Replies

Pretty good rant dog, I agree with much of what you said. I have some questions and comments I would like to make and hopefully you can respond to my post in a way you call for in this very rant. We shall see if you practice what you preach, I am hopeful that you will.

I, too, took great notice to the post(S) by JR about toning down the bashing of a President that has made great strides towards progress on many issues. I had hoped more would take notice. I would wonder if you, or others, took those posts the same way I did.

When I hear the term "Bush Bot", I think of it meaning someone that will claim W has and can do no wrong. Likewise when I hear the term "Bush basher" I think of a person that will claim he has done no right. I took JR's comments to be directed at both of these terms and those that use them improperly. Am i overreaching in defenition and application there?

Agreed, there are trolls our there that seek only to disrupt. This is yet another term that is thrown about willy nilly and ,IMHO, has become very harmful to this forum and conservative poilitics in general. I liken this to the race card that, when overplayed, loses its true meaning and thus its effectiveness.

I refuse to vote for someone with an (R) next to their name simply for the sake of being Anti-Dem. This ,in fact, reduces the moral high ground that I think conservatism represents. In addition, I would like to say that this is exactly the politics played by the DNC and democrats in the very opposition without solution based platform that conservatives and republicans have been railing against for years.

Many will say that Perot is why Clinton was elected. From some angles that is a true statement. From others, it holds less credability. People were tired of the same old same old coming out of the Republican candidates and that is the real reason Clinton was elected. I offer to you that Republicans in office today should remember why people voted for Perot and what happened as a result, applying that knowledge to their actions today.

I offer to you that it is democrat-like spin to shift the blame to the voter and off of the shoulder of those that took positions that soured significant sections of the normally republican voter base. While voters may have cast their votes which lead to a Clinton win, the reason they cast their votes as they did was clear. Actions of republicans that made them turn away from them. They alone are responsible for those actions and people should accept that for what it is.

lacking understanding that change cannot occur overnight in Washington

This is basically true but when it comes to Illegal immigration/border enforcement it fails the smell test. Partly due to a comment that you correctly made about W's position being as it has always been. I seperate W's position from that of Congressional elected officials. W does not make the law Congress does. Undue blame towards W on this issue is rampant and I agree it is misplaced when folks use it to slam him as they do. By the same token W is the leader and allthough I welcome his speech a couple days ago, I cannot help but notice is long overdue.

Reagan tried something along the lines of what W wants. He gave Congress a clean slate from which to work and it was Congress that has dropped the ball over the years since. I fear that if W gets what he wants we will simply see the very same thing happen again. I offer that many folks that slam W really feel this way and lack a better way to articulate their real positions. I would have liked it if W would have addressed how his position differs from what Reagan did. ( Trolls aside of course).

W says enforcement has to be a part of this comprehensive reform. It has been Years since 911 and this issue is just now coming to the forfront. Sure seems legit to me to criticise W and the congress for their lack of attention and lack of action in this area when considering the context of 9 11. Seems like anytime I have tried to pose legit dissent in this area I am instantly labeled anti W anti Pub ant should be banished back to DU from where I supposedly came. Do you think this is as much a problem as the foolish bush bashing done by trolls that only seek disruption? Do you think,as I do, that they are just rightee trolls right along side lefty trolls that really seek the opposite end of the very same stick?

The problem is that so many of us are allowing ourselves to be taken in by those who seek only to prevent us from going to the polls in November to keep their stinking hands off our government for another term.

I agree there is a section of folks from the Democrat side that do seek to keep people from going to the polls in their search for power in our government. I would offer to you that folks that claim holding ones nose and voting (R) simply to avoid Dems coming to power are doing the very same thing. Putting power and party above issues and actions taken about them is happening on both sides of the aisle and personally I oppose that regardless of which side is doing it.

The way to deal with Republicans who have actively worked against our goals is to defeat them in Primary elections. We do not even have to defeat them all, only enough of them to send the message that we will indeed target them if they work against our agenda. It should be the goal of EVERY conservative to see that Lincoln Chaffee is defeated in November. His seat is one we can afford to lose. Were I a Rhode Island resident, I would vote for the Democrat if only to send a message to Snowe, Hagel, Collins, Graham, and especially that bastard Specter that their primaries just got a lot tougher.

I agree that this sure sounds like a good place to start. But I would like to ask you this. If the Republican party did not learn from the Ross Perot situation and what happened because of it, what makes you think that taking out this one or that one in a primary will be more effective? Seems to me that is akin to saying that losing a less valuable position will work better and have a more lasting impression than losing one of the most valuable positons ( IE the White House).

Someone calling himself or herself a FReeper was promoting shooting aliens at the border until they stopped coming.

