Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

The author is right. Bush is no conservative as demonstrated by his recent support of the $100 billion plus socialist farm subsidy bill and his embracing of the Clinton-Gore propaganda pseudo-science on global warming. However, I do think his policies might improve if he dumped his liberal advisors like Karl Rove and Colin Powell. Thankfully, I sense that Bush's conservative supporters are beginning to wake up to the reality of Bush's unending appeasement of liberal Democraps and his refusal to veto ANY of their unconstitutional and big government legislation.

Among those longtime Bush supporters who have been increasingly critical of Bush increasing leftward tack--Rush Limbaugh, David Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and the list is increasing. According to Sean Hannity, Bush apologists use his success in the war on terrorism and his 2% of GNP tax cut passed last year to justify Bush's every surrender to the left. Yesterday, Sean Hannity called for Bush to begin to take a principled conservative stand against the liberals in at least SOME policy areas. It is becoming increasingly clear that George W. Bush is not only no Reagan, he is not his father either. Former President George H. W. Bush Sr. was never idealized by conservatives as Reagan was, but at least he was willing to take principled conservative stands on some issues, while George W. Bush clearly is not.

Bush's abandonment of his conservative principles and breaking of his campaign promise to fight the McCain-Feingold Democrat Incumbent Protection Act and ally was really the last straw for many of his previous supporters on the right like me. Bush cannot continue to ignore and yes alienate his conservative base by his support of liberal policies and hope to get re-elected in 2004. He will have to return to a more reasonable center-right approach to governance.
1 posted on 06/05/2002 8:47:44 AM PDT by rightwing2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-23 next last
To: sonofliberty2, HalfIrish, NMC EXP, OKCSubmariner, Travis McGee, t-shirt, DoughtyOne, SLB, sawdrin
BUMP!
2 posted on 06/05/2002 8:48:53 AM PDT by rightwing2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rightwing2
Didn't take but about 5 minutes for this excellent analysis to be followed up with polling data. Great post. Thanks.
4 posted on 06/05/2002 8:55:02 AM PDT by Registered
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rightwing2
WELL WELL is it time for the daily BUSH WACKING? And its not even time for Rush's radio program yet.
6 posted on 06/05/2002 8:58:20 AM PDT by areafiftyone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rightwing2
Bush lost me or I lost him - don't know which. Definitely no conservative and I now doubt his christianity entertaining such as Arafat and Saudi Arabia and other terrorists or terrorist countries. One term president - in any case, would not vote for him again. If we have to have a democrat operating under a republican banner, I will just vote democrat and be done with it. I can't abide fence straddlers - those who do have the courage of their supposed convictions.
7 posted on 06/05/2002 9:07:12 AM PDT by Clifdo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rightwing2
During his first few months, Bush seemed to set a commendable course as a moderate conservative.

Me oh my, what could have happened, what could have happened? Round May 24, 2001 ... oh, the GOP lost majority control of the Senate.

Yeah, but Bush could have fought, could have waged partisan War on Rat slime like Daschele and been divisive and deadly and ... oh, something in September, the 11th I belieeve, got in the way. I know it was big, give me a minute ...

Bah!!!

18 posted on 06/05/2002 9:27:10 AM PDT by ArneFufkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rightwing2
The realistic choices were Bush or Gore!
26 posted on 06/05/2002 9:41:15 AM PDT by verity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rightwing2
Do you know how long it took to build up to the D-Day Invasion? Why didn't we go blasting in when we entered the war, why did we wait several years until 1944? How many lives were lost in the delay, how much more destruction took place, all because we were waffling and appeasing Hitler?

Clearly Eisenhower was no general.

29 posted on 06/05/2002 9:48:21 AM PDT by Diddle E. Squat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rightwing2
My goodness. So many exaggerations, and even some blatant inaccuracies...and so little time for those of us that actually work for a living. Overall it is just plain stupid.
39 posted on 06/05/2002 10:01:02 AM PDT by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rightwing2
He lost me over his policy (or non-policy) on illegal immigration.

As far as I'm concerned unless he aggressively addresses the illegal immigration problem to my satisfaction before '04 he's lost my vote.

