BUSH BLUNDERS ARE HARD TO KEEP UP WITH

NewsWithViews.com ^ | May 1, 2003 | Pastor Chuck Baldwin

[Republican_Strategist]

BUSH BLUNDERS ARE HARD TO KEEP UP WITH

 

 

By Pastor Chuck Baldwin

May 12, 2003

NewsWithViews.com

The foibles and follies of this administration are too numerous to count. With the exception of Monica Lewinsky, they rival anything in the previous administration. Of course, most neocons refuse to notice. Therefore, this column will also be ignored.

However, for those who are interested in the truth, here are some of the latest examples of Bush's blunders:

*Bush threw his support behind a liberal Republican who supports increased taxes, abortion and additional gun control to be a Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate. That man is Illinois Governor Jim Edgar. Thankfully, Edgar decided to not seek the nomination, but that didn't stop Bush from doing his best to send another liberal to Washington, D.C. Next, watch for Bush to do the same thing in California.

*Bush continues his support for the Clinton-Gore gun ban enacted back in 1994. Despite objections from gun groups, including the National Rifle Association, the President is determined to re-institute the so-called "assault weapons" ban that is scheduled to sunset next year. So much for Bush being "pro-gun."

*As Commander-In-Chief, President Bush has the authority to establish guidelines and policies for our nation's military. When Bill Clinton became President, he implemented the infamous "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy allowing homosexuals to serve in the U.S. armed forces. Bush has continued that policy. Clinton also introduced women to front-line combat roles. And true to form, Bush continues this reprehensible Clinton policy. In fact, one would be extremely hard-pressed to find any Clinton policy that Bush has reversed! I can't think of a single one.

*NAFTA and GATT came into existence early in the Clinton administration. Bush continues those polices and even wants to expand them. He has proposed expanding this agreement throughout the Americas and is now calling for a Mideast Free Trade agreement. Say good-bye to more American jobs; say hello to more foreign goods and to more foreign workers.

*Bush is determined to oversee the creation of a Palestinian state. After sending American soldiers to fight and die in an undeclared war against Iraq, Bush wants to create another such country by giving the P.L.O. radicals their own nation. Clinton wanted to do the same thing, of course, but was shouted down by conservatives. Today, those same conservatives sit mute and dumb as Bush sets about to finish what Clinton started.

*Speaking of finishing what Clinton started, Bush successfully created the Department of Homeland Security and the totalitarian-laced USA Patriot Act. There is an even more egregious version currently worming its way into law. All this was the brainchild of Bill Clinton, of course. However, he could not accomplish his pernicious plans because conservatives and Republicans would not support them. Now they do.

*Bush is likely to invoke Executive Privilege in order to continue the cover-up about what he and other top government leaders knew prior to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Some thirty days prior to the attacks, Bush reportedly received a CIA Intelligence Report which warned, "The attack will be spectacular and designed to inflict mass casualties against U.S. facilities or interests. Attack preparations have been made. Attack will occur with little or no warning." More details are leaking out almost daily.

A Democratic Presidential contender, Senator Bob Graham of Florida, says Bush knows much more than he is telling and is demanding that the administration come clean about what really took place. Before that happens, however, Bush will claim Executive Privilege and the truth will be covered up once again.

[arasina]

Who gives a rat's behind about assault weapons anyway? I'm a lifelong Republican and have never needed one or come in contact with one. All this Pastor's rantings say to me is that Bush was honest when he said he's a uniter, not a divider. He has brought many into the fold who were once Rats and he'll probably lose some like you in the meantime. ("Republican Strategist"????)

Go ahead and throw your vote away by voting for Al Sharpton. Then live under his presidency and complain about your loss of freedom and money. Bush compromises on some things that may p*ss some small slightly fanatic splinter groups off but the majority of good conservatives back him on the important stuff, like fighting the current UNholding (rather than upholding) the Constitution as far as judicial nominees.

[ArneFufkin]

All National GOP offices just went into a Magenta Alert.

[justshe]

So who do you support in 2004 who is electable?

[justshe]

Should have pinged you to my #483 as I have adopted your post.

[Howlin]

All is lost!

[ArneFufkin]

Bush is a republican. He is not a conservative. I can no longer support him.

So what impact will this devestating news to the President's reelection prospects have at the markets opening bell tomorrow?

[Howlin]

Okay......back to THIS thread........

Post my lies or be branded yet again as a fraud.

[deport]

Yes they like to sling insults and arrows at the President but the can't offer an alternative candidate that is electable and has an organization in place and ready to roll. I don't think President Bush will be beat in the Republican Primary so I guess the only other viable Party will be the Democrat. Now I've only seen nine that met at the 'collision in Columbia' the other night to debate for the that party's nomination. I wonder which one of the nine it is that they think is so wonderful and conservative?

[Miss Marple]

There is no one, deport. I think the point of these posts is to shave off a few points from President Bush's support, by appealing to the gullible.

We are going to see a lot of this in the months ahead. I haven't decided if it is better to ignore them or refute them. Ignoring is attractive, as it makes the threads shorter. On the other hand, refutin allows us to place our points of view in front of the casual lurker.

