Who says George W. Bush has done "nothing" for conservatives?

WhiteHouse.gov; various news sources ^ | 1/27/04

[The Old Hoosier]

A realist conservative would slow spending as much as possible while using the compromise to build up support for key issues....like the war.

A conservative leader would say that the war on terror is expensive, and therefore we have to sacrifice by cutting back on wasteful social spending. Anyone who gets upset and therefore wants to oppose the war on terror can suffer in the next election.

At least a conservative leader wouldn't initiate pet bills that dramatically expand government.

[Doohickey]

I think comments on immigration are apropos to this thread. Why don't you?

[Tamzee]

Hi you!!! Long time no see! My fault entirely, I know LOL

The "vote for Tancredo" crowd makes me shiver... can you imagine Kerry on this phone in the White House talking to France, Germany and the U.N.?

[Sabertooth]

Dont you agree that all the states need to give a hand in enforcing border laws. I read awhile back about certain cities refusing to turn in illegals who committed crimes over to the INS. If am wrong on that let me know,

You are correct, and my city, Los Angeles, is among the worst.

However, it's quite common that the INS ignored cooperative locals anyway.

In addition, immigration is fundamentally a matter of Federal jurisdiction, and the President is the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the land. He should be leading the locals, not waiting to be led.

Does the President really need local leadership to decide it's a good idea to take Illegals into custody who've already lost their deportation hearings, in federal immigration courts, pending their deportations?

Yet he hasn't, to the tune of 100,000 Illegal Alien absconders in just the period between January 2002 and July 2003.

but if it is true all the wailing about Pres Bush not doing enough.

See above point about jurisdiction.

Also recall that President Bush has opposed local measures to discourage Illegals, such as California's Proposition #187. He has a long track record of being soft on Illegals, and the dissatisfaction with him in this area did not arise overnight.

[ohioWfan]

I didn't say that 'comments on immigration' were not apropos. Please read my post again, if you didn't understand its point.

[The Old Hoosier]

The choice could not be more clear: President Bush by a landslide.

Not if he makes conservatives feel like the bastard stepchildren of the party. We are his army of volunteers and supporters, and we're independent thinkers to the point where we can't swallow his gleeful embrace of big-government liberalism.

I'm not saying I'll vote against Bush--just that there isn't going to be much enthusiasm for him from the Right, and that translates into lost votes.

[afraidfortherepublic]

Saber: The difference is that aliens already here will NOT be considered for this program. Application must be made fromt the home country. But it's really senseless to argue about something that has not even been brought up in Congress yet. This has many months before it will ever see the light of day. But the Bush bashers are like the Chicken Little -- "the sky is falling; the sky is falling." My point is that we would have no controls whatsoever with the other side of the aisle in charge. Keep your powder dry until the REAL proposal is on the table.

[hoosiermama]

I keep reading the thread on immigration..... pro and con.

Bottom line IS; We have a national problem with immigration, illegals, enforcement, border security etc. It has been the elephant in the room.
Now that Bush has brought it up and proposes to face the problem, there are too many people who want to "shoot the messenger".
There is/are no easy solutions, but at least "W" is addressing the issue. Hats off to the leader! Let's see what congress, whose job is to solve the problems, does with it?!?!?!? Bush is simply telling them "deal with it"!

[afraidfortherepublic]

Tamsey -- your tag line says it all.

[The Old Hoosier]

the spending is just as much the congress fault as it is the President.

Oh really? Remember that 3-hour medicare vote? That's how long it took Bush to twist enough arms to get it passed. Nick Smith received a bribe offer through "an intermediary."

If you ask me, Congress went along under duress.

[FirstPrinciple]

i>"the sky is falling; the sky is falling."

I heard the same during CFR, Sarbanes-Oxley, the farm bill, the education bill, and many other bills. Of course, they were all false alarms.

