BDS [Bush Derangement Syndrome] On the Right (Paleocons, and the like)

To The Point ^ | March 9, 2005 | Dr. Jack Wheeler

[freema]

Need picture: bullseye : )

[quidnunc]

freema wrote: In late December 2000, just after Gore conceded, he had a meeting with Dick Cheney, Condi Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz to get their views on what to focus on in his administration's foreign policy. After they were through, he asked, "What about India?" They stared at him. "It's a democracy of one billion people," he explained. "We need India as an ally. It's the only country in Asia that can stand up to China. I want a policy for India from you." After two weeks, he bugged Condi again. She had forgotten. No one but Bush understood how important an alliance with India was to America's national security. Thus the triumph of Bush's India visit last week.....This is just an example of Bush's geopolitical smarts." (Hadn't heard that before. G.W.B.'s wisdom and coup with India I well knew and had followed, but wasn't aware Gore had a sane thought about it. Though, that was back before he allowed 2000 to fester to a point where he went completely mad.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Point of clarification: It looked to me like quidnunc said Bush met after Gore's concession.

The sentence before makes it clear that Wheeler is talking about Bush and not Gore:

George W. Bush is a far from perfect man and far from perfect president. But let me tell you a little story.

In late December 2000, just after Gore conceded, he had a meeting with Dick Cheney, Condi Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz to get their views on what to focus on in his administration's foreign policy. After they were through, he asked, "What about India?" They stared at him. "It's a democracy of one billion people," he explained. "We need India as an ally. It's the only country in Asia that can stand up to China. I want a policy for India from you."

After two weeks, he bugged Condi again. She had forgotten. No one but Bush understood how important an alliance with India was to America's national security. Thus the triumph of Bush's India visit last week.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

We are not voting for a dictator.

Simply because you cast your ballot for a particular candidate does mean that he or she has been immunized from further criticism.

If anything, there is a corresponding obligation on the part of that person-once in office-to see to it that he represents our interests.

This is a republic, not a monarchy where our leader is insulated from legitimate criticism.

I don't know where this asinine concept, that we are not allowed to critique, or express reservations about, the agenda of someone we voted into office-even if it contradicts the values upon which that person's campaign was built-came from, but it needs to be jettisoned.

If the Republican Party is simply going to be another conduit for the perpetuation of the Bush dynasty, then Ken Mehlmen, Ed Gillespie, et. al. might as well pack up their tents now, because there's no way the American people-especially conservative Republicans-will countenance it, and continue to elect its representatives to high office.

[freema]

LOL! How did you know you'd find me here??????????

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

I always type with brass knuckles on ;)

You too?!

:^)

[freema]

Posts 112-116 are quite insightful.

[Wasanother]

Of course you have the rights to be critical but while people are going to blame and bash Bush for everything, is it all being directed fairly? Congress makes the law not the President, so since he's never vetoed a single bill how is immigration his fault? How is the CIFIUS process his fault being it's been around since the 90's and created by congress and can only be changed by congress? If a third party is the answer for all the problems and they become viable then we'll get ready for at least 4 years of Clinton the sequel. The point of it all is, the criticizing is ok but the pure Bush Bashing hatred by some in the Party, like it or not, is getting old.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

I think you misunderstood the poll question.

That isn't all that surprising, considering the inscrutable way in which it was phrased.

What precisely are we passing judgment on?

Whether or not we believe the "port deal" was "bad?"

Or are we being asked to decide whether the fact that the "port deal" was withdrawn is "bad for America?"

It would help if the people who designed the poll didn't intentionally-or inadvertently, as the case may be-mangle the question.

Perhaps a less incomprehensible poll question would have yielded more decisive results, no?

[ohioWfan]

First of all I am not now, nor ever have been 'blinkered' about anyone. You don't know me very well if you think my thought process can be manipulated by anyone. (If my parents were alive, they could testify to that........or you could come here and ask my husband or children. :)

Secondly, sauropod deliberately tried to pick a fight with me, throwing out insult after insult. I was merely parrying them. (You might want to review what really happened here).

If he is, indeed, 'bright' then he needs to elevate the level of his discourse, because it's both trite, and wrong.

Let me tell you something, EV, because I know that you are a good man, and a truly passionate conservative (I wouldn't trust sauropod's credentials as far as I could throw him).

I learned conservatism on my Daddy's knee. I knew about the dangers of the U.N. and socialized medicine before I entered Jr. High. I went to a Goldwater rally and read Phyllis Shlafly by the time I was 14. And I learned conservative moral values from both parents that I never rejected. I am a conservative from top to bottom, from stem to stern. A small government, moral conservative.

