George Bush's Big Government Adventure

Free Republic and Various ^ | 01-30-02 | aaabest

[AAABEST]

With Conservative Like This, Who Needs Liberals?

Let me start off by addressing those who have been bashing(and I do mean bash) me and other well intentioned and well known Freepers as being anti-Bush, Libertarians, from the reform party or whatever. 

I voted for GWB, and I can ping several freepers to this thread that met me in real life at several Bush rallies (with megaphone in hand). I was a member of the Broward County Young Republicans before moving to the West coast of Florida and I was active in Jeb Bush's campaign for Governor. 

I've been on this forum for almost 4 years and anyone that knows me is aware of my conservative views and knows that I'm not a member of the reform party, I'm not a Libertarian (large "l") or any of the other things I and others like me have been accused of.

If you have been engaging in inflammatory rhetoric, bashing long-time, well known Freepers or acting like children because not all of us are enthralled with "Georges Big Government Adventure",  please try to control yourselves, at least while posting on this thread. 

It's not my purpose (at least at this point) to get GWB un-elected, I like him, he has a beautiful wife, he's a good Commander in Chief and he seems like an honest politician. However,  if he keeps ignoring conservative principles and promoting a larger more intrusive government, I and others can no longer continue to support him....on principle. 

We're working to roll back decades of governmental largesse, to root out political fraud and corruption, and to champion causes which further conservatism in America.

Above is the Free Republic mission statement.  After his first year, would anyone say that GWB has worked towards this end? I think many conservatives suffer from some kind of Stockholm Syndrome as a result of 8 years of President Clinton, because when I ask many of them what GWB has done for conservatism lately, all I get is that he's not Clinton. 

I know he's not a corrupt, law breaking scoundrel, but is that all that's required? Can our republic survive a cycle where Republicans get into office grow government greatly, interspersed with Democrats who grow government even more greatly with little or no reduction? There are actually people on FR that think all of this growth in government spending is some grandiose 8 year plan by Mr. Bush to fool Democrats so that he can cut government later. What an absurd notion.

If any of the initiatives below originated from the Clinton administration, people on FR would have had a cow. Those "Day in the Life of President Bush" threads garner hundreds of fawning responses, while a thread on how our government is growing out of control will die after 10.

I appeal to anyone reading this to consider the below information without bias. The links will open in a separate window for you convenience.  I will be adding to this information as necessary God bless America, God bless this forum and God bless you.

Click on the Picture of the President (thinking of new ways grow government) for the corresponding article.

	Huge education spending bill (i.e. Federal Local School Board Bribery Act) which liberal Democrats love that doesn't mention a word about choice or local control.
	Food stamps for immigrants.
	Largest spending bill in American History. The first to exceed 2 trillion dollars.
	The Airport Security Bill that completely takes control of over 28,000 screening jobs. Now it seems that they don't even have to be high school graduates either. The big difference, they can't be fired.
	100 million for welfare moms.
	Hugely Expanding Clinton's Amercorps boondoggle that all conservatives railed against.
	Kowtowing to law breaking illegal immigrants by proposing amnesty. Speaking of illegal immigrants who sneak across the border; "And we've got to respect that, seems like to me, and treat those people with respect," he added. "I remind people all across our country: Family values do not stop at the border."
.	38 Billion for a new Homeland Security bureaucracy that allots a 20% increase for border control. Guess what. It goes to our problematic Canadian border, with not a dollar spent on the Mexican border. Read it for yourself
	The  Orwellian "Patriot Act" that gives Federal authorities carte blanche to rifle through all of your digital communications and essentially,  rob your house without notice.
	71.5 billion over 10 years for government health care.
	Not releasing appropriate documents on Clinton and FBI corruption.

 

[A.J.Armitage]

What do you have in mind by that distinction?

[AAABEST]

If you do not want to support Bush, who are you going to support?

