Conservatives Question Dubya's Direction

INSIGHT magazine ^ | May 27, 2002 | Jamie Dettmer

[Reagan Man]

Could the rationale for this action possibly be because the President’s brother is Governor of Florida who is running for re-election, or is it “because I don’t understand politics?”

Jeb Bush is running for re-election.

The President is playing pure politics here. It will help out his brother and his 2004 re-election bid. But by backing these Florida interests, Bush is compromising his position, that the US must develop more domestic energy resources. If I'm not mistaken, the President opened up new areas for drilling in the Gulf of Mexico last year.

The agreement does require Congressional approval though.

My remarks, about not understanding politics, wasn't meant for you. But you knew that, right?

[rwfromkansas]

There are certainly things I am upset with....especially the farm bill recently and CFR of old. But, I still believe he has done a lot of good and continues to do so. There was something fairly recently I was proud of IIRC, though it has slipped my mind. My main concern is the Supreme Court...if he gets a conservative majority in there for the first time in decades that is good enough for me even if he spends like nuts all the rest of his days.

[dsutah]

Excuse me, but I don't recall calling anyone a 'commie
disruptor', or a 'Demonrat', did I? I happen to know
Democrats, that are fine people, and I don't like them to
be put down. But I distinctly remember writing that I
don't appreciate people putting me down because I support
Bush, and don't see anything sinister about him. I have
never called someone who disagreed with me a "DU"
person, or a "Demonrat"; but I will not tolerate names
thrown at me, or insinuations that I'm some kind of
brainless G. Bush groupie. Now is there something
else we need to clear up?

Like I said: I'll get along just fine on here with just
about anyone. Especially if they treat me with respect,
and don't patronize, or lecture me about my political
views. I can understand and respect people who state
why they support someone, even if I can't agree with
them. I understand what you're writing, believe me. I
don't like being put down, and called a 'Bush-bot'
or something along that line, so I'm not going
to do that to you, ok?

[dsutah]

Welll... it sure looks like I rattled someone's chains
tonight! And can you tell me how I put words in your
mouth, and insulted you? Ok, maybe I asked you if you
are going to cry about it. But how is that putting words in
your mouth? You were insulting others, and that is childish.
You can dish it out, but you can't take it, can you? You retreat
into the role of martyr, if someone wants to argue with
you.

Yeah, I joined on April 23, so what? Does that mean I have
any less right than you, to be on here, just because I'm a
so-called 'newbie'? Well so were you, once. Is that the way
to greet someone coming on here?

[dsutah]

Oh come on! Could you get anymore ridiculous? First
someone accuses him of being a globalist, then
someone says he is an anarchist. Make up your mind,
will you? Sheesh!!!

[ContentiousObjector]

Don't look at me, I am not the one letting Michael Moore dictate trade policy, Bush is doing permantent damage to free trade and the American economy.

Far more Americans work in the manufacturing and construction sectors than do in the steel and lumber industries.

Baby Bushies policies are going to destroy the American manufacturing sector and trash the real estate market.

Bush Sr. needs to give his son an ass kicking he will never forget,

[Captainpaintball]

Now is there something else we need to clear up?

Yeah. RELAX! I wasn't calling you ANYTHING; I meant "you" in the broad sense of the word. Freepers in general. I didn't think that I needed to explain that in the post, but apparently I should have.

Now that we cleared that up, The point of post #s 14 and 15 were directed to those people who were attacking other posters who had the nerve to disagree with the president about something, not at everyone who supports Bush. (Re: post#8)

Ugh!

[dsutah]

Ok, I understand. Maybe I did get riled. Just as
long as you understand me, alright? Maybe we can
be perfectly good friends, who agree to disagree, eh?

[Horatio Bunce]

His dad is CFR. To turn his back on family would be near insane for him.

[Captainpaintball]

Maybe we can be perfectly good friends, who agree to disagree, eh?

That sounds good!

[antidisestablishment]

It's a fact though, that reducing taxes takes money out of the government coffers and leaves less for Congress to spend. That's basic economics 101

It’s a fact that Congress never took ECON 101. They spend what they please regardless of the actual income. It’s called deficit spending. Only real cuts in programs result in less government (well beyond the standard Republican cuts in anticipated growth).

were 25,000 Soviet strategic missiles . . . I doubt a rogue nation or terrorist group could get their hands on an ICBM.

You may believe that a rogue nation couldn’t get control of an ICBM, but it is not beyond consideration. We have to be prepared for just such a possibility. I a firm believer in overwhelming capability. While we have been busy mothballing and destroying our strategic nukes, Russia has modernized its strategic force. While the number of missiles is down, the actual number of warheads is less certain because their MIRV capability is much greater. But, the real threat lies East. The strategic threat from China will grow faster than we can get NMDS online. And the likelihood of China actually attacking the US is greater than Russia during the Cold War. Threats need to be countered before they materialize, but you already know that.