61 posted on 06/05/2002 10:27:04 AM PDT by Bikers4Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rightwing2
Don't blame me I voted for the Conservative candidate.
============

 

alt
A Conservative Agenda
for a New Century

by Patrick J. Buchanan
Conservative Political Action Committee
Arlington, Virginia January 21, 2000

alt

The elites have two candidates; Middle America has none. We mean to change that. Let me outline for you a Freedom Agenda, a Populist Agenda, a Conservative Agenda, a Reform Agenda that, if I am nominated, we will offer you and the American people ...

 

My friends, it is good to be here at the 27th gathering of CPAC, the Conservative Political Action Committee. Among today’s speakers, I may be the only one who spoke at the first gathering CPAC, back in the Watergate days of 1973.

Let me recall briefly the history of our movement. It took life in Chicago in 1960, when Barry Goldwater stood up at that Republican convention and roared: “Let’s grow up, conservatives, we can take this party back.” Four years later, we did take our party back, and we nominated Mr. Conservative himself for President of the United States.

But after the assassination of John F. Kennedy and the liberal lie that the American Right “created the climate” in which Lee Harvey Oswald, a Communist, murdered the president, Sen. Goldwater went down to crushing defeat—as did we. But we did not quit. Sixteen years later, we took back our country, and elected Ronald Reagan President of the United States. It is now forty years since I heard Barry Goldwater speak those words in Chicago, twenty years since Ronald Reagan captured the White House. Let us look back at what we have accomplished, and what we have failed to do—as we conservatives set our compass for a new century.

In the field of electoral politics we have triumphed. In 1964 we captured the Republican Party. In 1972, Richard Nixon routed FDR’s New Deal Coalition, capturing 49 states, creating a “New Majority Party.” Woodstock values were repudiated; then came Watergate. They said we were finished. But in 1980 we came back again, and the golden age of modern conservatism began.

Ronald Reagan restored the American spirit; he cut tax rates and unleashed the mighty engines of private enterprise that roar on to this day. He restored the might and morale of our armed forces. Greatest of all his achievements, he led America to victory in the Cold War. Try as they might, our liberal historians cannot deny the greatness of the real Man of the Century: Ronald Wilson Reagan. But that was yesterday, my friends. Now it is time that this generation of conservatives grew up and recognized that the Cold War is over, that the Day of Reagan is past. We can’t go home again.

Since Ronald Reagan returned to California a dozen years ago, his movement has been wandering in the desert. With no Evil Empire, no Cold War to unite us, we have subdivided into quarrelsome factions. In twelve years, our victories have been few. Even those have left us with ashes in our mouths. Our hopes of a second Revolution in 1994 sank in the mire of the old politics of compromise and capitulation. It is a time for truth. Since Reagan went home, Big Government has regained all its lost ground. President Bush turned his back on conservatism, raised taxes, imposed racial quotas on small business and declared that America’s mission in the world was to create “a New World Order.” The cheers from the UN and liberal media were thunderous.

As a result, the Republican party twice went down to defeat at the hands of Mr. Clinton, winning 38% and 41% of the vote, the most lopsided Republican defeats since the 1930s. But worse than defeat was the conservatives’ loss of faith and confidence. You know the truth as well as I: On issue after issue, Beltway Republicans have become the fellow travelers and secret collaborators of William Jefferson Clinton.

Today, on foreign policy, trade policy, immigration policy, Big Government and Beltway power, the two major parties have become inseparable twins. In handing out permanent NATO war guarantees for all of Eastern Europe, Bill Clinton trampled all over the wisdom of Washington and Jefferson—with the backing of the Republican Party. In appeasing China with permanent MFN, Bill Clinton today has the backing of the Republican Party. In his unconstitutional war on Serbia, Mr. Clinton had the backing of the foreign policy elite of the Republican Party. Bush and McCain were unhappy we didn’t send in 200,000 American troops. That is not conservatism; that is globalism -- and we reject it in the name of Washington, Jefferson, John Quincy Adams, Ronald Reagan, and all the other great patriot-presidents who put America First—ahead of anybody’s New World Order.

Clinton hails NAFTA, GATT, the WTO, and globalization; and like trained seals, Republicans clap in unison. Mr. Clinton favors open borders, a million new immigrants a year, and handing over high-tech jobs to low-wage workers from foreign lands. Bush and McCain cheer him on and the Congressional Republicans applaud.

Clinton calls for a vast increase in lending authority for the IMF and more foreign aid. A Republican Congress gives him everything he demands. Clinton asks for billions more for the Department of Education; a Republican Congress gives him more than he asks.

