11 Republican Senators, 41 Republican House Members and One Republican President Signed BCRA-2002

"The rest of the country and democracies around the world are celebrating Saddam's capture announced this morning and YOU having nothing better to do than to use old threads to rant at Bush?

This OLD thread was in 'Latest Posts' and I responded. I've watched Fox News report of Saddam's capture since 6 am and don't really want to read more about it right now. Besides, my rant is at YOU for being Bush's apologist for the wrongs that he has done.

Pretty large (and not to mention nasty) assumption on your part. I don't support this personally..."

No, you're just apologizing for it and making lame excuses for it.

"...just as I don't support the cute little tree code my association just passed. I am a grown-up, however, and realize that sometimes my views are outnumbered. You work within the system to change as much as you can and keep analyzing strategy to try to get as much as you can in the future. That's not rolling over, that's living in reality."

When there is no demand for it (and even if there was, show me the Constitutional authority for Congress to tax me to pay for your drugs) and the 'compassionate conservative' pushes it thru Congress using threats to those who resisted voting for it, AND you accept it - thats' rolling over and asking for more. That's not being outnumbered - he had to threaten his opponents to get this bill passed into law.

"Vote your third party if you wish, of course, but that is one less vote the Dems need to install President Dean. You mistake strategy for principle. Principles are the ideology, politics are the rules you play by to put that ideology into public policy. If you don't understand the difference, your ideology does the country no good whatsoever."

I will not reward a man with my vote when he tramples my rights and my Constitution and steals my wallet while claiming to be my friend. Who needs friends like that?

"Could you possibly get any more arrogant and rude?"

I probably could if you keep apologizing for Bush.

"I not only fire off calls and letters to the White House and Congress, I criticize measures such as this on liberal message boards and write letters to the editors of papers... that's where real change takes place, by educating the voters who actually support these issues."

Quit wasting your time on liberal message boards. Those that understand your arguments don't care about them and will never change. You're better off with trying to convince the great unwashed in the middle.

"It's quite stupid for anyone here to assume that a right-winger who supports Bush agrees with everything he has done in the White House... I'm constantly surprised that someone intelligent enough to be a conservative can fail such basic logic."

Having something forced on you by a Congress made up of the opposition is one thing. But when Congress is pressed into passing the left wing, freedom denying crap like BCFRA and the medicare expansion and the education bill is quite another. He PUSHED them thru. Where is the logic in thanking him for that?

Again, you keep mistaking principles with strategy... never once during this thread have I said I approved of this OR the prescription plan. I disagreed with people who stated we shouldn't vote for Bush and I've also been disagreeing with scads of freepers lately who claim there is no difference between Dems and the GOP. We sound just as rabid and lacking intelligence as the freaks over on DU.

Your vote is not a "reward", BTW, it's just a teeny, microscopic amount of political power... utterly useless in effective value unless combined with others in a way that can change public policy. And a political system is not a religion, you are not praying to or swearing an oath to the human you vote for. It's just a structure for distributing power. Strategy is simply navigating that structure in the most effective way. You go ahead and bestow your "rewards", if you like, I'll continue to promote strategy.

Just curious, who represented you more to your liking.. Bush, Sr. or Clinton?

The country went left enough to re-elect Clinton to office in 1996 DESPITE knowing by then what a sleaze he was. Our stand in 1992 didn't help prevent 9/11, China-gate, N. Korea developing nukes, the decimation of our military, various "worker friendly" anti-capitalism measures passed, and so on and so on.... The country is already left enough to the point we have admitted SOCIALISTS in Congress.

Evidently, with the republicans moving left, they've decided that they don't need conservatives anymore, and if conservatives make up such a small percentage of the American voting public, why are you so worried that conservatives won't vote for Bush if the republican party isn't?

I'm worried BECAUSE it makes a political party lean farther over the center. The less the conservatives support the GOP, the more they will cater to center voters and folks just over the middle on either side. The more we vote Constitution Party, the more the GOP is willing to push legislation through like the Rx plan. They wouldn't do that unless they think they need votes in the MIDDLE.

Votes in the middle are more valuable to them to begin with... each vote they get at the center is worth TWO VOTES NET, one for the vote they got and one for the vote that the Dems went down. They only get ONE VOTE NET for each conservative that stays with them. The GOP already has enough statistical motivation to drop us on our asses and you guys are more than willing to give them more reason.