With all due respect, you need to brush up on your politics.

With all due respect, you need to brush up on the Constitution. EOs were never intended to replace the legislative branch. What could come back to haunt you, other than denying the executive a power that is stolen and unconstitutional?

Bush has stood up to environmentalists.

Yes, and I am happy he did so. But the monuments were a direct assault on the entire concept of property ownership. Sorry, but I believe that is worth fighting for.

Having principles, doesn't mean you should have a closed mind and compromise plays a big part in politics.

Yes, principles require a closed mind—at times. You have to choose your battles. Some things you can compromise and some you fight to your dying breath. Let’s remember compromise and capitulation are two different animals.

I want both an efficient and smaller government. Cutting waste, fraud and abuse would help to give us a smaller government.

We agree here. I may be a contentious curmudgeon, but I also know that this is a spat between brothers, not a civil war. I am not working against Bush. I truly respect and like him. He has pleasantly surprised me a couple of times and I expect him to do so again. My greatest prayer is that he will be able to reforge the SCOTUS into a constitutional court.

I think the seemingly conflicting poll results are correct. W has shown he can get people to like him even though they don’t agree with him. This is where I think he really resembles Reagan. While he doesn’t have the polish of Hollywood, he has a sincerity combined with real humility that disarms his enemies. He is genuine and he is honest and that is such an improvement, few can help but be heartened.

[weikel]

You made an unfounded ad hominem.

[serinde]

Bush is doing his Constitutional duties, to the best of his ability and so are all his people.

Signing into law acts that are patently unconstitutional -and knowing this before signing them - is NOT doing his "Constitutional duties."

[NittanyLion]

Why do you think so many conservative bills and conservative judicial nominations are stalled?

What conservative bills are stalled?

[NittanyLion]

Conservatives need to stand behind the President or shut up when the Rats take over again. IMHO

So, IYHO, there's no room for principled disagreement over the issues?

[drq]

After 8 years of Clinton, Reno, and the near reality of a Gore win, I am still thankful there is a voice in the Whitehouse that resembles my mind-set.

[Reagan Man]

>>>It’s a fact that Congress never took ECON 101.

That probably applies to the majority of all congresscritters. But lets give credit, where credit is due. There are many representatives who work very hard to reduce government spending, they just don't have the raw numbers and the politcal power to impliment a conservative agenda.

>>>You may believe that a rogue nation couldn’t get control of an ICBM, but it is not beyond consideration.

I didn't say that. I was responding to your remark, ... the strategic threat to the US is greater than any time during the cold war". I don't agree with you and there is no factual evidence, that you can show to support such a contention. Being vigilant is one thing, being paranoid is something entirely different.

>>>And the likelihood of China actually attacking the US is greater than Russia during the Cold War.

Again, thats not true. May be at some future date this might be a reality, but right now, this is a complete faslehood.

>>>EOs were never intended to replace the legislative branch.

Agreed. But the fact is, the ability for any president to enact his political desires, through the existing EO process, is a political reality and that's what I was getting at. President Bush isn't going to rectify the moral mistakes and ethical lapses of former POTUS, Bill Clinton and he'd be seriously mistaken to undertake such a worthless effort.

>>>I may be a contentious curmudgeon...

That's obvious! =^)

[Reagan Man]

The specific parts of the CFR legislation, that are unconstitutional and go against freedom of speech rights, will be removed when the appropriate lawsuits have been heard and ruled on by the USSC. Otherwise, the changes that President Bush wanted included in the original McCain-Feingold bill, were made to his approval. Such as doubling contributions levels, from $1K to $2K and severely limiting union and corporate fundraising for donations.

[serinde]

The specific parts of the CFR legislation, that are unconstitutional and go against freedom of speech rights, will be removed when the appropriate lawsuits have been heard and ruled on by the USSC.

Those unconstitutional parts should never have been in the law in the first place. (And Congress knew they were unconstitutional and did it any way.)

The system is supposed to be one of checks and balances. Congress is supposed to make laws that are constitutional. If by chance they pass a law that isn't consitutional, the President is supposed to veto that law. Only if both parties don't stop it, is the USSC supposed to step in and rule it unconstitutional.

Right now, we have a collusion of all parties involved to pass, accept, approve, and enforce laws that are blatantly unconstitutional. ALL of them took an oath to uphold the Constitution, and ALL of them have knowingly and deliberately broken that oath.

Passing the buck to the USSC is a cop out. If Congress and the President actually did their jobs correctly the first time, this country would be much better off.