| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 03/13/2006 10:44:43 PM PST by Jim Robinson, reason:
Enough already!! |
Posted on 03/11/2006 4:08:48 PM PST by quidnunc
Ever since George W. Bush won the presidency by preventing Al Gore's hanging-chad attempt to steal it, liberal Democrats have become progressively infected with BDS — Bush Derangement Syndrome.
Here's how I think that the contagion of BDS is now infecting a number of conservative Republicans.
If you're a guy, perhaps you have endured this unpleasant and bewildering experience. You're in a relationship and you and the lady have had some disagreements but nothing major. From your perspective things are pretty ok. Then one day you and she disagree on some minor trivial issue — and suddenly, inexplicably, it escalates as she unloads on you.
It seems like the love of your life has had a personality transplant, you're facing a virago disgorging a torrent of anger, and all you can think is, "Where did this come from?"
If you're a guy, you're nodding your head in understanding. If you're a gal, you're muttering, "Men are so clueless. We give them all these hints for so long that things are bugging us, they never get the message, then when we finally can't take it any more and snap, they're mystified."
I think you get the analogy.
A relationship that suffers this trauma can survive only if both parties calm down afterwards, focus on their mutual interests and commitment, and work together to solve their grievances.
-snip-
But it's another thing entirely when Duncan Hunter (R-CA), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, goes around the bend and offers a bill to make all foreign ownership or leasing of any cargo terminal in any US port illegal. Duncan, my buddy whom I've gone quail hunting with, how could he get so nuts?
There are some 3,200 terminals in US ports. 80% of them are foreign owned or leased. Unions and government regulations have made it impossible for US shipping companies to stay in business, making them bit players in the international shipping business. (See this story in the New York Times, US Companies Weighed Anchor on Ports Long Ago.)
Duncan's bill would cause astronomical damage to the US economy, but he doesn't care because he's on a BDS rant.
-snip-
"The 'Bots sicken me."
"Go ahead and hurl, pod. We're here to stay."
Good turnaround...
You know this whole concept that there are "Bush 'Bots", as if that is the only unthinking side with blinders is so laughable and so condescending, I have to respond
... Plenty of Bush supporters are reasoned and thinking about it, and contrawise ALL SIDES have their share of knee-jerk 'bots who will ignore or highlight only those facts/points that make their case, and will refuse to bend to acknowledge facts despite greay areas ...
the free-trade 'bots; the anti-immigration/xenophobe 'bots; the creationist 'bots; the PaleoCon 'bots; the DU/leftist 'bots; the RINO/cant-we-all-get-along 'bots; the anti-Islamic 'bots; the pro-drug-legalization 'bots; the do-whatever-it-takes-to-keep-a-majority 'bots;
the Libertarian Party 'bots; the third-party-purity-test 'bots, demanding 100% or nothing; the LewRockwell 'bots.
That is never mind the liberal eco-freak 'bots; the MichaelMoore-hating-America 'bots and all the types of DUmmies in liberal-land.
The list goes on...
For every 'bot on one side of the issue, there are 'bots on the other side... just like Freepers and DUmmies, it's a matter-antimatter thing.
The Liberals used to try to get "dittohead" to mean a demeaning term for the Rush fans who followed Rush's show and his politics. Since Rush was simply reflected what his audience already believed, it made no sense.
Likewise, it makes no sense to consider W cheerleaders something unusual or particularly wrong.
Frankly, BOTH the Bush supporters AND the crowd that jumps on the Bush-bash-bandwagon at the drop of a poll number, have both reasoned articulators and 'bots.
Bush is loved by some for doing certain things in his own way. He is hated by others for the same reason.
Bush's mostly conservative adminstration might please nobody 100%, but should please conservative patriotic Americans to a great extent.
And so it goes.
"Yes the conservatives who want smaller government, and are openly critical of their leader are obviously brownshirts. Of course you who worship whoever happens to be president and have an (R) next to his name even if it means sacrificing your core beliefs are patriots right?"
How does it 'sacrifice' my core beliefs (say in lower taxes and smaller Governmet) to acknowledge and thank God for the fact that, at this time of great national challenge, that we have the second best President in my lifetime (after Reagan) and that the alternatives would have been much worse?