Now I am not familiar with the context of this example but I would like to talk about this for a minute. Personally I am not all that opposed to shooting those dead that would invade my country if that is what it came to. At the moment, I think something less than that could be tried but I would not rule it out alltogether. Just as W would not remove military action from the table in the IRAN example, I would not remove military action from the invasion of illegal aliens example.

How exactly does one stand behind using force to defend the Iraqi borders with bullets as to Syria and Iran but then say that stating the very same position about our own borders is unacceptable? I find that very difficult to reconcile, maybe you could help me out on that one.

Our job is to pick the best individual and send him/her to Washington in the hope that their CHARACTER will see them through.

I must say I agree with that 100% and I apply that to each race I have a voice in. (D) (R) or (I) is not my guiding force in this choice but some here sure will say that makes me wrong because the (R) is somehow supposed to trump everything else. I would offer to you that your very post does a bit of that. It seems that this statement doesn't exactly sqaure with other parts of your post and I was hoping you could better help me understand what it is I am seeing as a bit of back and forth.

IF the Pubbies already in Washington took seriously the idea that they may just lose Majority instead of gain a real majority ( that being in the Senate that the Dems really control) they would not be taking actions that anger so much of the people that put them there.

Blaming the voters for their reaction to the actions of those already there seems a bit out of whack to me. Seems like a shift in personal responsibility to me and that is defenitely outside what I consider to be part of basic conservatism. Maybe conservatism means something else nowadays and I am way off base here.

I am issuing a challenge to every person who considers him or her to be a Conservative; why don’t we all commit to a return to HONOR? Do we honor our Conservative agenda when we comport ourselves in disgraceful ways? Is it an honorable thing to suggest that our President is a moron, as I read here a few days ago? Is it honorable to attack Laura Bush or any other person representing true Conservative values?

Great challenge and one that I support and will participate in. My question is will our elected representatives do the same? It is far from honorable to have our borders leaking as they are so long after 9 11. It is also dishonorable to close session in our congress until this issue is resolved. The house did the right thing in an honorable way and its time the Senate do the same thing. Does this call go out to the members of the Senate as well as voters and freepers?

Is it honorable to claim that the best case made to vote for an (R) is the fact (D)'s are worse? I think not.

I agree with you that honor needs to be restored in political debate. Especially when it comes to the office of the President of the USA and that of First Lady. I simply add that is a two way street and our elected politicians need to restore some honor towards the people that put them where they are. As example, I refer you to the comment "JOBS AMERICANS WON'T DO". To me, and others I would be willing to bet, that is pretty disrespectful and indeed dishonorable. This comment and the moron comment are equals in the area of disrespect and dishonor. Wouldn't you agree?

I would remind you that the first thing Bush said upon taking office, is that he was going to be President of ALL the people, not just some.

Agreed, lets see some action that starts with closing our border in tangible ways and the give that goes along with the get can be an orderly, organized worker program that will comply with enforced borders that is guided by terms this nation sets forth. As I said the before, the House got it right and what W wants asto guest worker program can come next. I think those of us that stood by W thru all the WMD/Iraq crap are owed that much. I suppose some may differ on that point but my respect and support do not come for free. I am not unwilling to comprimise, nor are many that are critical of W on this particular issue, but we are owed some action in this department. As a nation we are owed this and I would offer that W could use that VETO pen on any legislation that does not put REAL enforcement FIRST to demonstrate to ALL people that he understands what the people of this nation want.

If I were to treat my steak the way some of us want to treat our President, I would have to throw out the steak, due to that nasty parsley that comes with it. I can deal with the parsley to get the steak, and that is what I am asking FReepers to do.

Well said, now I ask you if what I just had to say in my last paragraph fits into this statement, switching "freepers" with "elected officials". It's a two way street thing.

Another example of a real enemy is an elected official that says one thing to get elected and does another after being elected. This applies to them regardless of what party they hold as part of their politics. As you said, W campaigned on much of what he talks about now. I would offer, however, that 9 11 has GOT to move some priorities around and on the issue of border security, I would offer not moving them around and putting in place real change on our border security first is risking not only the legacy of a very positive president, but our security that he has fought so hard to make progress to protect.

When politicians finally understand that they will be held accountable for what they do, meaning that the good they do does not absolve them of the bad they do, we will all be better off. I agree with the message in your rant and only seek to frame it a bit differently. I seek this to be a two way street between the voters and the people they elect.

Cleaning up the political debate can best be accomplished by cleaning up the politics that is being debated and holding those accountable that seek to fence sit and waffle. We made headway on that in the 2004 election asto John Kerry and the democratic party. To say that only exists on the (D) side of the equation is to miss addressing half of the problem. I hope you find this in the spirit of your post because that is how it is being sent. I look forward to responses to it.