You're right as usual. I'm not saying there is no chance that I will vote for him. I'm not at this point a broken glass republican anymore. That's gone.

I know you well enough to know that when rubber meets the road you do what's best. I also know that there's a side to you that sees a devolution happening. Our Free Republic stands a good chance of no longer existing some day, maybe soon.

I'm hoping we can do something about it. Am I wrong?

[Lumberjack]

[Waving hand in calm Jedi mind trick manner] George Bush is not a socialist...

[A.J.Armitage]

He had a republican Senate, and didn't even try.

[blackie]

"I'm like to think (in my dreams) we can fix this guy up."

If you're talking about GWB, he doesn't need "fixing up," he's doing great !!

Thanks for posting this thread; it brought out the little cult of the .05%er's, I've missed the grumpy, sniveling, sore heads... :o)

I'm looking forward to seven more years of their whining about GWB not being conservative enough; he sure controls them...heeheehee

[DLfromthedesert]

How about electing Conservative governors who will take a stand against the encroachment of Federal Government??? That's who I will support.

I support the President as Commander in Chief. He is doing a good job with the military, but I cannot support increasing Socialist programs like Medicare and more welfare. These should be done by the states and communities, NOT the Federal Government.

[TLBSHOW]

You can do nothing no one is forcing you. LOL

but a report is coming from the Bush visit today about this subject hopefully you will have a change of heart. Stand with him don't bash him.

[eccl1212]

well it took to post 84 to get to the redirect.. to the opinion category... where this post belongs, which is a new record for tolerance here at the FreeRepublic. AT least we know Jimrob is wide awake and doing well. Hi JimRob.

[alphadog]

I agree with you....but in fact you are pulling your punches.

[Jesse]

Good post. In answer to Jim, I think AAABEST is trying to say what a lot of the critics on the board have been saying...we will not move forward by moving backward. Up to now, Bush has been given much more than the benefit of the doubt but the honeymoon is over. For a lot of people, the lesser of two evils ain't going to cut it anymore. Giving the GOP a pass to move farther and farther left is not the way to advance an agenda of limited constitutional government.

Say what you will about the left, they never, ever give up on their goal of unlimited, unconstitutional government.

The GOP needs to get its act back together again or risk losing some elections. Which wouldn't be a bad thing...government grew far less when GOP did not have control of House and Senate.

[Jhoffa_]

Kowtowing to law breaking illegal immigrants by proposing amnesty. Speaking of illegal immigrants who sneak across the border; "And we've got to respect that, seems like to me, and treat those people with respect," he added. "I remind people all across our country: Family values do not stop at the border."

This is one of my biggest complaints.

I resent being forced to scrupulously adhere to every law, ordinance and regulation ever passed while an entire class of criminals get treated like visiting dignitaries.

It's not fair, it's not consistent and it amounts to little more than pandering. It's also an issue the Democrats and the Republicans are both pointedly ignoring.

PS: There was another thread posted HERE By Race Bannon that should accompany your link.

[eccl1212]

Hey... his candidate DID receive < one percent... are you telepathic too?

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

However, if he keeps ignoring conservative principles and promoting a larger more intrusive government, I and others can no longer continue to support him....on principle.

We are registered Republican,..but are actually Non partisan. (Don't like the label of Independent,..though we do use it, as it is the only "label" that would describe our "decision" making).

I have this to ask you after your statement. Who WOULD you support then? Gore? Lieberman? Another Dem?? Do you honestly think they would be for "less" Govt. spending??

We happen to be willing to watch President Bush's plans in action. We happen to think it may all just work out fine. We don't "agree" with 100percent of his idea's. But there never will be a President who we do that with. That just seems to good to ever be true. And we have both been around for a while. But this man,.. President Bush, is actually getting it right ,.. in our opinion.. better than any President so far in our lives. I even dare say.. better than Reagan. We think time will prove that. (Of course, President Reagan was a great President..and we will always honor him in this house!).

