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

SOTU transcript ^ | 1/22/04

[George W. Bush]

It has been suggested that use of the terms bushbot or bushbasher be suspended.It tends to inflame rather than inform.

Actually, I lean toward the terms 'Bushbot' and 'bashbot'.

There are groups of both here at FR. To one, Bush can do no wrong. To the other, he can do no right.

To the dwindling 'middle', where I am, it's still about policy and principle.

For instance, in 2000, I abandoned Buchanan and voted Bush so he could have one more vote in the popular vote count (my state being solid Red already). And I worked the fax lines and compiled fax lists here at FR for the Battle for Floriduh. But I'm not seeing a good reason to turn out in '04.

Bushbots or bashbots don't matter actually. Both are already committed. I think Bush has to give a solid reason to people of conservative principle to actually turn out and vote for him and for the downstream GOP candidates.

Of course, you can reassure yourself that this is an unappeasable fringe. But this very attitude nearly cost Bush the 2000 election. Well, that and Rove's idiocy in campaigning in California and that stupid minority outreach.

I know it offends some of you that the rest of us apply the same standards to a Republican president that we did to a Dim president. In truth, we still let Bush get away with plenty that would have had FReepers inciting armed rebellion if Clinton had even hinted at them. What's droll here is that the biggest Clinton-haters have morphed into the biggest Bushbots. Hard to perceive that any principles are involved.

[Ophiucus]

one litmus list more worthy.

No one litmus test is worthy. That's the point.

Look at the overall job. Right now we as a nation are in the midst of trying times. Mr. Bush has done great things to ensure the safety of this country, to provide for it's future, to aid the world by showing how terrorism can be ended as a perpetual threat, bringing dignity, honor, and professionalism back to the Presidency, tax cuts, a conservative, business like approach to the economy (although he stumbled on the steel tariffs), and the list goes on.

I disagree strongly with his smooching Kennedy on the education boondoggle, although testing was snuck in to the dismay of the NEA, I disagree with the farmers welfare, and I was stunned when he signed the campaign censorship bill. A dumb political move but no one thought the Supremes had lost it to the point of accepting that thing on the "appearance of corruption." Scalia's response was brilliant.

But those knocks against him do not make me want to abandon him and the Republicans because they don't perfectly match my expectations or aren't exactly as conservative as I would like them to be.

Overall, he has done well in a difficult time for a difficult job. And having a DemoRat win at this point is too dangerous.

[skip2myloo]

The most obvious is CAPPS II, the program that demands your name, SSAN, address when you buy an airline ticket - so they can check about 14 databases, including your credit rating. Have you bought a money order for $3K or more, if so - it was reported to the Feds. This intrusiveness has nothing to do with preventing terrorism.

As someone else said, a journey of 1,000 miles starts with the first step. I don't want to see the 4th Amendment eroded any further.

You've read that poem about 1st they came for the Jews... and I wasn't a Jew. then they came for me... but no one was left to object.

How far must it go until YOU feel threathened ??

[RiflemanSharpe]

PhiKapMom is right. I wouln't compare Bush to Dole. I would compare him to his father, who lost his base, and the election, with the Tax hike.


GWB may loose the base and the election over his amnesty.

[Howlin]

[Wait4Truth]

Yep and people like Moveon.org are sending out emails telling people to call.

Yes. And don't think some of those same people are not HERE on FR spewing their hate. Have you noticed how many new screen names there are around here? We must not be duped by these tactics.

[Mo1]

Well, I just don't seem to be able to get any of these people to answer my question

I've noticed

[Protagoras]

To: RiflemanSharpe The party is NOT broken, much to your dismay, I am sure. 91 perecent of registered Republcans support this president and his policies. Now, will YOU answer my question: describe this world you invision your vote will bring about. 299 posted on 01/22/2004 10:45:16 AM CST by Howlin

You are an honest debater? LOL, that's rich!

You posted this, it's a fairy tale. You cite an article by a Bush apologist who cites only two issues, both slam dunks for conservatives and Republicans. Never mind the other four or five issues which, if asked by an honest pollster, might show a different result. You fell for it because it told you what YOU WANTED TO HEAR. It's pathetic.

Now if you will discontinue your childish namecalling attacks we can continue, if not, put your nonsense where the sun don't shine.