The Republican Party calls itself the party of limited government and low taxes. But after four years of George Bush and five years of a Republican Congress, can anyone name a single regulation that has been repealed, a single agency that has been abolished, a single tax that has been cut? Even that miserable little National Endowment for the Arts gamely soldiers on. What we are witnessing in national politics is the triumph of an old globalist named Carroll Quigley.

Years ago when Bill Clinton and I passed through Georgetown, there was a renowned teacher who wrote a book called Tragedy and Hope. In it Dr. Quigley wrote: The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and politics...of the Right and...the Left, is a foolish idea...the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can ‘throw the rascals out’ without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy...” “It should be possible,” wrote Quigley, “to replace one party with the other party which will pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies.”

Quigley’s dream is America’s nightmare. Our two Beltway parties have become two wings of the same bird of prey, two arms of one national establishment that means to rule in perpetuity. Our two-party system is a fraud, a sham, a delusion. On foreign policy, trade, immigration, Big Government, we have one-party government, one party press; and conservatives are being played for suckers.

My friends, I left a Republican Party I served 35 years, because I believe my country deserves a real choice, not a choice between a second Bush Administration and a second Clinton Administration. We ought to have a broader range of candidates than either the son of a U.S. Senator from St. Alban’s and Harvard, or the son of a President from Andover and Yale. The elites have two candidates; Middle America has none. We mean to change that. Let me outline for you a Freedom Agenda, a Populist Agenda, a Conservative Agenda, a Reform Agenda that, if I am nominated, we will offer you and the American people.

First, we will not just prattle about the principle of federalism; we will make constitutionalism our compass. As control of welfare was returned to the states, we will return to parents, teachers and local school districts the decisions about the primary and secondary education of their children. We need a President who not only speaks up for parental choice, but who will shut down the U.S. Department of Education. George Bush won’t; I will. Goals 2000, School-to-Work, busing, the expulsion of God and the Ten Commandments from our schools, the indoctrination of children in the tenets of evolution and secular humanism, none of these were demanded by parents. All were imposed by federal bureaucrats, judges or the NEA, the dismal triangle that has made a hellish mess of American education. All three need to be expelled from the classrooms of America like the disruptive delinquents they are.

Half our federal Cabinet departments were created to service special interests: Education, Housing, and Transportation should be abolished and the money sent back in block grants to the states and taxpayers. If we believe in states right and states’ responsibilities, let us begin acting on that belief.

Second, if we are to survive as one nation and one people, and not break down into an ethnic war of all against all, all discrimination must be ended by the federal government. No man or woman should be held back because of race, color, or creed; and no man or woman should be given preferential treatment because of race, color or creed. Al Gore favors racial preferences; Mr. Bush refuses to fight them; the Reform Party and I will end them once and for all.

Unlike the timid and tongue-tied Mr. Bush and Mr. McCain, we are not afraid to speak up loudly for the God-given right to life of the unborn. Roe v Wade was an abomination; and if I name the next two Justices to the Supreme Court, it can be overturned. If elected, on January 22, 2001, the anniversary of Roe v Wade, I will issue an executive order overturning every executive order Bill Clinton made to make abortion on demand the policy of the United States Government.

Fourth, we will repeal the Bush and Clinton tax hikes, and tear the U.S. tax code up by its roots, cut tax rates across the board, and shift the burden off small businesses and American families onto global corporations, foreign companies, and Chinese Communists, who will no longer have overnight privileges in the Lincoln Bedroom.

Fifth, the looting of the American nation by global socialists of the IMF and World Bank will end. The time for foreign aid has come—and gone. It is a crime against justice that U.S. tax dollars are used to bail out the failed investments of Wall Street bankers, and pay the bills of corrupt regimes that vote against America’s interests again and again and again in the United Nations.

That brings me to our sixth commitment. Kofi Annan has said that only the United Nations can authorize the legitimate use of force in the world, that national sovereignty must give way to the UN’s right to intervene anywhere in defense of human rights. Under the new UN War Crimes Tribunal, American pilots can now be seized and prosecuted without America’s permission. Let me give you my word: When I raise my hand to take the oath, all surrenders of American sovereignty to any and all institutions of the New World Order come to an end. And if just one U.S. soldier, sailor or airman is seized by any UN police, we will send the Marines to get him back, and boot the United Nations so far out of the United States the next General Assembly will meet in Katmandu. American sovereignty is not negotiable, not now, not ever.