I think you need to look at all sides of an issue before you post such rubbish. The term.. "naysayer" comes to mind.

Our defense must come first.. and if you think that is cheap.. you're truly naive.

BTW,.. I could care less if you were a member of the young republicans.. does that mean you learned anything?? Obviously not. You also dare to speak for a large group of people. If your going to do that.. you might have people who are willing to sign their names in order to validate it.

FRegards!

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

Congrats for this thread lasting so long, though it be against the lemming tide.

Sad fact is, less than forty per cent of voters pay any taxes at all. A rational man would see that there is no return from this condition. Bush's tax plan eliminates hundreds of thousands more of borderline citizens from the tax rolls over a few years. That is not helping the cause of liberty.

The real question is, where to go from here? Argentina, to pick up the pieces? Or a lonely lighthouse in the red sea?

[DLfromthedesert]

What about the Presidential candidate who said, "I trust the people, not the government." That is the candidate I supported. Hmmmm, I wonder where he went????

[AAABEST]

#Free_Republic IRC Chat room friends.

[headsonpikes]

Don't blame me; I voted for Kang! lol

Seriously, the first job for us 'freedomites' must be to convince the PEOPLE that the Constitution is important.

If the people start to move, the politicians will be in hot pursuit!

I doubt that they're capable of leading from principle, the ordinary political task is to lead on ISSUES.

GWB has been good on most issues; especially the MAIN one of defending Americans against further terrorist attacks.

The PEOPLE have to give a d*mn before you can expect anything from a politician, IMHO.

An excellent provocative post!

[eccl1212]

nope not pulled, just moved to vanity post like it is.

[Prov3456]

I'm "holding my fire" until after this year's mid-term elections.

If the voters across the nation vote into office godly people who will follow the constitution, then I will expect President Bush to make those changes many have referred to here (including abortion, smaller government across-the-board, etc). If we have legislators of "like-mind" as the President, then he should and must be able to get something accomplished.

If the voters elect people who mirror the legislators there now, President Bush may try to make the changes we want, but Congress will be there to thwart every attempt.

In short, if we want to return this nation to its original form and intent, WE had better get involved in the election of like-minded candidates, all across the land and at all levels of government!

[First_Salute]

I would not say that Bush is bad at all.

His political background is as a governor. That tends to be a position of deal-making that has a nature he still demonstrates; as a governor, there is a certain amount of assets with which to negotiate politically.

But as a president, the limitation of power is much more substantial at the federal level. For example, as a governor, he could order your arrest on many matters, where as president, he cannot.

He really hasn't much knowledge of the history of the Constitution and has unfortunately settled for cryptic memos of opinion from lawyers. Sheesh; lawyers, in general, are hardly reliable on the Constitution.

There are so many practical applications of principles from history, from the foundations of our Liberty, from experience in applied science, from experience in making things work via resourcefulness which comes from within ... which George W. Bush has missed out on in his life.

Being President is certainly a learning experience; but Bush resists on-the-job training by method of his organizational practices --- they inhibit his having to get his hands on things.

He tries hard to cover many bases in a day, but he does so at considerable expense to such times when he should really get dirt under his fingernails.

Sadly, understanding the experience of the Founding Fathers, and how they engaged failure analysis of all their predecessors' governments and governance, which understanding they acquired from educations nearly superior to the standards of today in most places ... that understanding requires some devotion to study.

If he would take the time.

We do not need a FreeCorps.

Rather, for example, he could have immediately passed the word to all the governors of the United States, to make a request for people who would volunteer to fulfill reserve duties at the local fire department, police department, medical facilities, and some transportation activities, to train on the weekends at the local county fairgrounds ... for preparation in the event of greater public need, to put it mildly.

Bush could have, and he should have, mentioned the idea within days of Sept. 11, 2001.

Instead, he works with his limited knowledge of the toolbox he grew up with; unaware and not giving the time to all the other tools which are available.