As for President Bush, I have the wisdom and life's experience (and political know-how) to know that he is accomplishing the most important things a conservative can do, and that is to move the country toward personal responsibility and a culture of life, and an originalist judiciary. He has renewed and inspired the military, he has bravely and successfully fought a global war on terror, and he has given us multiple tax cuts.

There are things that I don't like about what he's done. There are things I strongly disagree with because I AM a fiscal and small government conservative.

But I don't like that people around here malign his character (and seriously wonder if those who do know what character is), and I have serious problems with emotional hysteria, because I am a rational person, who doesn't fly off the handle. I was originally opposed to this port deal, and contrary to sauropod's (ignorant) attack on me, I did look at both sides, and came down on the side that the facts supported.........that it was a safe and wise decision.

Most of the reason for my calm is my faith, not my temperament, and the way Christ has transformed my life. And much of my 'faith' in President Bush is due to my constant prayer for him, and watching him closely literally every day. I see the vision that he sees, and I am in awe of his strength in implementing it.

And I am adult enough to know that the excess spending is no more than an irritant in the scheme of things, because I have eternity's values in view.

btw, if you think sauropod is a conservative, why don't you tell him to behave like one........starting with not picking fights in ignorance and childish petulance.

[ohioWfan]

btw, I challenged one other ignorant, condescending freeper to read all of my 40,000 plus posts and find one that is NOT conservative.

He ran away from the challenge.

Perception is not reality for a basher and one who condescends to those of us who support our President. There are no such posts, because I AM a conservative, through and through.

btw, I met with the Ken Blackwell team in our county and am joining them with doing some writing, and planning. We desperately need this fine, strong conservative as our Governor to get this state turned around.

The man in charge here........far more conservative than President Bush..........thought that this brouhaha about the ports was stupid, because there would have been basically no change in what transpires, and no added risk to security. There are many solid conservatives who didn't have a problem with it, once the facts were rooted out amid the hysteria.

[ohioWfan]

Your mama raised you to pick fights and lie in public?

Interesting........

[sauropod]

After having slept on it, I have no regrets on what I posted.

I am eternally amused by your posturing. You attack, attack, attack (i have watched your posting habits) and then whine about "Ugly Conservatives" when called on it.

Think next time, before you call somebody a LIAR!

You deserve the moniker "Ugly Moderate." You earned that one all by yourself.

[sauropod]

I insulted them because of their tactics (what happens to sharks after the water has been chummed). I said not one damned thing about the port deal except that I had not formed my opinion about it because i was still doing my homework on it.

Maybe you oughta actually read the thread before commenting next time?

[sauropod]

Is calling people 'Bots' your idea of friendliness??

I seem to remember a thread before the last election fondly referred to as the "bloodletting thread" in which about 14+ posters got banned for not toeing the 'Bot line.

Why should i be friendly toward such divisive "my way or the highway" people?

I understand and respect reasoned debate. That is not what I saw at the beginnning of the thread.

I saw behaviour that pissed me off and reacted accordingly. I would do it again in an instant. Caveat poster. 'Pod.

[freema]

"There are some people on FR who appear to be willing to support the GOP leadership no matter what, no matter how far they stray from conservative values. Rediculously, these same people accuse anyone who does not support Bush and the GOP leadership blindly of being liberal."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
'"We must all stand together or we will all hang seperately." Ben Franklin said that and he was right.'


Not intending to be rude...

which is it?

[sauropod]

I'm sure that makes you want to puke.

Oh it does! You don't know how much!

[proxy_user]

"By reputation, the President was a very avid and skillful poker player when he was an MBA student. One of the secrets of a successful poker player is to encourage your opponent to bet a lot of chips on a losing hand.


But in poker, the value of a hand is fixed. In politics, events can change it. You might start out with a losing hand, and end up winning because of something unexpected that happens.

[sauropod]

This is EXACTLY what I mean: just because we don't agree with you, you HAVE to convince yourself we don't have any CORE BELIEFS.

Just because I don't believe exactly what you believe doesn't mean I'm wrong.

Nobody's saying that. We're just objecting to Moderate Jackal behavior.

[sauropod]

Bush will be counted as a great President by future history.

Mainly for his pursuit of the WOT and zapping Kyoto.

His other actions are not conservative and deserve massive opprobium.

[Howlin]

We're just objecting to Moderate Jackal behavior.

"Moderate," as in "Ugly moderate?"

Looks to me like you're saying that unless I have your exact beliefs, I'm an "ugly moderate," which is what you called me up the thread.

But if it makes you feel more secure, keep saying it.