No idea why I'm being given so much credit, but again, I guess I should be flattered. </sarcasm>
Regarding the 45-day review, I am disappointed it was not allowed to go forward, for something of substance to persuade the public one way or the other.
In the absence of that review, it's time to focus on the larger issue of port security, and look beyond the UAE mess. The 3-year Homeland Security study raises serious concerns about potential threats at our ports. Regardless of how one felt about the dead UAE sale, I'm sure we all agree that Republicans must take the lead on the larger issue of port security.
Rightly or wrongly, the Democrats have succeeded in doing the impossible: taking the national security issue away from the GOP. We need to take it back by showing the country WE are the party that puts aside politics for the security of our ports and our borders.
Trust in the president is at a low right now. Rather than shutting our eyes to that political reality, time would be better spent restoring that trust.
Bush can do that by showing the same leadership he showed after the Miers nomination failed: show he cares about the concerns of conservatives (in Miers' case) and the public (in the case of the ports), and act accordingly. Once he shows he is listening and willing to ease the concerns of the public, then public trust is possible.
The worst thing at this point would be for Republicans to show insensitivity to these concerns, out of stubborn feelings of loss for the UAE port deal. Valuable time is wasting. We need to get to work and show leadership on our issue: national security.
You actually have to WIN ELECTIONS to get conservative candidates!
The trends are on our side, and as Millions more get freed from the Democrat Culture of Corruption in the Blue Splotches, it will turn farther right...
INCREASED WEALTH is the bane of Liberals everywhere...
"A conservative votes for the most viable conservative on the ballot. Conservatives won't vote third party and they won't stay home. "
Conservatives who are REALISTS do this.
Someone recently had a post that talked about the GOP being in 3 parties:
- Donner Party - eat your own
- Opportunist Party - abandon principles
- Realist Party - do your best under real situations
The Third Party types are "Donner Party" Conservatives... if the conservative movement were like that, we'd have laws and Governing parties like Canada or Sweden and conservatives would be an ignored rump minority that had no say nor power in a socialist governing state. Somehow I think a few embittered paleocons would *prefer* that, fitting their masochistic tendency to want to be against the flow of history.
" Rightly or wrongly, the Democrats have succeeded in doing the impossible: taking the national security issue away from the GOP. We need to take it back by showing the country WE are the party that puts aside politics for the security of our ports and our borders.
Trust in the president is at a low right now. Rather than shutting our eyes to that political reality, time would be better spent restoring that trust."
Good points.
Well, that sums up my position. I don't believe a smart conservative would jeopardize the gains we have made on the courts especially the SCOTUS by staying home or voting third party.
Exactly..........the operative words are 'to a great extent.' We don't require absolute accordance with OUR wishes to voice overall approval.
Anyone who assumes that all people who support President Bush aren't thinking for themselves is thinking simplistically, and erroneously.
"A conservative votes for the most viable conservative on the ballot. "
No, a conservative votes for someone who represents their values, not just the person who has an (R) next to their name.
"Conservatives won't vote third party and they won't stay home. "
Actually, who are you to define what conservatives will do?? so you would vote for McCain or another RINO? Sorry, but that sort of mentality is what causes the GOP leadership to start pandering to the center and take conservatives for granted. That mentality is what got us the AWB back in the '90s. If the GOP strays from conservativism, then they need to be punished, and the only way to punish a politician is to not vote for them.
"I'm just curious, who did all these "Real Conservatives", opposite us fake ones, vote for in the last election if it wasn't Bush?"
I think most conservatives did vote for Bush since the last election was so crucial. While I'm far from pleased with much the Bush does, the alternative (Kerry) was a pinko who would have caused the absolute destruction of this country.
"If it's immigration, what bill has the President single handily made into law, signed it and then vetoed it? It's fine to criticize an elected official but it's not fair to Bash the person who, in all reality, has only a small part in the overall complaint. As for the Ports Deal, I don't think Congress has gotten their fair share of the beating in relation to what Bush did. Congress created the CIFIUS process and they've had the same criteria on it for at least 12 years. Congress should have been working on it right after 911 but we know they didn't because after all the President has never vetoed a bill."
