An Open letter to Jim Robinson: Can the Bush-Bashers

none ^ | today | me

[Big Guy and Rusty 99]

Dear Mr. Robinson,

I have been a loyal member of the Free Republic since before the 2000 election. I have been a Conservative since the early days of Clinton. When I found this site, I thought "Thank God, people who think like me." I have continued to think this until the more recent days. Now, it seems that there are threads left and right bashing our President.

Why? There are things the President has done which I don't agree with but my loyality still lies with him. I am not sure if these "Bush-Bashers" fail to see the reality that with politics comes comprimise or it is something worse. I feel there is a cancer in the Free Republic. Some are eating their own.

I feel that some of these people are members of the dreaded democratic underground disguised as disgruntled conservatives. They are only here to stir up trouble. What's worse, they are doing just that. I am not sure what I think you should do.

As a conservative, I believe in our moral code but I also realize the reality of politics. I back our President but if he were doing something unsavory (like lying under oath,) I could not support him. This is unlike the left's clintonista dogma. What President Bush is doing is not betraying the conservative cause. He is using politics to confound the left. Those who do not understand this are either leftists themself or unable to separate themselves from their zealousness.

This is your show. You choose who gets to be a member and who does not. Those who break your rules are banished from the kingdom. I am not discouraging free speech, but this is free speech in your forum. These Bush-Bashers are brining us down. When this infighting happened in 1992, Bill Clinton got elected. let's not let that happen again.

Yours,

Big Guy and Rusty 99

[Texasforever]

He was a staunch conservative and never made any apoligies for it. The public respected him for it and it confounded his liberal opponents to no end.

Then you obviously did not follow Reagan during office.

[ffrancone]

The problem with your thinking is that there is now a divergence in being a supporter of the President and being a "conservative". Currently, you can't be both. Do you support President Bush or are you a conservative? The two are mutally exclusive. Sorry to break the news to you on this one.

If you support Bush, you can't call yourself a conservative. If you call yourself a conservative, how can you support Bush? Get it?

With all due respect, this is so lame.

It sounds as if you believe your support to be some pure and unsullied thing that would be tarnished by stooping to support someone (like W) who is not equally as pure as your untarnished conservative self. That's fine for a university professor. But in the real world, in politics in a country where more than half the people just voted for a totalitarian, enviro-nazi last year, you're going to have to stoop a little. Unless you just like hearing yourself whine.

Listen closely. Today, W is the best we are going to get. I would prefer Alan Keyes, Phil Gramm, Dick Armey or a host of others. I would prefer them a lot. I would prefer Barry Goldwater (before he went libertarian) or the Gipper. But none of them will be elected president. If elected, they could not govern effectively because there is no consensus for a big lurch to the right.

The best we will get is incremental improvements in some areas and maybe even some backsliding in others. Unless you have come up with a way to turn soccer moms or minorities into sensible voters, this is it.

Of course, W could govern from the right and antagonize all the soccer moms, throw the coming senate and house elections and lose in 2004. Bummer. But at least you wouldn't have sullied yourself by supporting someone who is not a pure conservative.

W is a good tactician and a moderate conservative. He is picking his fights and not even choosing fights where he is going to get bloodied. It's all about the Senate next November. In an age where over half of the public are idiots and think that algore shoud be president, we need a tactician. He will spend eight years tacking us gently to the right where he can. At the end of that, we have another chance to ask the voters not to be so stupid. Hopefully it will work in 2008.

In the meantime, get involved in the party so that in 2008, you have some influence. We need influential conservative true believers in the party.

[Texasforever]

ouldn't it be nice if he just tried to do the RIGHT thing....not what was 'cost-effective'.

Because 9 times out of 10 decisions based on cost benefit analysis IS the right thing.

[Ken H]

"Maybe we should all post what we have been called here."

I'd never volunteer this, but since you asked...

Majestic, Inspiring, Genius, Reaganesque...

I'd continue, but modesty prevents me from doing so.

[redrock]

I see you have the Democrat/Liberal view of history memorized.

I don't know if RR despised Barry or not...since I have never met...much less talked to Ronald Reagan.

But I did meet with Goldwater a couple of years before his death...(just for a couple of minutes)...and he seemed pretty happy to me.

..and he always spoke highly of RR.

But...you WILL have your version.

redrock

[nopardons]

And you madly dash from one thread to another, bashing EVERYTHING that Bush says or does, or what you imagine he says, does, or might do. We all know what YOU are going to say, and YOUR biases. You wave those blac pom poms of doom with such vigor, after all.