As I said, I am still unsure of the best strategy.

[DB]

The point is that Reagan made a number of large mistakes.

No one is perfect. They never will be.

Nevertheless Reagan was a conservative, a good President and good for the country.

[asneditor]

Yup! I hear ya. This is the first time I will be voting for anyone other than a Republican for President.

[arete]

So what impact will this devestating news to the President's reelection prospects have at the markets opening bell tomorrow?

Well as much as Wall Street likes GW, they sure aren't in love with him like they were with Clinton/Rubin, so I think that they'll string him along with a rally until they get a better offer from the Dems.

Richard W.

[georgiabelle]

I didn't read this whole thread. I got a tad nauseous after about 200 threads. What I saw was just a bunch of fanatics, on both sides.

To some Bush can do nothing right. To the other he can do no wrong. And you call each other fanatics.

I've seen all the things listed that Bush has done and I've seen the things that he hasn't done. I'm not a Bush-basher or a Bush-bot. He is my son's commander. He has done a fine job with the war and I'm certainly glad that Gore or Clinton is not in there. There is so much about Bush that I like and then so much that I don't like.

Someone said that we could point out the White House to our children without being ashame. Wait a few years and we will be able to point out the White Casa to our children.

To me all the good things that Bush has done is completely wiped out with his refusal to even address the illegal problem. Except to try and sneak in an amnesty bill. Even Jim Robinson doesn't think this is an issue. We do not even have an immigration category on FR. So if just one of you can give me a reason to trust Bush on this then I will gladly except it. And no, I will not except we need the Hispanic vote. That is just about as tired as "the illegals are doing the jobs we don't want to do".

Do I have someone to vote for in 2004? Proably whoever runs against Bush in the primary. I'm sure that Bush will win so I would say that for the first time in my life I will sit out an election. I will not vote Democrap but I can not bring myself to let the Republican Party think that no matter what it does I will vote for them. If we give them that power over us(and that's what you all are doing, including Robinson) then we have lost already. My vote will not matter. My son will have fought for a third world country. Look around people, it's not America anymore.

[CyberCowboy777]

I agree

That don't mean Reagan did not screwed us all by keeping the DOE. He had the best chance.

The point is that one mistake can hurt for a long time.

Bush may be making like mistakes and I intend to scream about them.

That don't make me a Demonrat or a Traitor.

[ArneFufkin]

The clumsy little ploy goes as follows: You find a policy which is assured to be successfully put into law. You loudly and self-righteously set a bogus line of brinksmanship short of which you cannot in principle further support the man or party and which is guaranteed to be unmet by the policy/law/proposal. You courageously, in a flourish of integrity and honor, walk away from the party/politician who did not satisfy your demand. You are now above all politics and party because of your righteous valor ... and you spend the next 17 months sitting on your ass and sniping and sneering and lecturing and posturing at those who continue to work for their futures. It's the Reptile Rhumba, and those guys really really blow.

[Miss Marple]

So, you will sit out an election and possibly give the presidency to someone like Hillary or Kerry for Commander in Chief?

Your son will be so proud.

[Stultis]

I should have listened to Jospeh Farah's (World Net Daily CEO/founder) warning about voting for Bush.

Yeah, and about that Y2K disaster (isn't a relief that the power grid has been reestablish and the rioting has finally died down!) and about the collapse of evolutionary theory, and, and... (I know there are one or two other good examples of quixotic WND nuttiness, but they esacape me at the moment.)

I'd vote for Alan Keyes or maybe swing to the Constitution Party.

Yeah, if you had, and a few percent of other conservatives had been as "sensible" as you, we would now have President Gore in office, with not only all the immediate horrors that would imply, but the gift that keeps on giving, 20 to 30 years of the leftist, law-mangling judges he would appoint.

[arete]

I can not bring myself to let the Republican Party think that no matter what it does I will vote for them.

Yeah, both parties play the hate card. No matter how bad your candidate is, you end up voting for him because the party has taught you to hate the other guy. That's what the two party system is all about -- keeping the same old party losers in power and screwing the citizens at every turn. I'm voting libertarian. Screw the crinimals and liars.

Richard W.

[husky ed]

I STILL want this thread nuked. It's stupid, and getting stupider.

Yet you continue to post to it.

Who died and made you queen of the board?

[deport]

I think the point of these posts is to shave off a few points from President Bush's support, by appealing to the gullible.

---

Well that is politics and how the game is played. I really don't begrude them that. But you'll see most of the sniping coming from the fringe or 3rd party types on this forum. Think back to 2000 and who was the major snipers.

The President's appeal will come back to the center line and the election will be much closer than the popularity polls show at this time, imo. The country is split and not many Presidents have won with over 60% of the popular vote... Most are in the 50s and some such as Kennedy, Clinton and current President Bush won with numbers below 50%

Most of the time if these threads were ignored by the Bush supporters they would die off fairly soon. I post on some and not on others. It just depends how I feel at the time I guess.