Will George W Bush really suffer his father's fate?

The Sunday Telegraph ^ | April 20, 2003 | Julian Coman

[Trust but Verify]

1) abortion Can you tell me what efforts he has taken to advance the cause of ending abortion in the U.S.? I'm aware that he has done some "defunding" of programs abroad, but I'm unaware of anything in particular that he has done domestically.

Uh, didn't he just sign the partial birth abortion ban? The one Bill Clinton vetoed? How many Dem presidents do you think would sign that?

[1066AD]

You'd deny Bush your vote because you can't get a machine gun to kill deer and call it sport?
LOL good one !

[Neanderthal]

"Two words...ROSS PEROT. Without him we probably wouldn't have had 8 years of the bent-one"

Two more words: John McCain.

[sheltonmac]

Since when is defending the Constitution on a CONSERVATIVE political forum considered "nuts"?

Some Republicans think that anyone who votes according to how well a candidate supports the Constitution is a "single issue" voter. However, they are just as guilty. Their single issue is winning the election. Nothing else matters. They think that there may be a slight chance that once their candidate gets in office he or she will actually do something for the conservative cause. Unfortunately, that strategy has already given us huge increases in the size and scope of government.

[Revolting cat!]

You are absolutely correct (#56.) I remember, in my workplace at the time, right in the middle of liberal Utopia City, in the IT department, Perot won the election! A few ditsy females voted for Xlinton and Gee Dubya got two votes - one from an insufferable ass of a consultant programmer and the other from the country club Pubbie the department head. All the rest, as far as I know, voted for Funny Ears.

[GrinFranklin]

I read a lot of responses to this thread and didn't see the point that seems obvious to me. The "read my lips...no new taxes" broken promise plagued his campaign. That won't happen this time...and no Perot to siphon off votes. There IS a lot of split loyalties among Democrat/Green/miscellaneous mindless leftist groups that will benefit Bush this time as well.

[gcruse]

But as one newbie pointed out, you don't really know the law. It's not the machine guns these nuts want to use to massacre deer and call it sport! It's the Abrams tanks!

You're right, I don't know the law.  As a result, I can't tell sarcasm from genuine RKBA concerns here.  If none of it is sarcasm, though...some folks have some issues that Bush shouldn't fix.

[only1percent]

Plenty of liberals voted for Perot, let's not forget, and also, we should further reflect on the fact that Clinton in '96 and Gore in '00 did a very good job at winning over the moderate Perot voter, the classic Reagan Democrats, who generally distrusted Republicans as the party of the rich, but despised Democratic officeholders as the party of license and profligacy.

Also, I think it is important for us to consider the left. In 2000, the left viewed Bush with disdain, and focused most of their anger upon what they saw as the manifold betrayals of liberalism by Clinton and Gore. Hence Nader, hence a definite lack of enthusiasm among the Jesse Jackson's of the world, etc.

Now, the left hates Bush more than they've EVER hated anyone. More than his Dad by 10x, more even than Reagan. I think that, short of Lieberman being the nominee, the left will rally behind the Democratic nominee as they have for no other past nominee. There'll be no Nader stripping off 2% or 3%, there'll be no hesitation whatever in any segment of the tradtional and nouveau left. Add back the 2% - 3% Nader and 2% or 3% more from the mobilization of every flavor of shrieking radical and the dollars of every limousine liberal anywhere, and that's a hefty hole that Bush and Cheney have to fill.

[Proud2BAmerican]

Uh, didn't he just sign the partial birth abortion ban?

Uh, no.

[Revolting cat!]

(Do you think I know the law? Or care about what it is? But I know a one issue nutcase when I see one!)

[gcruse]

Your basic qualitative analysis. Can't say as I disagree. :)

[Skooz]

Will George W Bush really suffer his father's fate?

If conservatives have learned nothing since 1992, the answer is "yes."

Many Republican voters stayed home in 1992 because GHW Bush failed their purity test by breaking his "no new taxes" pledge. If conservatives refuse to vote for GW Bush because he fails a similar test (assault weapons ban, amnesty, whatever) then they will only have themselves to blame for President Hillary or President Dickie G.

If Bush loses in 2004 because conservatives don't believe he is "conservative" enough to earn thier precious vote, they better not rear their holier-than-thou heads around here. The mother of all flames will be coming from this direction and I will probably end up being banned.

I have no patience with the purists who would rather usher in the imperial reign of Her Royal Hillaryness than hold their nose and vote for a Republican less "pure" than they.

[cabbieguy]

You and only you have it 100% correct, he promised no new taxes and the democRATS talked him into a tax increase and then turned it around and used it against him at election time. Dubya will not let that happen to him, this will be the biggest blow out since Reagan swamped Dukokis.

[Trust but Verify]

You're right, I assumed it had been sent to him, but it looks like it's still in the House for some reason. He WILL sign it, though.

[Skooz]

Exactly. Some would rather ride their one pet issue through Hillary's Queendom if they can maintain their delusion pretense of constitutional purity.

[RightWhale]

Big difference is that Dubya is one of us, while his dad was some kind of father figure. That might work otherwise in other countries, but in America it helps to be nearer to part of the current and active generations.

[Godebert]

I'm an Irish girl, but as far as I know the 'assault weapons' ban was introduced by Clinton initially. So you would not vote Republican, but support a Democrat because the Democrat introduced it in the first place?????(Now my head is spinning!!)

Where in my post did I say I would support a democrat? If you weren't a woman, those would be fightin' words. ; )

[Proud2BAmerican]

And you're right too. News reports expect that the House will pass it -- I won't exhale until Bush's ink is dry though. And if Bush does sign it, it will be a very significant step taken by him in the domestic effort to stop abortion.

[El Gato]

President Bush gave the first of a series of speeches promoting a tax cut package worth a minimum of $550 billion

What helped kill the economy in after DS was the violation of "read my lips" "no new taxes" pledge. "W" is not making that mistake, although the Dims will huff and puff and strain mightily to get him to do so. Instead he's trying to help get the economy moving by cutting taxes. If it was a Dim in office, they'd be trying to raise spending, even more than they raised taxes.

Democrats have an extraordinarily "weak bench".

Classic British understatement there, Ivan.

[raybbr]

I, for one, am very disillusioned by GW. He is, by today's definition a republican/conservative. However, he is a democrat by the definition of 15 years ago when the the last true conservative president (Reagan) was in office.