A Few Questions For Die-Hard Bush Supporters

Toogood Reports ^ | June 5, 2002 | Lee R. Shelton IV

[Stand Watch Listen]

Let me just say up front that I am not addressing you if you voted for George W. Bush in 2000 and regret it. The same goes for those of you who voted for Bush and insist on holding his feet to the fire on the important issues. If, however, you cast your vote for Bush, still believe he is the only hope for America and intend to support every move he makes without so much as a raised eyebrow, this is for you.

It has been nearly a year-and-a-half since George W. Bush, the savior of conservatism, descended from on high to begin his earthly reign in Washington, D.C. Republicans assured us that he would restore integrity to the White House and would be a marked improvement over the promiscuous Bill Clinton. Well, in all honesty, that could have been accomplished by electing a neutered chimp to the office of president.

During the 2000 presidential campaign, George W. Bush the man proved to be a nice break from Bill Clinton and Al Gore. Unlike Gore, Bush had a more likable...well, he actually had a personality. He also possessed the unique ability to address the American people without the smug and condescending vibe Clinton exuded. However, when it came to policy, George W. Bush the candidate failed to demonstrate that he would govern any differently than his Democrat counterparts.

Still, throughout the campaign, there was a loyal group of Bush supporters who would take offense at even the slightest implication that their candidate was anything but a staunch conservative. Even now, they continue to stand by their man, and I find this to be rather perplexing.

Perhaps those who have pledged their undying allegiance to President Bush could answer a few questions for me, in no particular order of course:

•  How would you have reacted if Bill Clinton had signed the Patriot Act into law and given the government sweeping new surveillance powers?

•  Would you have criticized a Democrat president for signing a $26 billion education-spending bill?

•  Did you feel betrayed when Bush signed Campaign Finance Reform into law?

•  What do you think about Bush's position on granting amnesty to hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants?

•  Would you have tolerated a Democrat proposal for federally funded faith-based initiatives?

•  What would your reaction have been if a Democrat had said, "No one should have to pay more than a third of their income to the federal government"?

•  What do you think about the president's granting of Permanent Most Favored Nation status to China?

•  What's the difference between Bush and the Democrats on the issue of farm subsidies?

•  How would you react if a Democrat president sent a $2.13 trillion budget to Congress?

•  Would you have stood for a Democrat saying "No!" to arming airline pilots?

•  What would your reaction have been if a Democrat had pushed for the federalization of airport security?

•  Are you willing to stand by and let the Bush administration cater to the environmentalists on the global warming issue?

•  What do you think about Bush's call for a Patient's Bill of Rights?

•  What one thing has Bush done that sets him apart from the Democrats?

•  It's been a year-and-a-half since Bush took office. When do we start to see a decrease in the size and scope of government? For that matter, when do we start to see even a remote indication that this administration will think about doing anything to try to limit the federal government?

This list is by no means exhaustive, but I would really be interested in some answers. Perhaps it would help shed some light on the mindset of modern compassionate conservatives.

The fact that a Republican president is governing like a Democrat isn't surprising. What's amazing to me is that there are a few select Bush supporters out there who cannot—or will not—utter one word of criticism against their president for any reason. In their minds this man is the epitome of conservatism, and to question his actions would be to question their own beliefs and cause them to wonder why they supported him in the first place.

The way I see it there can only be two explanations for this: 1) these people really and truly believe in what Bush is doing, or 2) they do not wish to face up to the real reason they voted for him — he was simply a slightly more palatable choice than Al Gore.

[jeremiah]

It seems you have an answer for everything

!) Killed the Kyoto treaty, It is not dead, and he sent a study to the UN, admitting Global warming is man caused, that he nows denies that he wanted it to say, that is moot. Watch what I do, not what I say

2) Where is this missile defense? Probably a victim of a secret agreement with Putin during his emasculation of our Strategic Nuclear Weapons program. Show me when they begin giving out contracts

3) Killed the International criminal court. Sorry it is not dead, only awaiting the next Democrat in office. Of course that is why we MUST continue voting as we are told, to keep the other EEEVIL party out of office

4)He blocked implementation of an emmission standard. He negated any good this signaled, by admitting that emissions by man are warming the planet, surely emboldening the Envirwhackos to push for even higher standards

5)Ergonomic rules This was BS, and needed to be done, score 1 for W

6) Using language that implies that weapons are an individual right Score 2 for W, although this is merely symbolic until the court gets done with it