People like you get shrill when confronted with inconsistency.

[PhiKapMom]

Thanks for the info on Rush! Glad he said that today!

[MJY1288]

Stop quoting Bush, it dampens their pessimism, and negativity, we wouldn't want to do that, they live to complain :-)

[MEG33]

I've been off trying to find the thread I saw that statement on and I can't find it .I recall that Pickering gave up his judgeship and if he is not approved at the end of next congressional session,he's lost his job.Taking a recess appointment is a gutsy thing as the appointment is subject to congressional approval still.I had no wishful thinking going on but should have been ready to give a source.I apologize for not being able to back it up.

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

I still believe we have an ace in the hole. When Dean loses, he will start his own ticket and take his Deaniac's with him which will account for at least 5% of the radicals that vote their "conscience" bases on their superior "Principals"

[Ophiucus]

Um, Wolf? You make your own counterpoint: And where in the Constitution does it say that education is a Federal concern?

To which you reply: This was defeated not because the founders were against public education, but because they wanted to leave the matter to the states.

That's pretty much it. Education was to be a purview of cities and states not the Federal government.

[auboy]

OOPS, looks like I accidently stumbled onto a thread of Libertarians, my mistake. Buh bye.

As the Bud commercials say, TRUE!

[Howlin]

Now if you will discontinue your childish namecalling attacks we can continue, if not, put your nonsense where the sun don't shine.

Good grief. Try to get over yourself.

Only a person who wanted to find something to shoulder up his own weak position would read that article that way.

But you carry right along, pushing this country to hell, lead by the Democrats.

[epow]

So you think Gerorge Bush is not a conservative"

Yes, that's what I think. A moderate with some conservative tendencies, but not a conservative at heart.

Nevermind what he says, look at what he has advocated and actually done in the last 3 years. I give him high marks for many things, such as eliminating aid for international abortionists, for standing for the sanctity of marriage and life, for cutting taxes, and for his decisive actions in defense of the nation. But his propensity to promote and grossly overspend on domestic programs that used to be backed solely by liberal Democrats, his lack of will to enforce immigration law, and his authoritarian tendencies regarding civil liberties are anything but conservative IMHO. Then to cap it all off, his proposal to grant amnesty to millions of illegals is beyond my tolerance level.

Nevertheless, I will vote for him because he is vastly preferable to any of his possible ultra-liberal opponents, not because I think he's conservative. If there was a reasonable possibility that a truly conservative 3rd party candidate could win 270 electoral votes I would vote for that candidate. But of course there isn't the slightest such possibility (and never will be again) so I will vote for Bush to help prevent the awful prospect of a liberal Democrat president becoming a reality.

[Protagoras]

Well, I just don't seem to be able to get any of these people to answer my question

It was asked and answered, more than once. Go back and read. The poster thinks if she can repeat that nonsense often enough it will be true, it won't.

[woodyinscc]

Well, first he needs to get the Dem nomination, that won't happen. So stop being paranoid.

LOL! he is not in the race to win the nom. He is in the race for a place at the table. I am not paranoid, I have seen what liberal policy's do to business, let alone to the over all strength of our economy and country.

[looscnnn]

"So which are we, small and insignificant or big and significant?
small and insignificant"

Really? So why all the paranoid posts about our possible votes for someone else will cause the Dems to win? I would think that you would just brush us off like lint.

[exmarine]

We can't AFFORD to have a Dem in the Oval Office IF WE CARE ABOUT MORALITY!

Quite obviously a Dem will get elected ONLY IF the people vote for a Dem, and if a Dem is elected, America will get exactly what it deserves. In a republic like ours, the people ALWAYS get the leaders they deserve because the leaders are a DIRECT REFLECTION of the values of the people.

I care so much about morality that I am putting it ahead of party. I vote moral principle and ONLY moral principle. I have no loyalty to any party - party designation doesn't mean a freaking thing if the party doesn't hold to TRUE moral principles that I hold dear. And the FACT is that the GOP is almost as liberal as the donkey party.

(You were afraid to go toe to toe and see who's more moral, weren't ya?)

Grow up. What would be the standard for such an assinine excercise in prideful arrogance? My standard is the philosophy of the founding fathers, the Constitution and the bible. I really don't care what you think of my morality. How laughable!