Bushbots are not just anyone who backs Bush on Miers, but those who back him no matter what he does, who backed him on Federalizing education, on McVain-Vaingold, on the largest entitlement program in 40 years, on his massive ag spending, on AIDS aid for Africa, on his refusal to do anything about the borders, on issue after issue after issue. And they back Miers too, not for substantive reasons (as some do, although I disagree with tehm), but because they "support our President." Sorry, but that's not a good reason.
They support open-borders Republicans over Minutemen. They support RINOs in Senate and House races over principled conservatives -- after all,the White House backs them, so that's reason enough, isn't it?
If you have a good reason for supporting any of this, that's one thing. I may disagree, but I can at least respect it. But "we have to support our President" is not a good reason. Sorry.
But calling them Bushbots does not get to the root of the problem, does it? It does not educate them, does it? It does not bring anyone to your side of the argument, does it?
No, name-calling is useless.
Why not try to explain why we believe in limited gov't? We do not believe in limited gov't so we can have a small deficit---we believe in limited gov't because gov't is not the answer (New Orleans).
Calling people Bushbots divides us and makes conservatism look like a club run by a few that casts out those who do not think like we do.
"Bushbots are not just anyone who backs Bush on Miers, but those who back him no matter what he does, who backed him on Federalizing education, on McVain-Vaingold, on the largest entitlement program in 40 years, on his massive ag spending, on AIDS aid for Africa, on his refusal to do anything about the borders, on issue after issue after issue. And they back Miers too, not for substantive reasons (as some do, although I disagree with tehm), but because they "support our President." Sorry, but that's not a good reason.
"
We have a winner folks!
Why is it that the folks who support the President's nomination of Miers are called "Republicans" (as opposed to "conservatives"), while those who oppose the nomination are called "conservatives" -- even though much of the opposition to her nomination is coming from people like John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Bill Kristol, etc. who are among the most limp-wristed "conservatives" on the national scene?
Bushbots are not just anyone who backs Bush on Miers, but those who back him no matter what he does, who backed him on Federalizing education, on McVain-Vaingold, on the largest entitlement program in 40 years, on his massive ag spending, on AIDS aid for Africa, on his refusal to do anything about the borders, on issue after issue after issue. And they back Miers too, not for substantive reasons (as some do, although I disagree with tehm), but because they "support our President." Sorry, but that's not a good reason.
They support open-borders Republicans over Minutemen. They support RINOs in Senate and House races over principled conservatives -- after all,the White House backs them, so that's reason enough, isn't it? If you have a good reason for supporting any of this, that's one thing. I may disagree, but I can at least respect it. But "we have to support our President" is not a good reason. Sorry.
Who among us is a Bush-bot? Not just a "Trust him on Meirs" thing, but on everything? As much as I see that term used here, I can't think of a handful of freepers who would qualify.