A Few Questions For Die-Hard Bush Supporters

Toogood Reports ^ | June 5, 2002 | Lee R. Shelton IV

[Stand Watch Listen]

Let me just say up front that I am not addressing you if you voted for George W. Bush in 2000 and regret it. The same goes for those of you who voted for Bush and insist on holding his feet to the fire on the important issues. If, however, you cast your vote for Bush, still believe he is the only hope for America and intend to support every move he makes without so much as a raised eyebrow, this is for you.

It has been nearly a year-and-a-half since George W. Bush, the savior of conservatism, descended from on high to begin his earthly reign in Washington, D.C. Republicans assured us that he would restore integrity to the White House and would be a marked improvement over the promiscuous Bill Clinton. Well, in all honesty, that could have been accomplished by electing a neutered chimp to the office of president.

During the 2000 presidential campaign, George W. Bush the man proved to be a nice break from Bill Clinton and Al Gore. Unlike Gore, Bush had a more likable...well, he actually had a personality. He also possessed the unique ability to address the American people without the smug and condescending vibe Clinton exuded. However, when it came to policy, George W. Bush the candidate failed to demonstrate that he would govern any differently than his Democrat counterparts.

Still, throughout the campaign, there was a loyal group of Bush supporters who would take offense at even the slightest implication that their candidate was anything but a staunch conservative. Even now, they continue to stand by their man, and I find this to be rather perplexing.

Perhaps those who have pledged their undying allegiance to President Bush could answer a few questions for me, in no particular order of course:

•  How would you have reacted if Bill Clinton had signed the Patriot Act into law and given the government sweeping new surveillance powers?

•  Would you have criticized a Democrat president for signing a $26 billion education-spending bill?

•  Did you feel betrayed when Bush signed Campaign Finance Reform into law?

•  What do you think about Bush's position on granting amnesty to hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants?

•  Would you have tolerated a Democrat proposal for federally funded faith-based initiatives?

•  What would your reaction have been if a Democrat had said, "No one should have to pay more than a third of their income to the federal government"?

•  What do you think about the president's granting of Permanent Most Favored Nation status to China?

•  What's the difference between Bush and the Democrats on the issue of farm subsidies?

•  How would you react if a Democrat president sent a $2.13 trillion budget to Congress?

•  Would you have stood for a Democrat saying "No!" to arming airline pilots?

•  What would your reaction have been if a Democrat had pushed for the federalization of airport security?

•  Are you willing to stand by and let the Bush administration cater to the environmentalists on the global warming issue?

•  What do you think about Bush's call for a Patient's Bill of Rights?

•  What one thing has Bush done that sets him apart from the Democrats?

•  It's been a year-and-a-half since Bush took office. When do we start to see a decrease in the size and scope of government? For that matter, when do we start to see even a remote indication that this administration will think about doing anything to try to limit the federal government?

This list is by no means exhaustive, but I would really be interested in some answers. Perhaps it would help shed some light on the mindset of modern compassionate conservatives.

The fact that a Republican president is governing like a Democrat isn't surprising. What's amazing to me is that there are a few select Bush supporters out there who cannot—or will not—utter one word of criticism against their president for any reason. In their minds this man is the epitome of conservatism, and to question his actions would be to question their own beliefs and cause them to wonder why they supported him in the first place.

The way I see it there can only be two explanations for this: 1) these people really and truly believe in what Bush is doing, or 2) they do not wish to face up to the real reason they voted for him — he was simply a slightly more palatable choice than Al Gore.

[Fred Mertz]

#1001 !!!

What's this thread about anyway?

[rdb3]

During their brief association, neither PJB nor Ms. Fulani compromised the principles where they significantly disagreed. However, both are to be commended for their attempt to bridge the Great Red/Blue Divide while pointing out the hypocrisy of the Republicrat Party that enslaves America.