7) What law gives pilots the right to carry? The FAA rules the day, and they won't let pilots carry, so if true it means nothing, security(new federal employees now) won't allow them through with a weapon

8) Killed the ABAs power over appointments?? Is he going to appoint a judge that is not a lawyer? All lawyers are members of the Bar, and so have a standing. Even the hated "right wingers" Now he will listen to his own lawyers, on what lawyers to appoint. He just cut out a tool of the Dems. A political decision- - but- - Instead he gave veto power to Boxer and Feinstein in California, in the appointment of judges. Again, if we want to keep the left wing ABA out of the process, we have to keep voting the "right" way, of course the Republican way

9) He completed a review of the military, yep and he was lookin' good while doing it

10) Killed the big gun, yep.

11) NO more funding for family planning overseas, yep he has a score of 4 in my book now

12) Ordered the justice dept to enforce a decision of the Supreme Court? He would be derelict in his duty if he didn't, the decision carries the weight of law. Clinton should have been impeached for not enforcing this. You can't give a guy credit for doing what he has to do.

Bush is a small man in a big job, if he pulls himself together and decides to break new ground, not just compromise with the "so-called enemy", he has a chance to be great. Until then, he is exactly like Bob Dole would have been as President, the great Compromiser.

[rdb3]

Brilliant.

Must be, seeing how your opinion on what you are "sick" of seeing on a privately owned site is completely irrelevant.

[GingisK]

...No. He held his nose as he did so...

A splendid showing of backbone, wasn't it? He could have refused to sign the bill.

[Sabertooth]

Concerning #927... It isn't that simple; you're leaving out the restrictions.

Yeah, there are dates the Illegal has to be in the country by before receiving this Amnesty, and a few other things. But here's what's simple, what the "restrictions" don't change:

Section 245(i) is nothing but a way for certain targeted Illegals to "change status" so that they become legal. It is rewarding their lawbreaking. It is most definitely an Amnesty.

There seems to be a fallback position among Amnesty Deniers to say, "but it's not a BLANKET Amnesty." That's beside the point as it was never the claim. Nor is it a sufficent defense for those defending the Administration on 245(i), as they were claiming it wasn't Amnesty at all.

[WhiteGuy]

I just checked your profile Ohioian...and I invite everyone else to do the same!.......

So what do you think? Sarcastic enough?

I wish I could figure out how to post pics, I've got some great photoshop images that I could add.

I think I'll change my profile to a pro Pat Buchanan theme for a while, or maybe a McCain in 2004.....

What are your thoughts?

Ron Paul in 2004

[monday]

"When he does, he will learn what veto means and hopefully will have the balls to start vetoing liberal legislations."

You misunderstand. It isn't that he doesn't have the balls, because he does for things he believes in.

The legislation that Bush has signed IS legislation that he believes in.

He told us he was a "compassionate conservative", now we know what he meant by that label. Turns out "compassionate conservative" means pro big government moderate.

[Sabertooth]

Here we have illegal immigrants in the country, that everyone seems to want rounded up and deported, but since they are here illegaly, we don't know where they are.

So, get them to register by applying for a hearing under 245(i), then we know where they are, don't we?

Since the point of 245(i) is to "change status" of Illegals, knowing where they are doesn't really help in this case, since they would no longer be deportable.

[GingisK]

How to you feel about convicted felons owning firearms?

If this felon has been deemed "rehabilitated" and released from prison, then yes! If you don't think the rehabilitation "took", then keep him in prison.

The Founding Fathers believed that the Nation to be built on the shoulders of good and trustworthy people, and that the felonous sorts were in the strict minority. To have the views you hold, you must believe that you are surrounded by knaves who are ready to pounce on you. I prefer to regard my fellow citizens as the Founders regarded thier own peers.

[mhking]

Define "living"

In terms of "living," I'm referring to the fact that the Constitution is continually interpreted and modified by the government as a body. Interpretation coming from the Supreme Court, and modification coming through amendment, which (although it hasn't happened in the better part of a generation) comes through the Congress and the states.

The combination of the two makes it a "living" document in the context that I'm using here.

[GingisK]

So Mineta is anti-gun. Who woulda thunk it. Go blame Mineta for his own views...

Bush undoubtedly knows what we know. If he doesn't correct the problem, then Bush agrees with the ruling. It is easy to say one thing and then turn a blind eye when the "real" policy is enforced. Measure government by what it does, not by what it says.