No offense meant. : - )

[Howlin]

You wouldn't be welcome there anyway, which is what probably bothers you.

You do seem obsessed with the threads I'm on though; perhaps you should try brancing out, looking at other threads.

There are other threads on FR besides the Bush Bashing ones. Just thought you would want to know.

[PhiKapMom]

LOL!!!!!!!!!!! How did you get the good names?

[Big Guy and Rusty 99]

The first ammendment prevents Government from stoping free speach, not Jim Robinson. This is his house, we have to play by his rules.

[Howlin]

ROFLMAO!

[blackbart.223]

"Then you obviously did not follow Reagan during office."

I voted for him twice and follwed him in both terms. You at least knew where you stood with Reagan. Bush has the same abilities if he would just use them. He doesn't need to get along with the democrats he just needs to stomp on them. If he does that he will do just fine.

[rebelsoldier]

Bush Koolaid drinkers are exactly the same as Clinton Koolaid drinkers who value a cult of personality regardless instead of bedrock principles, logic, and a proven record of committment and devotion to the same; all the things conservatives cherish above all else. The question isn't what's the matter with us, but what the hell is the matter with them? If we were to display only the political record of the President since inauguration, you'd swear Gore was elected instead of Bush. I didn't campaign, recruit, contribute, defend, and vote for Bush to implement the liberal's goddamned agenda and I will not defend him when he does. That so many do is the reason why conservatives and conservatism never accomplish their goals and defeat liberalism.

[redrock]

"You at least knew where you stood with Reagan. Bush has the same abilities if he would just use them. He doesn't need to get along with the democrats he just needs to stomp on them. If he does that he will do just fine."

THIS is what pisses me off the most about GWB...he HAS the abilities.......and he has the knowledge.....but he doesn't use them.

Except to agree with the Liberals...and push their agenda.

redrock

[#3Fan]

The politicians play their political games and we argue about the size of the ball of twine.

Let's see, Rush took over radio 15 ears ago. Conservatives took over the internet 5 years ago. In about 70 more years maybe we can challenge the liberals in television and schools and colleges. 70 years of socialism can't be all that bad, just look at Russia....um,...nevermind. :^)

[nopardons]

You werent here, when FR was wall to wall bash Clinton and everyone agreed. It was lovely to be araound like minded folk ! Buy a clue, dear. : - 0

[budwiesest]

Dude, you're lucky that things aren't like they used to be. You'd have had your hat handed to you way back. What FR might need is a 'gloves off' section where whiney censorship prone dupes such as yourself could get a quick lesson in what 'free' really means.

What Bush bashing has taken place I can't personally attest to. (Haven't seen the threads you may be referring to). However, the growth-in-government bashing I'm sure will continue as long as Free Republic exists. Whenever a celebrated politico stands in the way of freedom, expect them to get steam-rolled over by the Free Republic Express. This is, afterall, a republic if you can keep it.

[Texasforever]

But...you WILL have your version.

In the 1960s the John Birch Society was a real power in conservative circles. Barry Goldwater drew tremendous support from the JBS and wore their mantle proudly. He had ONE abiding "conservative" value and that was also the JBS litmus test, and mine also, of anti-communism. Goldwater was at least sincere in it and for that reason alone he holds some claim to conservatism as we know it today. However, when Reagan was elected, the JBS simultaneously ceased to be a force in the GOP and they began to savage Reagan. It was the same charges nade against Bush that we are hearing today mainly from the "Paleo-conservative" descendents of the JBS. The hatred expressed and the charges are IDENTICAL in regard to Reagan that are now being leveled at Bush.

[Stand Watch Listen]

lol...don't you mean

ALREADY POSTED HERE

lol

[Dan from Michigan]

I think it could be a Michigan thing. John Engler in his first two terms was a hard core straight talker. Valde Garcia has always given me a straight answer. Same with Judie Scranton and my next rep Chris Ward. My congressman, Mike Rogers USUALLY gives a straight answer(he does in person). Most GOP reps around here are more of the straight talk version.

Which to some extent suprises me with Bush. I always pictured Texas as a straight talk type of state. Middle America and mostly Blue Collar(with a lot of Michiganders there). DeLay(That's the "Devil incarnate??") came across that way to me when he spoke at the Lincoln Day Dinner.

I'll be the first to say this though. I could never be president, and wouldn't want that job, ever.

[nopardons]

Thank you ! Last hurrah and all that.

How could I pass up this thread LOL