Seventh, the balance of power in the U.S. Government will be shifted away from bureaucrats and judges, back to the elected representatives of the American people. It is time to stop the kowtowing to the Supreme Court; and to confront the Justices with the authority of the Constitution itself, and the power of the people.

We shall begin real reform of our U.S. political system. The only people who will contribute to election campaigns will be citizens who vote in those campaigns, not corporations, and not unions. All contributions will be voluntary. All “soft money” will be outlawed. Congressional pensions shall be abolished. All members of Congress and federal judges will be subject to term limits, and the Supreme Court will be marched back into the narrow stalls intended for it by the Founding Fathers.

Eighth, as we are a republic, not an empire, all entangling alliances dating to a Cold War that has been over ten years will be reviewed. It is time the rich and prosperous nations of Asia and Europe started to carry, themselves, the full cost of their own defense, and stopped the freeloading off Uncle Sam.

Ninth, we will establish a new America First trade policy that cuts out the cancerous Clinton trade deficits and gives goods Made in the USA the same access to foreign markets that we give foreign goods in our markets. And if the WTO objects to the new America First trade policy, then, it is “adios muchachos” to the WTO. And unlike the Republican bellhops of the Business Roundtable, we will not take orders from the Fortune 500.

Lately, Thomas Donahue of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce warned members of Congress that if they vote against permanent MFN for China, they do so, “at their peril.” Well, I have an e-mail for Mr. Donahue: Go back and tell the boys at the Business Roundtable: Republicans may carry your golf bags; we don’t. If you bring up permanent MFN for China in this session of Congress, we will knock it down.

Finally, my friends, we cannot walk away from the cultural war for the soul of America, because it is about who we are, what we believe, what we stand for as a people. The outcome of that culture war will determine what kind of people we are, and what kind of society we shall become. And the ultimate question is this:

Is this God’s country? Are we commanded to conform our laws and our society to His will? Or has God’s law been expelled forever from the market place of American ideas and ideals? Once, we were God’s country. If we have the courage of that generation of young conservatives who heard Barry Goldwater and devoted their lives to the causes he and Ronald Reagan pursued, we can and shall prevail.

That’s where we are going. Come follow us.


62 posted on 06/05/2002 10:28:28 AM PDT by ex-snook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rightwing2
"President Bush has undertaken a major effort to remake the GOP in "his" image, alienating many of his conservative supporters in the process."

Nonsense. Bush has 90% support of Republicans and 75% support of the nation at large. Someone would have to either be clueless or deliberately lying to claim that 90% base or 75% national support was equal to "many" being alienated.

Also, the author neglects to mention that Bush killed the Kyoto Treaty on Global Warming. Does anyone here honestly think that killing that treaty is something favored by Earth-In-The-Balance leftists?!

71 posted on 06/05/2002 10:45:43 AM PDT by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rightwing2
Bush is no conservative

No, he's not, and neither was GHWB. Both are somewhat to the right of middle-of-the-road moderate. We have known this all along.

80 posted on 06/05/2002 10:56:07 AM PDT by RightWhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rightwing2
Let's not forget his support for the most pork-laden Farm bill to ever come out of Congress!

That was unconscionable.

81 posted on 06/05/2002 10:57:18 AM PDT by Redbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rightwing2
David T. Pyne, Esq. is a national security expert who works as an International Programs Manager in the Department

I guess we are suppose to believe he's better at politics then what he does for a living?

124 posted on 06/05/2002 12:03:29 PM PDT by JohnGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rightwing2
Bravo and bump to the author!
178 posted on 06/05/2002 1:50:06 PM PDT by Scholastic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rightwing2
Bump I loved the guy during his 1st year but this recent leftward tilt disgust me.
193 posted on 06/05/2002 3:12:29 PM PDT by weikel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rightwing2
My first post was in regard to the article itself, not your so-called "fact-based" analysis, but I'll be happy to take care of both:

President Bush also succeeded in preventing a communist return to power in Nicaragua and has passed limited, but vital protective tariffs to help protect America's dying steel industry under heavy assault from America's steel-dumping trade partners.

This author calls the steel tariffs a conservative accomplishment? This should tell you something about his crediblity. Government subsidation of an industry is not a conservative policy. I was and am strongly opposed to this move by the President, and said so at the time he took the action. (as you can see, my response calling into question this articles accuracy is about its actual facts, not about it being overall critical of the President).