[GingisK]

...especially with the Bush bashers wearing blinders...

The Bush worshipers are the ones wearing the blinders. There appear to many "conservative-wana-bes" who will sacrifice thier freedom for security.

[Willie Green]

George W. Bush would sign every one of these bills if they came to his desk, do you agree?

I suppose.
I haven't seen him veto anything yet.
He's pretty good at wielding a rubber stamp.

[4Freedom]

Don't forget they then start, frantically, pressing the abuse button when those that disagree get nasty back.

This group changes one letter in foul, four-letter-words, call former Presidents "Hijo de Puta" (Spanish for 'Son of a Prostitute'), is insulting of the other sides intellect and level of education and then cry "vulgar" when the other side retaliates. What's worse is the moderators might go along with them, because our side doesn't use their abuse button tactics and so there's no 'hard' record of who started using the 'vulgarities' and personal attacks in the first place.

The FR guidelines warn that the moderators will check the thread to verify that the alleged offender wasn't baited into retaliating in a way, that elicited the abusive response, that the instigator was waiting for, but it's clear that the moderators can't always do that. Especially on a 1,000-post-long thread like this.

Be wary of the 'hooks' these Freepers use to draw you into a 'flame war'.

[Joe Hadenuf]

Joe the "government" is a direct reflection of the people that vote it into power.

Where do you get this stuff Tex??? Dang, you are wrong again!! Want a glaring example? Here, I will give you one. The people of the great state of California held a free election and voted 3 to 1 in favor of proposition 187 which would have put a stop to much of the tax paid support of illegal aliens. The federal government stepped in and burned our ballots and declared our election unconstitutional.

You couldn't be any more wrong in your above statement tex.

Our borders and immigration policies have become a national disgrace, and now a complete national security nightmare.

[monday]

"My position is clear: there can NEVER be enough Americans of hope, industry, faith and family within our borders. There are never too many Americans of Mexican heritage, never too many good-faith and motivated Americans of Cuban heritage, never too many Americans of Somali or German or Kenyan or Korean or Hmong or Australian heritage. We need to get hold of the process - but our ship of freedom is open for business."

Thats a nice post, I agree 100% with one caveat. Those emigrating should strive to assimilate into the melting pot of American culture.

Too many ethnic groups have chosen to live apart and wear their minority status as a badge of victimhood. Our socity has become Balkinized into pockets of competing cultures where everyone blames all their problems on society, or alternatively, middle aged white men.

I am not demanding that they give up their cultures, but I believe that the success of America is partly attributable to the fact that here we have many cultures mixing together, which give us the unique opportunity to choose the best qualities of each in order to make a distinctively American, and I believe, superior culture.

[Reagan Man]

The only thing thats laughable are your endless attempts at intelligence. First you throw up a total distortion about President Bushes possible SC nominees. Then after I point out, your misstatements and distortions and make the required corrections, you then find fault with the truth once again. All your constant whining and carping, has nothing to do with logic and rationale. Your rhetoric is always punctuated with the thoughts of an arrogant social misfit and your understanding of American politics is woefully inadequate for discussion/debate purposes. You're a one dimensional player.

[GingisK]

...these people don't WANT anything to do with Bush in office...

You and your ilk are remarkably narrow-minded. The "Bush bashers", as you call them, are generally very pleased with Bush. Their criticism is well founded, however.

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

What, you guys don't like the image I posted?

LOL........you know me better than that, RM. ;*)

I do have two minor problems with it though.

The first is that it looks like several people I know and I can't figure out exactly who it is.

Secondly.......whoever it is will have a rough time seeing it from his/her vantage point.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Since the point of 245(i) is to "change status" of Illegals, knowing where they are doesn't really help in this case, since they would no longer be deportable."

Some more misrepresentation of facts from you.

245(i) only changes the mechanism by which they get to apply for change of status, and while it is true that while their applications are being reviewed they are not deportable, it neither guarantees a hearing, nor does it guarantee a change in status.

Hence, once the determination has been made that they do not qualify either for a hearing, or for permanent change in status, they are very, very deportable.

[finnman69]

Be my guest, don't vote for Bush again. But don't spend any time bitching and moaning when RATS control all branches of government. And don't tell me there is no difference between the GOP and Rats. Keep wearing the lead filled conservative swim suit when you go swimming and you wonder why you are drowning in a liberal ocean.