So you think George W. Bush is not a conservative?

SOTU transcript ^ | 1/22/04

[George W. Bush]

I've blown all your arguments to smitherines. That's like a tangerine, only smaller, to suit your intellect.

That's smithereens, not smitherines. And its meaning is 'fragment or bits'. Smithereens is generally not used correctly in the vernacular. And I can't find any fruit named 'smitherine' via Google or Merriam-Webster. Is that the correct spelling or a colloquial name for it?

[skip2myloo]

This is the dilemma that raises a clamor for term limits - and it ALMOST makes me agree.

But, that's not what the Constitution has in mind - as citizens, it expects us to be informed and to do our jobs in our communities on the soapbox and at the ballot box.

Like ol' Ben Franklin admonished us 'we gave you a Republic, if you can keep it.'

VOTE DEMOCRAT - IT BEATS WORKING

[Godebert]

"Get a grip bert you're losing it"

I take it by your personal attack that you'd prefer not to answer the questions. I'll list the questions once again in case you change your mind.

1. Did George Bush place his hand on the Holy Bible and swear an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America?

2. Did George Bush say he thought the McCain/Feingold Campaign Finance legislation was un-Constitutional?

3. Did George Bush then sign that legislation into law abridging our 1st Amendment rights?

4. Did George Bush keep his word and uphold his sworn oath?

[skip2myloo]

The classic Hobson's Choice.

Meaning there isn't any other choice - we're gonna have to ride this horse.

Given the alternatives - there is no other acceptable outcome except for Bush to win.

We need to start thinking now about the out years - who can the GOP run in 2008 to win ?? We're the party that has to work to take back America - and we've got a long, long row to hoe, my friend. We have to start by cleaning our own house.

That's the race the Dems are REALLY focused on winning, especially that junior Senator from NY (makes me shudder, sickens me viscerally).

I think the world of Bob Dole as a man and as a workhorse for America, but let's call a spade a shovel, he never was a viable candidate - we just can't afford to run another Bob Dole.

We've got to work hard to keep these career Democrat politician's, with their lying leftist liberal lunatic ideas out of government - they're a bunch of egomaniacs who've grown far too accustomed to feeding at the public trough, meanwhile tossing over their shoulders huge chunks of pork to their constituents back home who devour it like piranha.

You wanna talk about working class people, we're the working class people, and that pork they toss around so easily represents the sweat and toil of our hard labor. The people who pay immorally high taxes to run this country - that's who working class Americans are. The Dems want class warfare, let's give it to 'em - I'm sick of paying for programs for people who CAN work and don't, and in a variety of permutations on that theme.

For example, that spending bill they finally passed yesterday contained $50 million for a rain forest in Iowa - what the hell is that all about ?? And, even here in my home district - it contained money to build commuter train parking lots.

Why is the federal government building commuter parking lots - its insane - these expenditures have NOTHING to do with any federal imperative.

The one thing I agree with McCain about is his crusade against pork. By his reckoning, the bill contained $11 Billion (with a BIG B) for pure pork, and he called on Dubya to veto the bill for that reason. Of course, he won't.

Still, we gotta pull that lever, or push that chad for Bush - AND GET ON WITH PLANNING FOR '08.

We've got to win that one too because the Dems aren't gonna run anybody sensible like a Nunn, or Breaux or a Zell Miller - they've been captured (caught up in the rapture) of the lunatic fringe of the far left.

Beyond liberalism, what they want for America is far worse than even a Swedish-style social democracy - they want a totalitarian state with them in charge.

You think we see a lot of nanny laws now, hate SUVs, hate smokers, tax fat people, no handheld cell phones and on and on and on - let 'em put one of their hate-America leftists in power, it won't be long until the UN controls more than Manhattan, they'll rule all America - any vestige of sovereignty we have left will be gone, and we might even see blue-helmeted jack-booted thugs patrolling the streets of middle-America trying to confiscate our guns. The UN has said they want to disarm the people of the world.

