Conservatives Should Support the President Now and in November Because…

Jewish World Review, January ^ | January 13, 2004 | Martha Zoller

[quidnunc]

…They Asked for His Kind of Leadership

You hear it in the coffee shops all over the "red areas" of the map. Everyone knows that is where the real politics is discussed in America. Conservatives are asking themselves, "What was the President thinking?" They might be talking about No Child Left Behind, or steel tariffs or the signing of many less than conservative bills.

In the coffee shops in the "blue areas," liberals don't sit around much. They are too angry and busy to stop for a while but many are thinking that President Bush is the most conservative president in years, since "oh, my God, Reagan," and he must be stopped.

Both of these assessments cannot be true and after spending years looking at politics, I took my first serious stand on a candidate in 1968 at the tender age of 9, if both sides are mad at you, you are probably on the right track. So why should conservatives and moderates support the President, now on issues and later this year at the ballot box?

-snip-

Based on the history of this President, we better not count him out till we see how things unfold. He is what conservatives asked for in a President. He cut taxes, got our economy going again and lives and breathes the safety of this country and the people in it. When it is all said and done, George W. Bush does what he believes is right for the American people and he is willing to stand on his record in November.

-snip-

[nopardons]

I'm not a " dude ", and anyone who uses that word, replying to another, doesn't know enough to deserve a reply.

[sinkspur]

Tancredo's not running, except for Congress.

What's the point of going door to door for a man nobody's ever heard of, and who's not running?

[libertylass]

I wouldn't even bother with these guys. They're way to sensitive for my taste.

[TheFrog]

That would be all of the above!

George W. Bush (2001-Present)
EO's 13198- 13323

William J. Clinton (1993-2001)
EO's 12834-13197

George Bush (1989-1993)
EO's 12668-12833

Ronald Reagan (1981-1989)
EO's 12287-12667

Jimmy Carter (1977-1981)
EO's 11967-12286

Gerald R. Ford (1974-1977)
EO's 11798-11966

Richard Nixon (1969-1974)
EO's 11452-11797

Lyndon B. Johnson (1963-1969)
EO's 11128-11451

John F. Kennedy (1961-1963)
EO's 10914-11127

Dwight D. Eisenhower (1953-1961)
EO's 10432-10913

Harry S. Truman (1945-1953)
EO's 9538-10431

Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933-1945)
EO's 6071-9537

Herbert Hoover (1929-1933)
EO's 5075-6070
1,011 EO's issued

[nopardons]

I did, dear. And next time, ping me to a post, wherein, you address me.

[k2blader]

Dang. I was hoping to find substantive argument from Zoller on why "conservatives should support the President now and in November".

Guess I'll just scroll the thread instead.

[Howlin]

They're living in the past. I call it unreality.

[sinkspur]

Unfortunately I knew this was coming ( remember we talked about this last summer ? ) and it shall only get far worse. :-(

Like clockwork, all the Unappeaseables crawl out of the woodwork. We knew it was going to happen, if not over immigration, then over the budget, or no-child-left-behind, or something else.

These people just like to gripe, and want a president who agrees with them 100%.

Wouldn't you hate to be married to one of these true believers?

[freeangel]

You mean the Republicans won't filibuster?

[Texasforever]

?It's been called 14 million for years, but since the proposal was announced we somehow lost 7 million of them.

OK, how do you round up and deport 14 million illegal aliens?

[TheFrog]

Re: "Can I remind everyone of how we ended up with 8 years of Clinton?" Yes, Bush Sr. abandoned the party.

[Howlin]

Don't vote for Bush at all!

Pat Buchanan sounds sanctimonious enough for you.

[Warren_Piece]

1

[Southack]

"there is one major reason I won't supporting him. His supporters, within this forum and without. They have this whacked mentality, nearly to a person, where they savage anyone who disagrees with their precious "with us or against us" semi-god. You can't even have a converstation with them. I would never vote for a Dem, but I won't throw my lot in with a bunch of demented, unintelligent personality cultist tards."

So you'll let a Democrat take office rather than vote in the *only* President in American history to enact a federal ban on abortion? You'll sit out or vote 3rd Party rather than support a President who is *building* our national missile defense systems?!

You'd rather see a Democrat win than to vote for the man who has signed more income tax cuts into law than any other President in the world?!

What flighty, effeminate nonsense you spout. You have no clue.

[TheFrog]

Remember that little adage those who forget history are destined to repeat it. Or do you not care about history ergo the future!

[nopardons]

I not only heard old Nikita say that, I also know the entire quote, which everfyone else leaves out.

What Kruscheve said, was : WE SHALL BURY YOU ... FROM WITHIN... " And he was referring to the Commies and fellow travellers,living IN America, who were diligently working,continued to work, and are STILL working to take over the USA. People, I'd like to remind everyone, such as David Horowitz, his parents, friends, and an actual liszt of names, known and unknown, far too legnthy to put in a reply on FR. But, Bill Clinton is also one of them.

[shrinkermd]

Sinkspur you are right. As I see it, the President has a ship of state buffeted by the political winds of change. He tacks right, tacks left but if you watch the direction there is a hidden line that goes to the conservative goal. Most critics either see the tack left or right and judge accordingly. The more reflective and observant see the direction and applaud the President's efforts and compromises.

[nopardons]

No, you're absolutely correct; except for proving just how very little you know and/or understand, your posts have been far from enlightening or educational.

[woodyinscc]

Good luck.

[Soylent Democrats]

Republicans have the senate with a Republican majority; however not with a genuine ideological Republican majority, especially with Senators like Specter, Snowe, Collins and Chafee with R's following there names. I would be hard-pressed to think they'd strongly oppose a Dem's SCOTUS appointee.