Bush also signed the radical Ted Kennedy education bill, which federalizes education and provides tens of billions more a year for the liberal-dominated Department of Education to indoctrinate America's children in their socially liberal value-free philosophy.

I'd disagree with just calling this Ted Kennedy's education bill, but we'll take it for sake of argument. Apparently, the bill requires schools to actually educate students or have their funds yanked. I don't see any evidence of Secretary Paige being left-wing social activist...I would agree that if such power were in the hands of an administration like Clinton's (which hopefully we will never have again), then their would certainly be cause for concern. On this, I'll partially concede a point, but an exaggeration it is.

Bush's record on social issues has been decidedly mixed with his support of federal funding for grisly stem-cell research, his failure to reverse pro-abortion executive orders signed by Bill Clinton in 1993, and his appointment of pro-abortion activist and White House Counsel, Al Gonzalez, to lead his Supreme Court nominee search team.

That stem-cell research is a blatant attempt to mislead the reader. He does not support funding for research that will destroy embryos. Moreover, in making his decision, for perhaps the first time in history, a President had all major networks carrying the pro-life message live in prime time for the American people to see and hear. It was remarkable. Moreover, his move prevented a push by Congress to override him in fully funding embryo-destroying stem-cell research. He has overturned at least one pro-abortion Clinton Executive Order (I'm sure there are others), and the refusal by this author to mention that appears to be another attempt to mislead. The characterization of Al Gonzalez as a "pro-abortion activist" is also rather ridiculous.

President Bush has undertaken a major effort to remake the GOP in "his" image, alienating many of his conservative supporters in the process. He has engineered a successful liberal takeover of the California Republican Party by a man who has branded all pro-lifers as extremists. Bush has supported moderate to very liberal candidates against their more conservative opponents in California, North Carolina, Tennessee and elsewhere throughout the country, appointed a pro-choice governor to head the Republican National Committee and helped install a liberal abortion supporter as RNC treasurer. In addition, Bush has attempted to push his proposal through Congress to grant amnesty to two million illegal immigrants in the US in a bid to buy the Latino vote in America and appease Mexican President Vincente Fox.

Racicot does support restrictions on abortion and is certainly not "pro-abortion." I don't think anyone can agree that while Gilmore was much stronger on this issue that he was a superior head of the RNC. The head of the RNC's job is to lead the party to campaign victories, not be an ideologue. Moreover, the treasurer's job is to raise cash, which apparently that guy is very good at...just so long as he's not allowed to write the party platform.

On immigration, that is indeed a problem. I think the solution should be to block anymore from getting in. It's quite difficult to just round up 2 million that are already here. Moreover, a lot of farmers can't find any labor other than them that are actually willing to do that kind of work. Amnesty is not the solution, and the President claims to not be for it...though a "guest worker" program is close. On this, the author has a partial point, but to say it is merely to "appease" Latinos and Fox (for whom I don't know why we need to appease), is an exaggeration, yet again.

Most troublesome of all to Republicans, Bush broke a campaign promise in signing the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill.

A mere technicality, but for the record, I believe this was the Shays-Meehan bill that originated in the House (correct me if that is not correct).

This Democrat congressional majority insurance bill will have the effect of legislating a permanent Democrat party stranglehold on the majority of both houses of Congress, reversing the hard-won and historic gains by the Republican congressional majority during the past decade. Initial implementation of this bill in the 2004 election cycle will likely result in the defeat of scores of Bush's loyal Republican supporters in Congress.

A gamble, to be sure. I strongly disagreed with this, and I believe Bush underestimates his ability to connect with the people. All he had to do was to make a speech to the American people explaining the rational for vetoing it. (It was nice that he signed it without any fanfair to poke a finger in McCain's eye). However, back to the reality that it was indeed signed, this author ignores the portions added to the bill for expedited court hearings which could lead to portions being struck down (the 30/60 day rules could be prime targets). Moreover, the increase in hard money limits gives Republicans, not Democrats (who are much more dependent on soft money) the advantage now. The bill is blatantly unconstitutional, but that was not the premise the author is arguing from.

On foreign policy, Bush supported PLO terrorist Yasser Arafat in power

Yes. Just look at all those times he's been invited into the White House and has met with Bush elsewhere so far. Even more than Clinton. < / sarcasm >

and repeatedly urged Sharon to halt Israel's counter-terrorist operations until Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon finally succeeded in persuading him to change course and find enough moral clarity to support the Israeli war against the Palestinian terrorists.