Beyond shredding the MEANING of the Constitution, they may shred it for real. Surely you won't see it on display at the Archives, because its just a remnant of an evil time when slave-holding robber barons ruled America as a proletariate class - and subjugated the working class to lives of poverty, disease and inhuman labor conditions.

Starting with the airlines, American industry will be nationalized, we can't tolerate an investor class sharing in the profits of successful multinational conglomerates. And those boards of directors and corporate executives just earn way too much money, that's just not right, its not fair. Instead we'll use that money to pay reparations - that's how they'll sell their evil plan to America.

Listen to those Deaniacs - you think they won't buy in to the demise of free enterprise, that capitalism is nothing more than a anachronistic, failed economic model ?? Of course they buy it, they believe it, they FEEL it !!

You think I'm kidding, that I'm extreme - if the next 40 years is anything like the last 40, it will be even worse.

Off soapbox - gotta go - gotta finish re-reading Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged,

VOTE DEMOCRAT - IT BEATS WORKING

[George W. Bush]

But, that's not what the Constitution has in mind - as citizens, it expects us to be informed and to do our jobs in our communities on the soapbox and at the ballot box.

I think you can argue that we are free as citizens to limit the terms of our legislators. I think the term limits laws were wrongly overturned.

After all, state term limits are allowed. The Supremes basically told us that federal candidates enjoy rights that state and local candidates do not. When one has different fundamental and inalienable rights depending on whether you're running for a national office, you know something is pretty inconsistent.

I think the Supremes just gave the political class a free ride on this one at the expense of citizens.

[skip2myloo]

I ALMOST agree with you - the trouble is, a blanket term limit law is indiscriminant, it would apply to everyone.

While I want Sheila Jackson-Lee term limited, I would not want to see Tom DeLay or Ron Paul term limited. Hopefully redistricting will help y'all get rid of Jackson-Lee.

[George W. Bush]

You make some good points. But I'll counter by saying that even the Dims would be fearful at such pork and high levels of spending.

I think the Dims will back off on gungrabbing. Even the anti-handgunners have clearly adopted a 'moderate' stance.

For example, that spending bill they finally passed yesterday contained $50 million for a rain forest in Iowa - what the hell is that all about ?? And, even here in my home district - it contained money to build commuter train parking lots. Why is the federal government building commuter parking lots - its insane - these expenditures have NOTHING to do with any federal imperative.

We need to write our congressmen and point out that they really should build commuter parking lats around that rainforest in Iowa. It seems the only thing we can do.

The one thing I agree with McCain about is his crusade against pork. By his reckoning, the bill contained $11 Billion (with a BIG B) for pure pork, and he called on Dubya to veto the bill for that reason. Of course, he won't.

Given this (nonmilitary) spending record, the CFR to muzzle our citizens groups, and the amnesty plan, I really can't see who I'm supposed to vote for. It must be easier for other people. I'm largely unable to distinguish between the things I voted against Dims in past elections and the things the GOP is doing right now.

This was what we always warned about with Bush. Much of it was sidelined because of 9/11. But now that the War On Terror is moving to the backburner, Bush returns to the liberal Republican agenda we always expected. Well, he did campaign for most of this stuff pretty openly.

I've begun to believe that even most of FR's gun faction would support him if he started doing gun grabs.

The question becomes: what exactly do you worry a Dim president (or Congress) would do that Bush isn't leading the GOP to enact first?

If the economy really takes off, the GOP might hold on to both houses of Congress and the White House. Historically, we seem to like divided government. So I wouldn't be greatly surprised to see either the White House or the House or Senate fall to the Dims. Again, I have to ask myself just what I'm worrying that they would do that Bush/GOP isn't racing to do first.

In 2000, we said these same things. The Bush faction made a bunch of mealy-mouthed excuses. Okay, we all held our noses and voted Bush and worked the Floriduh thing here at FR. But now, it's all coming true, like we said.