Yes, I voted for Nader in 1992 after listening to conservatives I respected spouting the same misguided garbage we're seeing here now. I also didn't know at the time how festeringly evil the left is and wouldn't have dreamed in a million years the type of harm Clinton would cause the country if he got into office.

As if that isn't enough reason to think really, really hard before voting third party, now we have the Dems siding with the U.N., Old Europe and every slimey leftest group and Muslim sect across the world against America. I'll be voting for Bush, thank you.

While he's not a Reagan and while I strongly disagree with some of his decisions, he's been in my opinion one of the best presidents we've seen in decades. Stack that against another Clinton or even more extreme leftist? No contest.

Tamsey, The country went left enough to re-elect Clinton to office in 1996 DESPITE knowing by then what a sleaze he was.

The country didn't go left. The only thing that happened was that conservatives told the GOP "We told you when we didn't vote for GB 41 that we don't want RINO's and now you hand us Bob Dole" and again withheld their vote.

I'm worried BECAUSE it makes a political party lean farther over the center.

That's what I'm worried about. If the pubbies think they can destroy the first amendment and still scare conservatives into voting for them, there's no reason for them to EVER EVER EVER be conservative again and in fact it will allow them to continue to pretend to be conservatives while they grow government and destroy rights.

DON'T YOU GET IT???????????? The minute you guarantee your conservative vote to the pubbies no matter what they do to you, you've just given them free reign to go to the center, exactly what you're trying to prevent. You become (to quote Pete Wilson, former RINO governor of CA and mentor to Arnold) "F$%KING IRRELEVANT". Battered wife syndrome comes to mind. "Sure he beats me, but I have nowhere else to go."

Conservatives snapped to that fact in 92, but now they're going back to sleep.

The GOP already has enough statistical motivation to drop us on our asses and you guys are more than willing to give them more reason.

Tamsey, wake up. We alread HAVE been dropped on our asses. They're just trying to keep our vote now.

A candidate must earn my vote. In the past, sometimes the lesser of two evils 'earned' my vote. Just like little kids who behave properly and get rewarded with a cookie, a politician's reward is the vote. For some reason, you chose to reward Ralph Nader with your vote. I can't figure that one out unless it was some clever Bush-like scheme to defeat Clinton by drawing votes away from Clinton.

"Just curious, who represented you more to your liking.. Bush, Sr. or Clinton?"

I didn't really care for Bush Sr. He was too liberal for me especially compared to Reagan, but I voted for him anyway because he was better than Clinton.

Dole (whom you didn't include) was about the weakest, spineless, most compromising, loser of a candidate that we could have possible fielded.

Bush, the younger, got my vote because I couldn't stomach the thought of "president' and 'algore' in the same sentence. While he has done some things that I approve of, I am more displeased by many of the other things that he has done - and not done.

Who represented me better? Actually, none of them. Congress put up more of a fight when they were in the minority and fighting against a democrat president. And a lot more fight than they do now with a majority and with a GOP president. I am now of the considered and (I believe, well reasoned) opinion that I'd rather have a strong conservative congress fighting against a rat president IF the alternative is a pubbie president acting like a democrat. If you really consider clinton and his presidency -- putting aside the fact that he was a total sleaze and belongs on trial for treason -- he was NOT an idealogue. His wife is, but he was only concerned with getting reelected. If that meant signing the welfare reform bill or the assault weapons ban, he signed it. BUT HE DIDN'T REALLY CARE. He did sign most of the bills in the Contract with America. But the democrat party and their power did not prosper under clinton. As a matter of fact, government growth and government spending has increased more under Bush than it ever did under clinton.

THIS IS NOT A DEFENSE OF CLINTON. IT IS AN INDICTMENT OF BUSH.

Many of the most egregious laws, policies, and programs have been signed into law by GOP presidents. Now we have BCFRA, the No Child Left Behind Bill, and $400 Billion Medicare enhancement and he's talking about amnesty for illegal aliens. Do you think they'd even consider an amnesty for tax dodgers?

Face it. The so called party of smaller government really sucks at being the party of smaller government when it is in power. They do better when they have a strong minority (and perhaps even a majority in congress with a dem president, but we haven't seen that combination before so we don't know). I wish that the truth were more to your liking, but it just isn't. The bottom line is that if don't tell the GOP LOUD AND CLEAR that we will not put up with further abuse, they will continue to abuse us.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.