I did so because I figure one of the best ways to get good candidates is to participate in the primaries. Even then you don't always end up with your ideal candidate.
When that happens, your choice is sometimes to choose the lesser of two evils; to vote for your less than ideal Republican so as not to surrender the field to a far worse Democrat.
Sometimes "standing by your man" means agreeing where you can, and agreeing to disagree where you can't agree. It's not a comfortable position to be in, but sometimes it's all you have.
The difficulty for me is, how do you express your disagreement with W, without joining the Bush Bashing of the Left? It's a delicate line to walk.
Dropping the "Blogs for Bush" blog roll was, for me, more about saying "I want something different next time" rather than about bashing Bush. Perhaps it was a mistake to drop "Blogs for Bush". When walking a delicate line, it's easy to misstep.
There are those who would argue that disagreeing with the President publicly is letting the Party down. Yet there IS a difference between offering a civil argument on an issue in hope of influencing policy, as opposed to endless angry rantings, ravings and emotional outbursts. The former is discourse; the latter is bashing.
The actual bashing of Bush by members so his own party does cause me concern... for the party itself. I think the 2006 election results are a good indication of what can happen if Republicans insist on being more idealistic than realistic at the voting booth. This Democratic victory has been painful and costly in too many ways.
Supposedly, many voters wanted to "teach a lesson" to Republican politicians by staying away from the polls or voting for alternative parties. I believe there was indeed a lesson to be learned from the 2006 election results. Will we, the voters, actually learn it, before we end up with President Hillary Clinton?
Related Links:
What is Wrong with Peggy Noonan??
Peggy Noonan was a Democrat
2 comments:
Chas, you make some excellent points and I think you, Patrick and I all see things pretty similar. Like you, I knew Bush wasn't a "hard-core" conservative right from the start but there was a lot I did like about him.
I think for me that even though there have been numerous things I have disagreed with him on I trust him as a person. He has always come across as very real and genuine to me. He does things because he believes them to be the right things to do not because of polls.
For me the way he has handled the war on terror, tax cuts and the Supreme Court Justices all leave a lasting legacy IMHO. And even as much as I love Reagan he has many mistakes in with his awesome stuff.
No politician will ever be perfect but either we can agree with their overall philosophy and approach and that they are the lesser of 2 evils or we can be a defeatist pessimist and not be involved at all.
LMC,
As I said on your blog, I voted for W. in 2004, and now even with hindsight, I'd do it again; it was still the best choice.
I don't doubt that W. follows his principles rather than polls. I just wish I could have more confidence in some of his positions. Yet I doubt there would be any president I could agree with completely, and in the end, if we're smart, we work with what we've got, rather than shoot ourselves in the foot.
I definitely prefer to be involved, even while dissatisfied on some issues, rather than be a pessimist whining on the sidelines, not involved at all. 2006 was a good example of where that path leads.
Post a Comment