[The Old Hoosier]

I'm not calling any names or disrespecting anyone. I'm just saying that this whole thread is really ridiculous. It's one thing to tell conservatives that Bush is good because of Mexico City--fine, I agree. It's ridiculous to tell us that "Medicare Reform" and "21st Century Jobs" are "accomplishments." That's almost insulting to the intelligence of most people here.

[onyx]

It's either President Bush or the democrat, and no one can rightfully call himself a "conservative" if he allows the democrat to win, by either staying home or by casting a masturbatory vote for some 3rd Party candidate.

[Sabertooth]

Sabertooth........you are a fine guy, but you ALWAYS turn a thread into a soapbox for your views on immigration.

Wolfstar brought it up, with his comments in this section of his post:

Homeland Security, Border Enforcement & Immigration

It's not open for discussion?

Did you read the WHOLE LIST of CONSERVATIVE ACCOMPLISHMENTS of this President??

Sabertooth: All that said, there are many legitimate claims on your list.

Items like the WoT, killing the ABM Treaty (often forgotten, but huge), Health Savings Accounts, tax cuts, anti-abortion measures, rebuilding the military, restoring dignity to the Presidency, raising the possibility of support for the CMA, and judicial appointments are the types of things that legimately belong on this list of the conservative accomplishments of President Bush.

Focus on those types of areas (I haven't been comprehensive), and edit a lot of the fluff and disingenuous stuff that you've otherwise included here, and your case would actually be stronger.
#312 on this thread

THAT is what this thread is supposed to be about!

Discussion of the validity of the claims is off-limits?

[b9]

Well, howdy do to you, too!

Yup, the "vote for Tancredo crowd" can go float their icebergs someplace else. Where the sun don't shine maybe?

And nope, I can't picture Kerry in the White House...period.

Nice pic. Love the light on his face.

[risk]

BUSH is our Protector.

I agree Ronnie. There are policy and speech changes I in my finite wisdom would ask. On the other hand, GW is standing at the helm, guiding us through to the next election. No matter what anyone says about us being divided as a people, we really won't know how much of a mandate GW has until November. He needs to get that chance to win, and if he is too "moderate" for some of us, we should consider that it's also democratic of him. He tests the waters with press releases and speeches. How else can he know what Americans think before we can vote him back into office?

[Ophiucus]

Maybe growth in spending by 0%,

Real world to FirstPrinciple!

Sure, zero growth would be great - well, a lot of soldiers would get screwed and tanks would run out of gas and helicopters would run out of maintenance parts but what the hey - is zero growth possible? (outside of string theory emergent possibilities) I mean, add the dream - elimination of the income tax, reduction of government to pre-1910 levels....

BTW - Budgets originate in the House. The President asks for an extremely rough proposal, which means only specific requests for immediate projects (missile defense, the blanks are all filled in by the House committees which more often than not completely ignore the President's requests. The only real pull a President has is the threat of a veto.

It is hard for a tiny Congressman to stand up against the power of the Presidency.

Tell that to Jumpin Jim. The President needs the Congressmen more than they need him and they know it.

Sarbanes-Oxley

What is it with you folks and Sarbanes-Oxley? Do you just like the way it sounds when you're eating marshmallows?

[woodyinscc]

OH..that incisive logic. You are an a-o-pi! If that is your analytical mind then you must be a Democrat.

LOL!!This is the most idiotic, ridiculous assertion (attack) I have read in a long time on this forum.

[afropick]

Ultimetely, Pres Bush can oppose all he want, but the states does have great latitude in forming some reasonable laws in respect to immigration as long as it within the bounds of the constitution. IMO, the first thing they should do in congress is to fix the baby anchor clause. That is the biggest reason for illegal immigration. A strong central government is only as strong the local government will allow it to be(see DC's gun ban)

[onyx]

think comments on immigration are apropos to this thread. Why don't you?

Because there's a plethora of immigration threads and the posts have seen the light of day on those threads ad nauseum.