Can you tell me that there was any point in electing the '94 Gingrich House? The first real change in decades and that which eventually brought us to control the Senate too. But what did we get for it? I really don't see it.

I won't file again and don't really expect to vote unless a hardline conservative stands for state or local election.

Maybe in two years, I'll have some choices. Sad, I like politics and the horserace thing. But all I see is a pack of sorry liberal nags. The only politicians I like or feel some common ground with, people like Tom DeLay, aren't on my ballot.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"As far as that bilge about those wonderful budget-balancing Democrats, so restrained in their spending, well, you'll have to believe who and what you like."

The budget was balance during a Democrat-led Congress...undeniable fact.

The budget was balanced because of a combination of budget cutbacks, and new taxes...undeniable fact.

The budget was balanced before the Republicans took Congress in '94...undeniable fact.

Bush broke his pledge, and sacrificed his chance at re-election in order to get the Democrats to agree to budget cutbacks...undeniable fact.

Being a conservative does not mean promoting lies, even if that means having to accept truths that you don't want to accept.

I'm glad you're out of education, you can't even read an article and understand what it says...maybe, kids in whatever school district you were involved with will now stand a chance.

[skip2myloo]

We hear (and share) your frustration, 'I feel your pain.'

All I can do is offer platitudes - 'The oxen are slow - but the Earth is patient.'

Like the war on terror, it will take us decades to reverse nearly a century of government vicissitude. Like Winston Churchill said, 'Never, never, never, never give up,'

We simply CAN NOT be compelled to burn down the barn to get rid of the rats.

What I fear about the Dems is their unbridled commitment to control every aspect of our lives in the most minute detail, all in the name of what's best for the public good.

These people aren't offering candidates from the moderate or conservative wings of their party, they're not even offering us Lyndon Johnson types of candidates.

Except for Lieberman, they're offering us candidates who display every trait of a communist, except for the obligatory government mandated warning label.

I fear these extreme liberals truly believe in a totalitarian form of government, and that like the worst kind of despot, they earnestly believe they have been empowered by a Divine Right to create an oligarchy, an inner sanctum, consisting only of those who share their view of the world.

I fear it is their goal to create their vision of a utopia combining the very worst aspects of Karl Marx and King George III.

I fear this is not just their vision for America - instead it is their vision for the world, the most terrible kind of globalism you can imagine.

They won't resort to the murderous tactics of an Adolph Hitler, but they mean to rule in ways far beyond anything in Mein Kampf.

More platitudes:

"Good intentions will always be pleaded for any assumption of power. The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters." Daniel Webster

“Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.” Alexis d’Tocqueville.

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." George Washington.

These are the things I fear.

VOTE DEMOCRAT - IT BEATS WORKING

[George W. Bush]

Bush broke his pledge, and sacrificed his chance at re-election in order to get the Democrats to agree to budget cutbacks...undeniable fact.

No, Bush raised taxes so the Dims let him 'balance' his budget.

Luis, you're just missing a couple of gears. I don't know what to say to you if you actually believe what you just wrote.

[zook]

As far as your interpretation of the Constitution goes, no one agrees with you, other than your crank buddies. Which Supreme Court ruling has ruled your way? Which rulings have held that the Korean War, the Viet Nam War, our interventions in Guatamala, Granada, Dominican Republic, or the current actions in Afghanistan or Iraq are illegal?

Can I hear you say "none"? The Constitution gives the President the powers of "Commander in Chief" of the armed forces. It also grants Congress the power to *declare* war. But no line in the entire document bars the President from *engaging* in war. Congress may cut off funding if it chooses, but today they have not so.

So all your remarks about "illegal wars" are sheer nonsense. No court agrees with you. No reputable expert on Constitutional law agrees with you. You're simply out there on fringe spouting things that simply aren't supported by fact.

