Terra Firma

*******
******

The people who hate Dubya have really been noisy of late. One thing which has followed me over here from my old blogplace, is the habit of some who dwell on only one issue, who now find it impossible to reconcile my support for the President with some common-sense statements I have made on their pet issue.

Now I have mentioned before, that my perspective on George W. Bush is colored by the fact that I know the man, and his family; he simply does not lie, nor does he make promises unless he does his level best to keep them. Anyone who knows his mother Barbara, frankly, would expect no less. But even if you just judge the man by his public record, his positions on major issues have been long known, and he has been faithful to his promise for a very long time.

This is not to say that a Republican or Conservative may not disagree on a given issue or plan of action. I certainly differ from President Bush on certain items. That said, I have no taste for those whose difference on an issue is taken as license to defame the man. On the issue which has taken the extremists’ attention the most over the past month, the President’s policies and initiatives have been consistent and reasonable, yet many have claimed he was somehow “lying”. Presented with evidence that the President has not lied but has been consistent all along, they react by calling their opponents names. And this is the problem which plagues the condition for the Fall elections.

The facts are these; throughout the history of the Republican Party, the GOP has always represented reform, relative to the Democrats. And from time to time, parts of the GOP have chosen to “punish” the party for not falling in line with extremist demands, ‘extremist’ being defined not as a position with which I disagree, but single issues on which those persons demand complete control and obedience, threatening boycott or defection if their terms are not met. The technical term is ‘extortion’, and it has no place in Conservative politics. In historical context, such behavior has, without exception, resulted in weaker Republican control and influence, and since the Democrats in no way support Conservative interests, such actions inevitably worsen conditions from the perspective of any rational Conservative. Or to put it bluntly, if anyone is lying, it is the person who tries to claim that refusing to support Republicans is anything but supporting the possibility of Democrat control of Congress – after all, refusing to support Republicans increases the chances of Democrats winning, and increasing the chances of Democrats winning this fall can only increase their chance of taking over control of one or both chambers of Congress. The extremists have tried to deny this, but it’s really simple math.

The extremists also ignore a critical point in the nature of national politics; no one measures a political party by support for a Senator or Congressmen. We do not think of the 1990s as the “Foley Era”, or the 1980s as the “Tip O’Neill Years”. No, history always treats time segments by the President in office at the time, and again without exception, things work when the party in power supports the President, and they fall apart whenever the party refuses to support the elected leader of the Free World. As someone has mentioned, elections have consequences, and this is never more true than when we discuss the President of the United States. Liberals would love to pretend that George W. Bush does not have a mandate because he was elected, but the truth is, he does in fact have just such a mandate. This is why the people who have succeeded in trashing his Job Approval ratings by refusing to stand with him, have poisoned their own numbers even more so. And people who make the choice to publicly attack the President when he is from their own party, do not generally do well in their re-election bids.

And finally, if the man’s proven character, the need for Republicans to support the President in order to advance Conservative agenda, and the desirability of simply being honest about him are not enough, I would remind the audience that President George W. Bush is personally and directly responsible for policies which resulted in the end of Saddam Hussein’s reign in Iraq, replete as it was with prisons and torture rooms, even for children. It was President George W. Bush who ignored the pee-their-pants posturing of the media and sent troops in to remove the Taliban from control of Afghanistan. It was President George W. Bush who calmed the nation after 9/11, and who reminded the world that America was in a war against Terrorism, not Islam. And yes, it was President George W. Bush, who proposed tax cuts long overdue for Americans, which effect spurred the economy back into motion, and who had the courage to propose reform for Social Security. And yes, it was George W. Bush whose judicial nominations have been solidly founded on a philosophy opposed to Judicial Activism, and in support of Constitutional compliance.

I know where I stand, and why. And my ideals require me to support the President of the United States, George W. Bush.