Puh-leeze! This is not to be passed off as some type of positive. Fulani is a communist, and that disqualifies her, PERIOD. Fulani is to be CONDEMNED for being a communist, not commended in any way.

Marxist thought has already decimated my people. No more! After all, look at what communism has done for the fine folks down in Cuba.

So, go Pat! Straight to hell and take your commie buddies with you.

[4Freedom]

Let's look at it another way. If 245i is reactivated, with no changes to it's present terms and conditions, which illegals, out of the millions and millions of illegal aliens in our country, wouldn't be eligible to apply?

Answer: Almost none.

Which illegals that applied, out of all of the millions and millions of illegal aliens in our country, to remain in the USA, under a reactivated 245i, would be allowed to?

Answer: Almost all.

It's an amnesty.

[Willie Green]

What's this thread about anyway?

Overall, it appears to be a flame-war amongst the "bushbots" over true conservatism.
Discussing PJB's brand of conservatism is not entirely off topic.
In fact, trashing PJB is, at times, the only thing that seems to unify the so-called "bushbots".
Perhaps discussing PJB will reinvigorate W's "compassionate" coalition.

[colorado tanker]

"#1001 !!! What's this thread about anyway?" My sentiments exactly. Looks like it wandered away from the EPA report and steel tarriffs into immigration. That's probably good for another 1000.

[Willie Green]

Fulani is to be CONDEMNED

Which is PRECISELY what places you in cahoots with the 'Rat faction of the Republicrat junta.

[Marine Inspector]

Let me give you guys an example on how 245(i) works:

Our test subject is an Egyptian citizen born in 1968. He comes to the United States and overstays his visa, while here he finds work and a nice US citizen female to marry him.

At the end of Clintons presidency, he passes the Life Act and extended 245(I). Our subject applies. Since the INS can't do a Country background check and does not have information from the FBI, CIA or State Department, our subject is granted an adjustment of status, because the ins does not find any criminal history in the US. No on knows what he has done in Egypt or anywhere else.

Can you guess this guys name?

Mohammed Atta

While this is not really what happened, it very possible could happen and we do not know how many more Mohammed Atta's are in the US.

As 245(i) is written write now, there are several possible terrorist in custody that could apply and be granted there adjustment, if we can't find enough evidence against them. And just because we can not find the evidence, does not mean it is not there.

This is not counting the terrorist we don’t know we are here and are very adept at exploiting our weak immigration laws. This is an invitation for disaster.

If Congress would modify the law, to include a broader more thorough background investigation, remove the labor certificate portion of the law, and restrict it to illegal aliens that were married during the original period, as apposed to letting the get married just to apply, then I would not have that much of a problem with it.

But no matter what they do, 245(I) promotes illegal immigration. This is not the first time we have don this and the illegal aliens know we are stupid enough to do it again, so they will just come and wait.

[Joe Hadenuf]

My sentiments exactly. Looks like it wandered away from the EPA report and steel tarriffs into immigration. That's probably good for another 1000.

I can't imagine why. It's such a stupid little issue.

[GingisK]

YOU EVIDENTLY HAVE NO IDEA HOW MUCH I DON'T CARE ABOUT YOU OR YOUR EMOTIONAL FRAGILITY

You are mistaken yet again. You are also the type who will destroy the Republic with pride.

[GingisK]

I don't have faith in "rehabilitation".

We certainly agree on this one. On the other hand, a very busy Congress is making just about everything a felony. Even dissent garners a great deal of animosity from those with whom I assumed I was allied.

[Joe Hadenuf]

Thanks inspector. There are some here that would put every single American and our entire country at risk, just to promote or fit their little agendas.

[Marine Inspector]

You are welcome.

Safety first, politeness second.

[Joe Hadenuf]

Roger that.

[Sabertooth]

What I don't see is the difference between what you said and what I said.

Your unfamiliarity with the terrain of truth and logic is not my problem.

"Changes the mechanism by which they get to apply for change of status" is not equivalent to "provide a mechanism for new Illegals to change status where none currently exists."

Your statement requires an existing mechanism to be changed. Mine does not, as none exists.

Your statement was a misrepresentation.

"New" illegals? It reads that they must already be here. Then, another one of your "misrepresentations": the mechanism is already there, the difference is that without 245(i) they would have to return home to apply, with 245(i) they don't have to.

By "new Illegals" I was attempting to distinguish Illegals that would be eligible for a new 245(i) extension from those who had qualified under it's earlier incarnation. Sorry that wasn't more clear.

As for "the mechanism is already there," that Illegals can sneak back out of the country and stand in line like everyone else is not a mechanism for them to "change status," it's the only way they can get away with having been here Illegally in the first place.

Your position is like saying that an Amnesty for bank robbers is equivalent to a bank robber successfully laundering his loot and evading arrest.

No, I simply stated that a number of illegals would be documented, and then could be found.

To paraphrase your own words from above:

"What you don't see is that on this occasion there actually is no difference between what you said and what I said."

You were attempting at #951 and #979 to represent an extension of the 245(i) Amnesty for Illegals as a means of setting up deportations.

245(i) is an Amnesty, which you've denied, not a springboard to deportation, which you've attempted to affirm.

Unless you can get this thread deleted, you're stuck with that.

I know that this will ruin your visions of jack-booted thugs kicking in shanty-town doors in the middle of the night, and dragging illegals out, but not every daydream becomes reality.

Well, you've invoked the stormtrooper strawman, can the race card be far behind?

Pathetic.

[rdb3]

Which is PRECISELY what places you in cahoots with the 'Rat faction of the Republicrat junta.

Oh? Please elaborate.
I have GOT to hear this...

[GingisK]

...the threat is the Middle East...

How sure are you that Mexicans are the only ones coming across that border? There are a number of postings here on FR that document people of middle eastern origin mixed among those that cross the border. If I were to infiltrate the US, and bring along ordinance of choice, I'd certainly include the Mexican/US border in my planning phase.

The border must be secured. Period.

[colorado tanker]

"It's such a stupid little issue." LOL! Sarcasm noted!

[BeAChooser]

Re: post 326

His oath of Office requires him to "Uphold the Constitution to the best of his ability"

And the Constitution says he is to FAITHFULLY EXECUTE the laws of this country. So why isn't he doing that in the case of all the laws that democRATS broke the last 9 years?

The POTUS is required to uphold the laws on the Books not define them.

So explain why the Riady Non-Refund hasn't even been investigated.

[BeAChooser]

Re: post 384

Do you really think anyone will take what you and your ilk say, seriously? People I know (both Dems and Repubs alike) would laugh their asses of at your comments like so many on FR are doing already!

Really? I'm sure they will also find your suggestion that Jacob Weisberg is an accurate and credible source quite funny too. For those who don't know, Weisberg is a very hard-core democRAT ... in fact, an x-editor of Slate ... who has done numerous hit pieces on Bush and Republicans. He even has a book out on "Bushisms" where he slams Bush's intelligence big time. Yet you've said he's accurate. Hummmmm.

And I'm STILL waiting for you to back up that claim you made that Klayman settled out of court with his mom for $15000 dollars. You do seem to have problems backing up anything you post with references.

And why did you once make the ridiculous statement that the Broaddrick rape allegation, Sid Blumenthals lies under oath during the impeachment trial, and the facts surrounding the death of Ron Brown weren't reported by the mainstream media because the stories weren't "released" to them. Who but a democRAT would suggest such nonsense?

So one wonder, when YOU attack the notion that Bush is violating his oath of office and the Constitution by not investigating the crimes that Clinton and his democRAT supporters committed the last 9 years, if you aren't infact a democRAT defending Clinton.

[Joe Hadenuf]

No, it's not far behind. Pathetic is right.