Bush's King visit scorned

Atlanta Jounal-Constitution ^ | 01-14-2004 | CHARLES YOO

[eyespysomething]

Tyrone Brooks is on record defending admitted child molester Malachi York (200+ counts of child molestation), or whatever the hell name he goes by nowadays.

His opinion means squat. He means squat. He is a racist pandering bigot, who is looking out for himself and himself only.

[Diddle E. Squat]

So basically these Dems are saying conservatives shouldn't be allowed in the room to honor MLK while the Dems are doing so. I guess they want Jim Crow-style memorial services?

Are there separate water fountains for the Dems and conservatives, too?

[Diddle E. Squat]

In the meantime, he ignores his most conservative base.

I'm sorry, but that is a flat-out lie. He may not immediately grant every wish of conservatives, and may at times go against conservatism, but there is plenty he has done, and is continuing to do for the conservative base.

But being realistic doesn't create trite bumper sticker mantras.

[CSM]

OK, ignore is a bad description and an unfair assessment. He has done some things that are appealing to a conservative, however he has done just as many things that are against his conservative base. I am speaking domestically only. Many people that I know are questioning whether they will even vote in the 2004 election. They are discouraged with all the government growth and constitution degredation that has take place. I am much more afraid of the opposition, so I will still cast a ballot, however, my donations have stopped.

The point is that GWB will continue to go out of his way to appease the person or groups that will just continue to hate him, while he isn't concerned with appeasing a group that would happily embrace him.

[Diddle E. Squat]

Good post. I don't completely agree with your second paragraph, but hear your points. Perhaps it is a reaction to the unfortunate near even split of this country right now politically. Someone who won by the skin of his teeth might understandably concentrate on winning more of the center this election. Or maybe he realizes that the GOP must acquire more power before they can implement more sweeping reforms. Or maybe, just maybe, he is doing what he really thinks is best, and defines himself as President of all Americans, not just conservatives.

Still, I am greatly disappointed in CFR, spending, and immigration reform. But I am also of the opinion that pragmatic compromise is short term the most likely path to gaining the power necessary to enact broad conservative reforms. Obviously not everyone agrees with that opinion, which I can understand.

[Keith]

I disagree.

Again, look at his judicial appointments. That will be his legacy, and he is a conservative.

keep focused. Vote.

[CSM]

You hit the nail on the head with your list of issues. However, I am of the opinion that when in office, the representative should do everything in their power to advance the ideals of their party. Just because it was a narrow election doesn't constitute abandoning principles. I would also add that the midterm elections and the gains of the Republican party should have shown a mandate.

It is funny when I talk to my Democarat friends that just hate and despise GWB. I ask them why, and they really can't describe it. When I point to his policies that should make them very happy, they can't refute the arguments.

I just don't think that he should be accomplishing any of the goals of the left. I hate to have to tell myself, "well, it could have been worse with a Democrat in office, so I should be happy with this bill."

[CSM]

I hope those appointments will be able to get us back to the constitution and judge the bills he signed into law to be unconstitutional.

[JustPiper]

Worth an illegal ping

[RckyRaCoCo]

sounds like discrimination to me. Bush should sue.

[Ohioan]

Please do not compare Martin Luther King to George Washington. That is totally inappropriate.

George Washington is the one unifying figure in American History--the one we all acknowledge as a force for what became the fundamental American ethos. Martin Luther King was one of the most dividing figures ever to live in the United States.

Whether you agree with him or not; whether you think he was a Marxist or not; whether, whatever-- He was no George Washington.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

[speekinout]

However, I am of the opinion that when in office, the representative should do everything in their power to advance the ideals of their party.

I disagree with that. The President is President of all the people, not just his party. He shouldn't be making decisions based only on what his party wants. He has to be making decisions based on what's good for all of us.

We should be voting for the person we think has the best judgement in the areas we care about. We usually won't know everything he does, so we have to have trust.

And I say "he" because it isn't likely that we will have a female President any time soon.

[risk]

This is just plain wrong. I'm looking forward to the conservative black viewpoint on this issue. I also think President Bush has the ability to turn this in a very positive direction.

Many demonstrators ask how Bush, who pushed for war in Iraq, could champion King, who stood for nonviolent resistance. "It's hypocritical," said the Rev. Mmoja Ajabu of Providence Missionary Baptist Church. -- http://www.startribune.com/stories/484/4320205.html

Dr. King might disagree with our war in Iraq today but he would do it with honor and respect for our cause of freedom and justice. He would not insult the President to make his point.

[AppyPappy]

No good pandering goes unpunished.

[CSM]

"I disagree with that. The President is President of all the people, not just his party. He shouldn't be making decisions based only on what his party wants. He has to be making decisions based on what's good for all of us."

The election is a process that decides which philosophy the population prefers. In the case of the 2000 election, the country was very divided at about 50/50, however our Constitution calls for a process that differs from a democracy. Within that process the Republican philosophy won. Then in 2002 the Republican philosophy received a mandate with major gains.

Given that the philosophy was first chosen, then supported in a big way, I would say that should be the philosophy practiced. The philosophy of any polotician is decided long before an election, that is generally what they use to decide party affiliation. If a politician doesn't want to try to make policy that caters to their base/party, then why did that politician decide to align themself with that party? If passing policy to please all people is the philosophy that a politician practices, then they should run as an independant. If they decide to change their philosophy, well then you end up with Jeffords.

I am not saying that GWB has not done anything for the Republican party, what I am saying is that he has done just as much for the Democrats. That would fit with your philisophy that he should adopt policies that are for "all" people. In that case, he would be considered a centrist, not a conservative. His conservative base is rightfully disgruntled with some of the policies he has supported and the Democrats are just filled with hate and won't convert at all. Where is the value?

This article shows that the left will never get beyond their hate of GWB and that trying to please them is a wasted effort. Given that, I think that if they are going to complain and continue to hate him, then why not turn to the base that will embrace you?

[speekinout]

This article shows that the left will never get beyond their hate of GWB and that trying to please them is a wasted effort. Given that, I think that if they are going to complain and continue to hate him, then why not turn to the base that will embrace you?

This is a very easy question. A politician (as clinton is) only cares about popularity and re-election. A leader (as Bush is) cares about doing the right thing, no matter what the political fallout is.
I can't believe anyone has to think twice about which kind of man they want in office.

[CSM]

I don't dispute your comments, in fact I would suggest that it would show that GWB is not a Conservative.

[speekinout]

I would suggest that it would show that GWB is not a Conservative.

Maybe not. Who gets to define what a "Conservative" is, anyway? I hear many different people giving their definition, and they don't all agree on every issue. But they all insist that anyone who does't agree with them 100% can't be Conservative.
That label just isn't working. Maybe we need to either drop it or label a lot of nuanced versions.