They all had to change their names?
How many total registrants were there on Free Republic at that time? It's almost like--gasp!--there are Bush supporters that weren't on Free Republic in 1999! Impossible--there's only one other answer:
Posted on 10/19/2005 9:49:50 PM PDT by freedomdefender
In 1986, George W. Bush reached a crisis point in his life and changed what wasn't working. He dug deep and got serious. He got humble. He questioned himself. He can do it again, and should.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
The true conservatives here at FR call that type of thinking a "Bushbot" or "cheerleaer".
In Peggy Noonan's words, look what she wrote--it applies to your type of thinking:
They receive endless encomiums from friends and staff telling them of their brilliance, their courage, their foresight. "God sent you to lead us." And the authors of such statements aren't always or even usually sucking up. They mean it. They're excited, fervent, full of belief. All a president has to do to get a standing ovation is walk into a room. He signs his name to a placard at a rally and it's treated as a historic relic--"He touched it!"
This is why Peggy Noonan wrote this article: there are two camps of conservatives. 1] True conservatives, and 2] the words of Peggy Noonan above, or FR member words like "cheerleader".
Bush is splitting the conservative movement. The towel has been thown in by true conservatives since Bush has proved time andd time again that the label "conservative" was misplaced on George Bush. At the very best, he is a "moderate" in some areas. At worst, he has proven far, far left of leftists on fiscal matters and big government matters.
Peggy Noonan is correct. As is George Will. As is Michelle Malkin. As is Charles Krauthammer. As is tons of other nationally known true conservative commentators and true conservatves on this forum.
We all hated Bill Clinton and corruption and Marxism so much we ASSUMED George Bush would be a conservative. We ASSUMED all things George touched would turn to gold because Clinton was such a scumbag. We were wrong. Ronald Reagan was a conservative. George Herbert Walker Bush was a moderate. George W. Bush is NOT a conservative.
. . . but Peggy Noonan and George Will and Michelle Malkin and Charles Krauthammer and the hundreds of other national and regional conseervative commentators are! They are the voice of conservatism--George is no longer the voice of true American patriots who desire limited government, national sovereignty and fiscal sanity.
Ping # 221
Did Bush promise to appoint a Justice like Scalia? <- long discussion
I believe the research shows no direct quote attributable to GWB that makes this string ..."I promise to nominate strict constructionst judges in the mold of Thomas and Scalia." However, Bush has said that he would nominate strict constructionist judges. Bush has advanced Scalia and Thomas as benchmark examples to define "strict constructioninst."See also http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1503063/posts?page=342#342 & reply thereto.Further, VP Cheney was invloved in the following exchange ...
HANNITY: So in that sense, the President's promise, you believe, has been fulfilled, and that is that she fits the mold of a Scalia and a Thomas?The distinction between a verbatim quote (that doesn't exist), and a Bush promise to nominate strict constructionists does not mean he didn't "make the promise." As a matter of disambigating "strict constructionist," Bush asserted that the examples of Scalia and Thomas were appropriate.CHENEY: I do.
So, Bush DID promise a strict constructionist, and the benchmark that I was led to use to disambuiguate the two words "strict constructionist" were Scalia and Thomas.
I am saying Bush "made the promise."
Vice President Cheney seems to agree with that construction.
In the alternative, one could argue that he did not make the promise, or ... (see below regarding timing of delivery of the promise)
The ramifications of that, in the minds of some people, would be twofold. First, they themselves are being called liars, and second, that President Bush is not honoring a promise. Those senses strongly undermine the call to "trust him."
The one area that I see can be exploited by opposing sides, to drive the wedge deeper, is to argue the timing of knowledge of the nominees judicial conservatism. Pro-Miers people taking the side that after being seated meets the promise, and the dark say "wait a minute, show us first."
And so, the two sides are right back to the "trust me" argument when it's all done. And in that argument, there is no room for dialog.