Now, as for the "civics" thing, and I say this not to boast or to claim some higher status, I taught civics for several years. I have a BA with distinction in Political Science from a major US university. I hold a Ph.D. from the University of Chicago's college of social sciences. So you can count on the fact that I've done some reading and thinking on this and am quite used to my ideas having to withstand the scrutiny of people far more learned than myself.

That experience makes this interchange seem like shooting ducks in a barrel and pounding sand down a rat hole.

[George W. Bush]

All I can do is offer platitudes - 'The oxen are slow - but the Earth is patient.'

Okay. Now I do feel better. But I still don't know what the heck that means.

Still, it's more conservative (by default) than what we hear coming from Bush and Frist lately.

More good news: Frist and Guiliani have tested the waters in Iowa for a run in '08.

[George W. Bush]

I taught civics for several years. I have a BA with distinction in Political Science from a major US university. I hold a Ph.D. from the University of Chicago's college of social sciences.

Ah, yes, the academic prowess of the social sciences and colleges of education.

Pardon me for laughing.

[zook]

Laugh away. It makes you look even more silly.

[skip2myloo]

Well, yes what you say is true - to an extent, but its an oversimplification that results in a fallacious inference.

These were dynamic issues, the ultimate outcomes which were affected by input from many actors.

In logic, your examples portray a non sequitur argument known as affirming the consequence.

Here's another example: If the mill were polluting the river then we would see an increase in fish deaths. And fish deaths have increased. Thus, the mill is polluting the river.

[George W. Bush]

I'm not sure your logic will register with Luis. He's seems impervious.

[skip2myloo]

GWB -- I gotta vote with Zook on this issue.

The provisions of Article I Section 8 Clauses 11-16 inclusive are not intended to interfere with the Presidents express authority as Commander in Chief in accordance with Article II Section 2 Clause 1.

Remember back then, Congress was only in session for a few weeks each year. And Congresscritters were located across a wide geographic area and communication was slow.

The founding fathers knew that the defense of the nation might require the President to act both quickly and decisively. Thus, the Constitution does not tie the Presidents hands and compel him to await Congressional action to deploy forces in defense of the nation.

And there is precedent to consider. The Constitution doesn't establish the concept of Judicial Review, the first Chief Justice John Marshall created it out of thin air – but, to this day it is the law of the land so to speak.

Thomas Jefferson set another lasting precedent when he sent the Navy halfway around the world to quell the Barbary Pirates , and thus it has been evermore.

And, with respect to Iraq, in 1998 during the Clinton administration, Congress passed an act calling for regime change there. Before, we went to Iraq, Dubya asked Congress for their blessing, and they gave it – including Kerry who now says he meant it only as a hollow threat. And Congress has passed appropriations authorizing the continuation of hostilities specifically in Iraq and for the War on Terror in general.

[looscnnn]

"Where will you find those five people, loosey?"

Huh? What five people?

[looscnnn]

How about not adding more laws, enforcing what we have? We argue this when the anti-gunners try to pass more laws, why should it be any different? I have no problem with migrant workers and immigrants, as long as they do it legally. People complain about criminals getting a slap on the wrist, that is what this plan is doing. Why have either plan?

[skip2myloo]

Big grin - I can see you're not a country boy GWB. Or maybe they never plowed with oxen in Texas (but, I bet they did). If you've ever plowed, or pulled logs, behind oxen - they are slower than molasses at the North Pole. My grandfather used to use a team logging in the hill country of Ohio.

You can take your lunch break without stopping, maybe take a snooze too. But, the earth is patient.

I've heard this all my life. But, in the movie High Road to China Tom Selleck asked some shaman in Nepal if he had any words of wisdom, and that was the shaman's reply. Selleck had a puzzled look on his face too :-)

Do you consider Frist and Giuliani to be conservatives ??

I'm not warm and fuzzy that's good news.