You're right that Congress shares the blame, but Bush is the person who was pushing as hard as he could with tremendous amounts of energy for the ports deal. He didnt put that much energy into conservative issues, and he has a rediculous plan for immigration. I also have a problem with the Patriot Act, which is largely Bush's creation.
"The last time I remember a viable, as in the running, 3rd party option we ended up with 8 years of Clinton and I don't think that's what any Real Conservative or us fake one want."
No one wants that, but electing a RINO president is almost as bad, if not worse, because if a RINO is in office, the GOP will be reluctant to challenge one of their own.
Blindly voting for RINOs will only encourage the GOP to take you for granted. They know your vote is guaranteed, so why shouldnt they pander to the center moderates looking for more votes, and ignoring you?
The GOP stays conservative b/c they know conservatives will not vote for them if they do not.
"Sitting at home on election day isn't exactly a "conservative belief", neither does it convey movement of any kind, including an agenda."
I'd rather stay home or vote Constitution Party than vote for a person I dont like, such as that leftist McCain.
For all McCain's flaws, he will support the military and protect America. Sitting at home and ending up with Hillary Clinton is not only not conservative, it is counter conservative.
Excellent post. You said it perfectly!
Some on this thread believe that criticizing Bush is high treason, blasphemy against God, etc etc etc.
If a GOP president is not acting conservative, then they need to be citicized. It's best for the president, the party, and most importantly, the country.
People who think saying anything critical of Bush is treason should take their Brown shirt fascist mentality somewhere else.
Even if you place second him behind Reagan in conservatism, George W. Bush is without question the (second) most conservative President we've had in our lifetime. I've seen Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford and Bush41 in my life. All Republicans, and none nearly as Conservative as President Bush. I think some have simply lost sight of, or have never had sight of the big, historic picture when they rant and rave against President Bush.
He is moving the country to the right, and doing exactly what he promised to do. That's what I expect a Republican President to do, and he is doing it against great odds.
Name one, please, and cite an example, or give a link to where anything remotely similar to that sentiment is stated.
"which is it?"
What I meant by the Franklin quote is that the rabid Bush-bots need to knock off the flaming, insulting, name calling, etc which they do when anyone diagrees with them. There should be polite debate, not flame wars. Wouldnt you agree?
It is simply stupid to blindly follow a president simply because he has an (R) next to his name.
"Name one, please, and cite an example, or give a link to where anything remotely similar to that sentiment is stated."
Sorry, but I dont have time to go searching through past threads or even this thread, reading each post looking for examples. Some people do seem to spend all their time searching through the FR archives for quotes etc to use against people, but I really dont have the time.
However, if you have been reading this thread, all the Dubai deal threads, the immigration threads, the Patriot Act threads, etc etc etc you will find multiple examples. Choose a couple of 'bots and search their post histories.
What they believe is that Bush is ALWAYS right, he's infallible, can never be wrong, maybe he even talks to God like Joan D'Arc, and anyone who even THINKS of criticizing him is a low down Democrat/ treasonous communist/jihadist/Benedict Arnold/the antichrist.
Dont deny it, the bots think that conservatives who denounce Bush's forays into leftist territory are traitors, and should be banned, if not publicly hanged, at the very least.
I voted for a president Bush, not an Emperor, and Bush is a man, not God.
He can and has made huge mistakes, and he has, is, will, and SHOULD be criticized when he deviates from conservativism.
"Even if you place second him behind Reagan in conservatism, George W. Bush is without question the (second) most conservative President we've had in our lifetime. "
That depends. I wasnt, but was anyone on this thread alive when Cal Coolidge was president? Now he was one AWESOME guy.
No, the point is that I will NOT find any examples, because your accusation is hyperbolic and inaccurate.
Please stick with facts. Making wild accusations gets us nowhere. I'm friends with the so-called 'bots.' In fact, I'm accused often of being one (I don't mind, because it's silly anyway, so I wear the name with pride), and there is not one, single, solitary person I know on this forum who thinks President Bush is a god. Not one.
Actually, it's the ones who are mad at him all the time for not getting things done who are closer to expecting him to be an 'emperor' or a man with a magic wand, than the 'bots.'
btw, you said 'on this thread' so it wouldn't take you that long to back up your accusation. The reason you evaded it is not because of time, but because it isn't true, and you couldn't find such a person if you tried.
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.