Cheney's objection for lack of foundation would have been sustained.
9 out 10 dentists agree.
Have a nice day.
I will. Thanks. Finally some sunshine after about 2 weeks of rain!
And what if she turns out to be to the right of Scalia? She hasn't even been given a chance to speak. The thing I object to is everyone going into emotional hysterics when they know absolutely nothing. How about waiting a week for the hearings to start. You are asking this good man to destroy a person just because you have a "feeling".
FReegards,
Yeah, I've seen the borders. I live in Phoenix and I live with the disaster that the borders have become. However, I am also aware enough to know that a lot is being done quietly under the radar. I object to any policy of amnisty because this country has been swamped. I fully back Kyl's plan.
What I object to is the over emotional reaction to everything this man has done or suggested. He has NEVER backed amnisty, he's only backed a worker's program that I happen to think will work, but only if applied via Kyl's plan and NOT McCain's plan. Both of those guys are senators BTW, the ones who have to come up with the laws.
On the spending on Katrina, the states haven't even come up with formal requests for aid so how can anyone know what the spending will be? People are throwing around the $250 billion number like it's an absolute. That was merely an estimate of the damage, not the tab the taxpayers will have to pick up. How will you think about the "spending" if the greatest portion of that comes in tax cuts and incentives and low interest loans? We have over one million US citizens who are homeless through no fault of their own. Do you really want the government to stand by and do nothing to give them a hand up? Most have been paying taxes all their lives and have received nothing in return, now that they need help, you want to turn your back on them?
As to the rest of the spending, congress holds the purse strings, or are you one of those people who only like certain parts of the constitution? You want him to veto his own party? He has consistantly sent up reasonable budgets with lower than usual increases, but congress has changed his proposed budgets. You want to be mad at someone, how about being mad at the ones who do the spending? Or are you under the mistaken impression that we live in a monarchy?
Keep calling. We've had more than enough rain. But I'm afraid Wilma's gonna make it all the way up here, from what the NWS is saying.
The Nazi epithet has come out from both sides. Ick. I wonder if there is some sort of chemical reacion or something if those "Nazi epithets" meet in the middle! At any rate, it's one insult I won't be adding to my collection. Godwin's Law and all, I prefer to keep the dialog flowing, even if it is just for fun.
You can have your "true conservative" label. I won't no part of it, nor do I want to be associated with those who use it and their tactics.
I have noticed how many elections you folks have won.
Humility? I pray he finds some.
But right now (and during the past few years) he's been shooting at us, hitting us with a shovel, divorcing us.
Good comments, Cboldt. Sad ones, too.
Toadying crap-weasels like Ken Mehlman, Ed Gillespie, and Andy Card-and their shameless lickspittles-can excoriate conservatives to their heart's content.
They do so at their own peril.
Senator Grassley told Tony Snow on his show today that he 9Grassley) was not hearing all this criticism of Miers from other senators...hearing it only from the media who had a vaunted opinion of themselves.
I think we should just stop all this squabbling amongst ourselves. Let's see how she does at the hearings before making up our minds.
She might not be the best possible choice, but it is the President's right to choose someone he thinks is best.
Not even Peggy can save Bush from himself. He's far too stubborn and willful to do an ongoing assessment of his decisions, even one like this where it's incontestable that not enough planning, vetting, or thought went into the decision. He's not adroit enough to backstop a pitch that goes bad. He's bored and frustrated as President, and he doesn't know how to re-connect. He's headed for a failed Presidency, and there's nothing in his nature that I can see that can stop that.
The WH has accused of those of us conservatives who are against Miers of extremism, cynicism, sexism and elitism. Meanwhile, the attitude of the WH and many on these threads has been completely inappropriate. So, damage has been done regardless of how she votes.
"He has NEVER backed amnisty, he's only backed a worker's program"
A rose by any other name is still amnesty.
"You want him to veto his own party?"
What is more important? Your Party or your country?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.