Conservatives Riled Over Bush Activities

FOX ^ | 1-27-04 | Kelley Beaucar Vlahos

[JustPiper]

WASHINGTON

[Interesting Times]

This lines up pretty well with my own impressions. Most CPAC attendees I spoke with had nothing but praise for Bush regarding the war on terror, but were seriously dismayed at the barrage of new government programs and the massive increase in spending.

[Ben Ficklin]

"We don't like people like you."

It is great that you and your group have your opinions. It is great that you and your group have the time and the money to promote your opinion.

But, there is a problem.

When Bill Clinton was in office, a large group of people with very divergent opinions, but all right of center, came together in opposition. There was harmony at the Free Republic.

Now that Bill is gone those diverging views are not so unified. But that is ok. The problem arises when a subset of the divergent views tries to imply that they speak for all of the divergent views.

The Free Republic exists only because Dane, as one of many, contributes. The Republic Network exists only because it piggybacks on the name of Free Republic. Dane is the taxpayer and FRN is National Public Radio.

If FRN wants to go out and attack Ted Kennedy, thats great. If FRN wants to go out and attack Bush, thats dishonest and you should seriously consider changing your name.

[Bob J]

There is a difference between criticizing Bush and criticizing Bush policies. Bush is playing politics by pandering to the middle and trying to pick up a few dem strays, but it doesn't mean conservatives should be happy about it when that means a huge increase in federal spending and expansion of the government.

I'm happy with a lot of what GWB has done, I'm also disappointed in some. Making him aware of that disappointment is not treasonous and it doesn't mean a vote for the opposition.

BTW - The reporter had her angle for the story already to go before speaking with anyone. Out of a ten or twenty minute interview she picked the one or two qoutes from people that would support that angle.

[Bob J]

If FRN wants to go out and attack Ted Kennedy, thats great. If FRN wants to go out and attack Bush, thats dishonest and you should seriously consider changing your name.

Huh? No where did diotima indicate she was speaking on behalf of anyone but herself. The fact the reporter included her title is perfunctory. That you cannot distinguish the difference is your problem, not hers.

The irony is you unfairly accuse her of speaking on behalf of the participants on this Forum when it is you who seems to be demanding group think and setting the parameters for others public opinions.

[Interesting Times]

If FRN wants to go out and attack Ted Kennedy, thats great. If FRN wants to go out and attack Bush, thats dishonest and you should seriously consider changing your name.

No, what is dishonest is your claim that the FR Network leadership is "attacking" President Bush, rather than honestly reporting the concerns we heard expressed by conservatives at CPAC.

And your claim that any criticism of the President is dishonest is, frankly, ludicrous.

By the way, are you familiar with the form of punctuation known as "the apostrophe?"

[diotima]

Actually, I left out a word which was NEED. It should read, we don't NEED people like you.

Congratulations for completely missing the point of this article.

Please offer quotations from the article posted above that states where Bush was attacked by people claiming to speak in the name of Free Republic?

I was asked directly what the sentiment was on this forum was and I answered it. There are people on this forum, and they are getting louder that are not happy with all of the moves this adminstration makes. THAT IS A FACT. I am sorry you are so troubled that everyone doesn't march lock-step with your opinion here, which by the way, is exactly what you are accusing us of, I believe.

I disagree with bullying and strong arming and the nasty treatment you think is appropriate for those who disagree with you. No one is going to change their position on the President because you and others like Dane, insult them.

Free Republic Network uses the FR name because that is exactly the way Jim wants it.

[Bob J]

We don't like people like you.

It is revealing that you changed the wording of this qoute.

Suggestion, when you put something in qoutes, make sure it is the exact qoute from that person. Otherwise, you look like you're spinning and lose credibility.

[Interesting Times]

Diotima was obviously saying "We don't need people like you pretending everything is peachy keen," and left out "need." Not "We don't like people like you."

[Libertina]

BTTT Whoo HOOO! Although I don't remember making that exact quote... LOL Wonder if there is video someplace?

[Ben Ficklin]

#19- "Yeah, you know the drill."

#29- "No, you are what is called a yes man"

[Ben Ficklin]

The official FR position in 2000 was against Bush.

2004?

[Texas Federalist]

That new mantra from you all is a ridiculous comparison. Blacks are taken for granted and patronized by the demos.

Sounds like a good analogy to me.

[diotima]

The official FR position in 2000 was against Bush.

What? There is no "official FR position." We don't issue press releases endorsing candidates. This is a discussion forum.

There is a big difference between critizing the President's policies and actively working for him to lose the election. To deny that there is a growing number of people who are dissatisfied with some of the President's policies, is ignorant and dangerous. You can either deal with this now, or deal with this when we are swearing in some pinko liberal next January. Just because I am not happy with many of Bush's domestic policies, doesn't mean I am not going to vote for him. It means that if I don't like it, and a conference with 3000 of the most active political people in the country don't like it, we have a problem on our hands in the upcoming election.

Unhappy constituents are not willing to donate and are not willing to go the extra mile for their candidates. Again, this is simply a fact.

The cause is not helped by further alienating disgruntled conservatives. You do the party no PR favors by treating those who disagree with you rudely.

And again, I am waiting for you to provide proof in that article where anyone bashed Bush in the name of this forum.

[Interesting Times]

The official FR position in 2000 was against Bush.

There isn't any official FR position. Jim Robinson backed Alan Keyes early on, then strongly supported Bush in the general election, but nobody else was compelled to agree with him.

There are six viewpoints around here on just about every issue -- that's why nobody can claim to "speak for FR."

[Bob J]

The whole point of activism is to let elected representatives know where you stand and hopefully move them to that position. We "whoo hoo" when decisions are made that advance our positions but to "whoo hoo" when they retreat from them is counterproductive, and to be honest, a little weird.

I think we can agree that Bush has done a good job with the WOT and in several other domestic areas, what is your position on Bush's decisions regarding CFR, Medicare, increasing guvmint spending and illegal aliens?

[ConservativeGadfly]

Ben, my friend, I was there and I, too, was quoted in the article. Believe me when I say that this is not news to the White House. They are well aware of the discontent in the base and work to correct things all the time.

But the fact of the matter is that what Dio said was exactly right. It didn't say, "therefore he should be flayed..." or "if only Dean would swoop into 1600 Penn Ave and save us...." She and I both said that there are rumblings on the right. To deny that would be deaf, dumb, blind and stupid.

I hear it in countless meetings, phone calls, emails and conferences. So do I deny that I'm hearing these things and just say that all is roses and jelly beans? Or do I say that yes, there are problems, but at the end of the day, Bush has done good things for conservatives and that the national security issue will dominate.....

[diotima]

I hear it in countless meetings, phone calls, emails and conferences. So do I deny that I'm hearing these things and just say that all is roses and jelly beans? Or do I say that yes, there are problems, but at the end of the day, Bush has done good things for conservatives and that the national security issue will dominate.....

Thank you! No one wants to see a Dem in the White House, ever again. This isn't the typical malcontent purists talking, there are loyal supporters who are unhappy. Better to fix this now, rather than ignore it and watch a Dem being sworn into office come January.

[Ben Ficklin]

Paragraph 4.

"Sheld and Swalley are just two members of a nationwide organization of consevative activists, otherwise known as freepers,......on Freerepublic.com"

[ConservativeGadfly]

So what's your point, Ben?