The United states is full of people who get it backwards. They think that if they elect the right people the job is done. That is not even close to how the system works.
Dubya, like all successful politicians, does just that. It is the Goldwater, Mondales, and Dukakises of the world who think they can lead the people where the politicians want to go.
Bush Sr. didn't think the economy needed leader ship in 1992. It didn't. But the public thought it did. They elected Bill Clinton on the "its the economy stupid!" platform.
Dubya will do what the public wants. That will not please you. So you hope you can Dubya can be convinced to do what you want. That won't work on any successful politician. When you have convinced the public to your point of view, the job is done. The government will do exactly what you want. If the pubic is never convinced, then what you want to have happen will never happen.
I'm waiting for him to start.
Public wants armed pilots, Bush doesn't.
Public doesn't want open borders with Mexico. Apparently Bush does.
Public doesn't want Operation SPIT. Apparently Bush does.
You get the picture.
Nice theory, let's put it to the test by looking at just one small situation: Arming pilots.
The public, and the pilots overwhelmingly support arming pilots. If your theory is correct, then please explain why Bush opposes arming pilots.
C.T., that is probably sound advice for winning elections. It is probably also sound advice for losing the Repubic...
How so? The people want LESS INTRUSION, is Bush giving them that? They want the borders protected, is Bush giving them that? They want the Constitution upheld, is Bush giving them that? What about Immigration? What about the UN and internat'l community? Bush is giving us very, very little.
So then it is NOT about leaving the R party -- the party where most of the Constitution believing people are concentrated. It's about changing the remaining people in the R party and the remaining people in the country to believe in the principles contained in the Constitution -- isn't it.
More and more people here at FR are being mislead away from this -- reality.
I could not re-visit this thread sooner. It has grown a lot.
Common Tater, your points, as usual, are very well taken.
However, you also said "This is a nation of the people, for the people and by the people. You seem to think it is of the president, by the president and for the president. People not presidents are the answer."
I disagree with you in your use of that statement in that manner. And it is actually quite a wrong inference about what I think considering the short comment I made, which was only this: "Self-Explanatory. There's nothing good about Clinton but the conservative changes we expect are not being pushed forcefully by this administration. We are going to have irreversible losses if we are not careful. Pray for President Bush and try to influence government officials to stick to limited government."
LIMITED GOVERNMENT is the agreement that we live under in this land, NOT democratic tyranny of the masses spurred on by the promise of bread and circuses, which is what your statement implies. (I do not think you think that either, but you must have shot from the hip in the statement.) Neither people nor presidents are the answer. Limited government is the answer, and is (was) the essence of American greatness.
The limits on government are in writing in the constitution and are quite plain, and I heard George Bush swear to uphold them. However, he seems to have no concept whatsoever of either the ninth or the tenth amendments and regularly violates his oath of office by advocating and assisting in the implementation of illegal law.
Presidents are NOT allowed to "go wherever the people want to go," PERIOD. Just because Clinton and others have abused the power of the executive office does not make such a state permanent or proper. In these United States of America the government is strictly limited.
When I stated this FACT: "the conservative changes we expect are not being pushed forcefully by this administration," what I simply meant was that we expected a change to an administration that would NOT usurp the powers of the office for various "activist" causes like other have. We expected a conservative administration during which we would not have to constantly "watchdog" in order to block activist law and bureaucracy constantly foisted upon us, as happened so often under Clinton.
We have not gained much at all toward what we expected, and despite the thus far slight improvement in appointments (blame past mistakes related to letting the Senate get into a position in which the disgusting Sen. Jeffords had any role), every day in the Bush administration more and more unconstitutional programs are being set in cement to harass us and eat out our substance in the future.
I am amazed that the president seems afraid to offending the liberal factions with whom he so often compromises, but does not seem afraid to fail to live up to the very agreements (the Constitution) that he swore to. Since he is an honest and sincere and Christian man I can only think that he must actually accept the idea that the tenth amendment is dead and can be ignored, and that the Constitution is and only is whatever the courts say it is.
And accordingly, you UNFORTUNATELY are exactly right that Bush follows this strategy: "Find out where the people want to go. Then lead them there." It is most unfortunate indeed for those of us who want to be protected from the tyranny of the majority by the limitations on government guaranteed by our constitution.