LOL!

However, Bush still supports a Palestinian state, something that not even Bill Clinton would support.

Such incredible stupidity. What about Ariel Sharon saying the exact same thing? This author is either deliberately trying to mislead the readers here, or is so clueless as to the facts surrounding this situation that he has no business writing on this subject.

In addition, the Bush Administration actually tried to enlist Iran, listed by the State Department as the greatest state sponsor of terror including Al Queda, as a strategic partner to fight terrorism back in September.

Iran borders Afghanistan, and they sent out the olive branch first (at least their President did, but he doesn't have much power). Of course, it became clear later they weren't going to be any help, and it is rather clear we aren't trying to cozy up to them by calling them part of an "Axis of Evil", so trying to make something of out of this is literally trying to make something out of nothing.

In pursuing relations with Communist China, the president has opted to pursue a Clintonian policy of accommodation, if not outright appeasement. Last year, Bush signed an executive order to permit the sale of significantly more advanced supercomputers than those allowed to be sold by the Clinton Administration. He has also championed the awarding of permanent most favored nation trade status and WTO membership for Communist China, whose record on killing hundreds of thousands of its political and religious dissidents, forcing tens of millions of Chinese women to have abortions every year, threatening nuclear incineration of American cities and continued unrestricted sales of advanced nuclear warhead and ballistic missile technology to America's enemies leaves much to be desired. The Bush policy of appeasing the Butchers of Beijing has had the effect of rewarding them for their 'bad behavior' while encouraging future offenses and escalated threats against our Free Chinese allies on Taiwan.

Let's make sure they don't continue to increase capitalist characteristics so they will always be communist with no chance of a change--ever. That'll show 'em.

Bush has also forged a new, overly trusting relationship with the Russian Federation led by former KGB spymaster, Vladimir Putin. Bush has pledged to destroy and dismantle 75% of the US strategic nuclear deterrent that has kept the nuclear peace for nearly sixty years, signed an agreement admitting Russia as a full partner with veto power in NATO, and offered to jointly develop US missile defenses with Russia. It is not at all clear that Russia can be trusted to keep its treaty obligations, let alone serve as a reliable US ally. President Bush also supports the implementation of a Clinton-era plan to disarm the US Army of its tanks, tracked vehicles and much of its artillery that will likely result in the unnecessary deaths of thousands of American soldiers if they are called upon again to fight a major war.

Ah, yes. Those OPEC nations are certainly more trustworthy to deal with. And President Bush certainly cowered to Russia when they told us not to back out of the ABM treaty, didn't he? LOL.

216 posted on 06/05/2002 8:58:43 PM PDT by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rightwing2
The author is right. Bush is no conservative as demonstrated by his recent support of the $100 billion plus socialist farm subsidy bill

Oops. Gross inconsistency here on your part. "The author is right" on calling steel tariffs conservative, yet you oppose farm subsidies and call them liberal, when they are along the same lines. It appears that not only are the arguments of this author that you hold in such high esteem incorrect, but you do not even know what your own arguments are, you just want to bash Bush for the sake of bashing Bush. See through you, we do.

217 posted on 06/05/2002 9:07:00 PM PDT by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rightwing2
I proudly voted for Bush, got down on my knees in prayer the night before in hope he would win. Are we a better country since he won, and with him at the helm? Absolutely. Am I elated with how he has handled many of the complex situations he has faced? Not really. Bush has tried to do what he said he would, be a "uniter, not a divider", and some good cases have been made that he's actually taken the liberal side on at least half of the issues he's dealt with. Yes, his poll numbers are high, but that means little to me, remember slick had pretty high numbers himself at times.

So although I am happy to have him as President, and as of right now I would likely vote for him again as President, he has definitely disapointed me in many of his positions. I also wonder that anyone unwilling to admit many of his positions are liberal, and claim 100% satisfaction with his performance, likely have some liberal leanings themselves, at least in certain circumstances. I think the argument is being generated by those that refuse to admit ANY of his positions are questionable when reviewed in a true conservative context.

218 posted on 06/05/2002 9:26:26 PM PDT by Golden Eagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rightwing2
bump
276 posted on 06/14/2002 12:45:41 PM PDT by Tauzero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-23 next last

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson