Posted on 06/05/2002 1:20:54 PM PDT by 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.
Then provide ONE indication. You can't. Despite the fact that an honest investigation of the Clinton era crimes would require the interview of dozens if not HUNDREDS of individuals, many of whom are unfriendly and would lawyer up at the first sign of investigation (and whose lawyers would use the leftwing, mainstream media and friends in Congress to try and stop an investigation), some of whom are friendly and by now surely would have provided some indication that something is up, you can't provide ONE indication. You can't provide ONE indication despite the fact that thousands of document and computers would have to be examined ... many requiring subpoenas to get access to. And again, those in possession of those items would try to stop it with every trick in the book, especially by going to the media and congress. But that hasn't happened. You can't even provide ONE example from the past where the existance of an investigation of this size, this political, and this newsworthy was not leaked and reported LONG before indictments came down. You are just using the same delay delay delay tactic you used when Clinton was STILL in office.
How about the editor of Slate, Jacob Weisberg? He was introduced by Howlin as a credible source and RedBloodedAmerican chimed in to suggest he is "accurate"? You do know who Weisberg is, don't you? Do you also know that Howlin has cited the Washington Post on occasion? I've asked her on MULTIPLE occasions to cite the sources she views as credible and she has refused to respond. Curious that the only sources she actually does cite are leftwing rags. Curious that she maintains that a far-left democRAT is correct when she says the bogus report put out during the Clinton administration on the Ron Brown crash is reason to believe he wasn't murdered. Curious that she chimed in to support VA Advogado's FALSE claim that Ron Brown was autopsied ... a claim he based on the caption of a picture at a bogus web site that even a first grader could tell was not properly reporting the facts .... a claim that both he and she had been shown was untrue by NUMEROUS citations to first hand and credible sources.
You are correct. It does make one wonder.
but you will never have a constitutionally-minded Congress as long as you have a majority of Democrats.
That's true but why do so many of the most vocal Bush supporters on this forum believe that Bush ignoring serious crimes by the democRATS is the way to make that happen? I maintain that it will do just the opposite. DemocRATS (and what really frightens me, Republicans) are learning by example after example that they can commit ANY crime you can name and the GOP won't even bother to investigate.
You know my position on Ron Brown. NOT ONE of the people on this forum who are defending Bush will even DISCUSS the facts in that case. Some of those who are most vocal in claiming to support Bush in this thread have even told untruths about the facts in the case. The reality is, you will not get a Constitutionally minded anything based on a foundation of lies or by behaving like democRATS when the issue of Ron Brown and what happened to him comes up.
Or let's talk about the Riady Non-Refund. Explain to me why either Riady's plea agreement hasn't been revoked (if he lied about not getting the campaign funds returned) or the democRAT in the campaign committees who publically stated that the illegal contributions had been returned aren't right now under indictment? Clearly a very serious crime was committed yet all I see is the Bush administration ignoring it. Do crimes against this country get much more serious than trying to subvert the election process using cash from our enemies?
I, like you, greatly desire a Constitutionally minded Congress but it is just as important to have a Constitutionally minded President (as Clinton proved) and right now Bush appears to be violating his oath of office with regards to a Constitution that says he is to FAITHFULLY ENFORCE the laws ... even where democRATS are concerned. Does anyone on this thread want to suggest no crimes were committed and covered up by the democRATS? Does anyone want to provide ONE indication that ANY of those crimes have or are being investigated by the Bush DOJ? And there will be consequences for such politically expedient behavior. The democRATS will learn that they can steal elections and the GOP won't stop them. Some Republicans may begin to wonder if the way to win is to cheat as the democRATS have done. And that will destroy this Republic as surely as not voting for Bush the next time.
Vince Foster died of a gunshot wound to the head and yet there are no x-rays of his head. The news media fail to report this and instead report the obviously false cover stories supplied to "explain" it.
But supplied by whom? The Clinton administration. If the TRUTH were investigated and the results supplied to the media by the Bush administration, do you think the mainstream media would get away with not reporting something as serious as the murder of Foster or a Secretary of Commerce? Of course not, especially now that Fox News is such a powerhouse. Look what effect Fox News had on Pardongate. The mainstream media was ignoring or glossing over it. Then because of Fox News reporting, they had to actually start reporting it and in some cases even did some half way decent investigations. Too bad that the Bush adminstration appears to have decided to ignore that one too. And the only reason the Riady Non-Refund (a blockbuster disclosure that came out last year) has been ignored by the media is that the GOP has ignored it. In my opinion, they are deliberating covering this up. WHY?
Have anything intelligent to say?
I'm loose! ;-D
You guys really should stop eating your own kind. We do have a serious cultural war going on here in the US, and the 'RATs need to be defeated whenever possible.
GWB is much too moderate for my tastes, but he is still the best kid on the block. The likes of Ross Perot are not ever again likely to cause me to dilute the vote; however, Harry Brown or even Clair Wolfe tend to run closer to my political views. I presume the Libertarians and PB's party don't have even the slightest hope of winning a Presidential election. I just hate to be forced to vote for the party that will do the least amount of damage. It would be wonderful to vote for someone who could face the Nation and say, "I will restore the Constitution as the supreme law of the land and repeal years of anti-Constitutional Congressional creep".
The Republican Party is very weak with respect to the intent of the Constitution, and ever bit as "big government" as are the Democrats. They merely choose different ways to enlarge the government. You applaud the destruction of your rights just because whom you percieve as the "good guys" are in office.
How does anyone "know" anything? They use the knowledge and information which they do have to make a decision. The President has that power and is bound by his oath to exercise that power to preserve the Constitution.
The same oath binds every Congressman and Senator. Each of them has a duty to judge the Constitutionality of legislation for which they vote. How is this not obvious?
If you believe that the President has the power NOT to sign a given piece of legislation, please tell us what criteria he may use.
You may not buy that but I do with every thing I believe in because they press has been looking for any and all issues to stick this President with to make him look bad. The press did a number on the American people by covering up the facts on clinton and they are not about to admit they are wrong. Not to mention, where are you going to find a D.C. jury to convict either clinton? Not going to happen and it would be a waste of limited political capital that this President enjoys right now. You have to pick your fights and this is not one of those!
The less the clintons are in the press the more we should all be happy! The press want ms. clinton as President so why give them any ammunition to use against this President and portray her to be the victim of another witchhunt.
The final argument against it, is that we are in a war on terrorism and President Bush has a lot to deal with without digging into the clintons!
Just watch how fast these Intelligence hearings fall apart when they start going back into the 90's when clinton was in charge. IMHO you will see the DemocRATS start backing away as soon as Sen Shelby and the others start delving into clinton and what he knew and what he didn't do! Their whole outcry IMHO is to tarnish Pres Bush and his Administration before the Nov 2002 elections. It has been the DemocRAT MO for years to bring things out to do just that before an election. I do not believe they have changed.
Take the EPA report, please. All concede there has been and will not be any change in Bush policy on global warming, announced over a year ago. All concede the report states the science is so uncertain we should not ratify Kyoto. We argue over whether the report says growth in greenhouse gas emissions is "mostly due to human activies" or whether surface warming is mostly due to human activities, not exactly the crucial question of our time. And we argue whether Bush "flip-flopped" even though his view of the policy and science has not changed.
In contrast, had Gore won, he would be pushing for ratification of Kyoto today in a Senate controlled by Democrats and containing enough RINO's to make it a close call.
Lets look at the forest.
Why? The enmity between Fulani and the 'Rat Welfare Poverty-Pimp Caucus is no secret.
I'm sure you're already well familiar with it.
Just as you're well aware that there are solid-core differences that would never, ever be resolved between Fulani and Buchanan.
But your efforts to equate the two merely reveal complacency with the status-quo influence of Jesse Jackson.
As a conservative, my second choice for president in the last election (after PJB) was Dr. Alan Keyes. (They're actually remarkably similar on issues, and with PJB in the Reform Party, I opted to vote for Keyes in the Michigan GOP primary).
Anyway, the establishment GOP elite apparently doesn't want Keyes' brand of conservatism either -- other than being in the occasional awkward position of giving him an "attaboy" pat on the head for being a "brilliant orator". In the real world of status-quo politics, keeping Jesse Jackson & friends on center stage is more important.
A president's responsibility is to serve the american nation, bush doesn't know this. He's just like his father, good on foreign policy, but contemptuous of the americans and their interests at home.
the problem with the republicans is that they're a bunch of upper income country clubbers who are insensitive to the needs and interests of the masses and at the same time have a deep contempt for conservatives. If you want your children and grandchildren to be slaves or peasants, then vote republican. I will not forget the millions who've been harmed by the class warfare of the republicans since the bush' became prominent.
Take a look at reality, medical insurance rates have gone up much faster than inflation every year for over 25 years now. They just announced that they're handing out a 20% increase in medical insurance for most insurers now. Already the proportion of americans who can't afford medical insurance is way too high and has been growing for years. Last year the elite in our country reduced medicaire payments to medical service providers by 5.4% across the board. They did this with no debate, not even notifying the americans on the news that they were doing this. Now doctors and other providers are not as eager to provide medical care to the elderly. Some are dropping elderly patients. This is Bush' way of dealing with the problem, it is no good. According to the Republicans themselves if we continue to follow the paths that they have for us we won't be able to afford either medicaire or social security for the elderly in the future.
The republicans and the democrats have both together made policies and laws which are destroying the medical industry's ability to serve the americans. Those tort costs are so high and Bush is a coward before them, reagan would've been a tiger for the americans regarding that issue in this circumstance. Bush is no ronald reagan. But then again reagan was born poor and democrat. Bush was born blueblood rich and republican. When reagan came on the national scene the leading republicans said he was completely unfit and showed public contempt for him. It was republican voters who over-ruled repubican elite and elected reagan. Today that is very unlikely to happen because in primaries the RNC, at Bush' instruction, backs liberal republicans always and discourages conservatives any way they can. The fix is in. Big difference between reagan's type of republican and bush' type of republican.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.