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.
As I have said on several occasions now, we don't need a new president as much as this president needs better advice. He needs to see and hear that ignoring crimes as serious as election tampering, conspiracy to blackmail Republicans and Congress, selling US secrets and access to restricted technology for campaign cash, covering up the murder of a Secretary of Commerce is simply not acceptable ... even in time of war. He needs to be told that ignoring such serious crimes sows the seeds for the destruction of this Republic. Instead, by reading a thread like this, and other threads where this issue has been raised, he might get the impression that Freepers think he can do anything he wants as long as he and the GOP win. That's the same attitude that motivated a lot of democRATS in the last several elections to violate so many laws.
Why is it a problem to complain to our party about something that is clearly wrong for them to do? Unlike so many issues raised in this thread, are there any grounds for dispute? As I said, does ANYONE think no laws were violated by the democRATS? Does ANYONE think honest investigations of those activities took place under Clinton? Does ANYONE think it good if politicians and political parties are above the law? Does anyone believe more damaging information wouldn't be learned about democRAT activities if these matters were investigated?
Now some claim that investigating would be bad for Republicans but is allowing them not to the sort of precedent we want to set? What about future administrations ... some democRAT? Will it be ok if they decide not to EVEN investigate crimes too? And besides, I'm willing to debate point by point whether investigating these crimes (and where possible prosecuting them) is bad OR GOOD for the prospects of the GOP. Anytime ... anyplace. But few who are so ardently defending Bush seem to want to do that.
Only because she is not a part of it.
But your efforts to equate the two merely reveal complacency with the status-quo influence of Jesse Jackson.
You bald-face liar! First, I made no effort to "equate" them at all. I said her ENDORSEMENT of Buchanan, and his acceptance of it, caused my eyebrow to raise. Second, "influence of Jesse Jackson?" What have you been smoking? Only twisted logic could even begin to say that this was some sort of "equating" or I have a complacency with ANYTHING regarding Jesse Jackson.
Keep it real, and don't twist my words. I won't stand for it.
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.
Wow! You are all over the map. I was talking about Buchanan and Fulani, NOT Alan Keyes and/or Jesse Jackson.
One more thing you should know: I'm not a Pub. Never make assumptions.
I have pointed out before that there is a clear distinction between what the President is obligated to do with respect to bills which are submitted for his signature and laws which are already on the books. UnConstitutional bills should be vetoed.
Lack of enforcement of an unConstitutional law is not sufficient action for a President. Many unjust laws which are mostly unenforced become dangerous because they can be used to persecute people selectively.
The President can best uphold his oath in the case of an unConstitutional law by prosecuting fairly and quickly and with the utmost attention to minimizing the impact on any defendant. The government has always claimed immunity from most types of lawsuits. The President can waive that immunity in cases in which he wishes to have a judicial decision quickly and with a minimum of impact on unjustly affected citizens.
Most unConstitutional gun laws have stayed on the books because they have been plea-bargained away in cases in which other wrong-doing was involved. The President need only decide that the charges will be prosecuted and the case can reach a judicial decision. Bail can be waived, if appropriate, and stipulations can be made which speed the judicial process.
The unConstitutionality of a law on the books does not mean that the President has to resign or accept the law. There are ways to set the system right. It is not the case that the President must be blind to the fact that unConstitutional laws do get passed.
Well, when I posted to you that somebody had called me a "neocon", I included "Go Pat Go!!!" to emphasize the absurdity of the label.
And as usual, "Go Pat Go!!!" attracts the same-old worn-out mindless slurs about Leonora Fulani.
I haven't had the usual "Nazi", "racist" or "anti-semite" smears yet, but I've come to expect those as well.
(Perhaps somebody has already posted them and my eyes just skipped right over. That garbage is so routine that I often don't even notice anymore.)
I'm not sure who directed similar slurs at you earlier on the thread, but welcome to the club!!!
...or just didn't happen to agree with you with some fervor?
For the same reason that the Senate of the United States brought shame on the entire nation by holding a sham trial and leaving Clinton in office.
There are cowards among us who will abuse their power to maintain it and who are assisted by a willing liberal media. A "free" press which is uninterested in the x-rays of Vince Foster, a high-ranking public figure who supposedly took his own life within hours of leaving his White House office, is prepared to make life miserable for Bush if Bush's agenda appears to be "partisan".
That is an unpleasant fact.
The most serious problem with our nation is not that Clinton would take a bribe, but that there should be any reason for someone to pay him one. It is the out-of-control activities of a government which has exceeded its authority by a factor of hundreds if not thousands that provides nourishment to such criminality.
If you wish to get rid of cockroaches, you seal up the source of their food. It is a waste of time to kill the cockroaches.
Whatever... I don't alter my opinions to fit any preconceptions of whomever might be reading them. Your stated positions leave me with the impression that your complacent with status-quo politics. Other than a feeble denial, you've offered nothing in the way of an alternative perspective to refute it.
Same old politics of destruction, nothing constructive.
See my post 1041 to Jim Robinson.
Pres Bush is working with a very slim majority in the House and the Senate is controlled by the DemocRATS. The DemocRATS would like nothing better along with their lapdog press corps to have this Administration dig into the clintons publically. They would tar and feather him and AG Ashcroft.
That's your opinion. That, of course, isn't what happened in Pardongate, is it? And who do you really think the media wouldtar and feather if they exhumed Brown's body, did an autopsy and discovered traces of a bullet? How are they going to tar and feather Bush and Ashcroft over the disclosure that democRATS knowingly violated campaign finance laws and didn't return the illegal funds from Riady but used them in their campaigns? How will provable democRAT LIES in that case, allow the media to tar and feather the GOP? The fact is that many in the media are culpable in covering up these crimes. Fox News showing that they did so in Pardongate is one reason they backpeddled so quickly in that case. Want to bet we couldn't show they knowingly hid the facts in the death of Brown from the public? Their billion dollar licenses could even be revoked for such deriliction of duty to the public. You don't think that gives us leverage to make sure they walk the straight and narrow?
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.
Because it is easy to spin the things they've been spinning. It is much more difficult to spin a mass murder and blatent election tampering. By running in fear from the media you hand the democRATS the biggest advantage they have. They used it to almost steal the last presidential election. Don't you even want to try and level the playing field and what better way then to show the public that they've been deceived for many years by the mainstream press?
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.
No they'll spin the non-coverage but don't think they'd now get away with not covering the facts. What happened in pardongate with Fox News proves I am right.
Not to mention, where are you going to find a D.C. jury to convict either clinton?
First, this isn't going to only be settled in DC courts. Second, why the focus on Clinton? Again, DOZENS of other democRAT criminals will be investigated, tried and convicted before Clinton is ever indicted for anything. Frankly I'm more concerned about those people because they are still in government, the media and democRAT party doing harm.
Not going to happen and it would be a waste of limited political capital that this President enjoys right now.
Only your opinion. And what happened in Whitewater and Pardongate proves you are wrong about how juries and the media would react. By ignoring the crimes you are throwing away the biggest chance you have to sweep Congress and future presidential elections. By ignoring the crimes you are making the GOP a party to those crimes and that bodes ill for not only the GOP but the whole country.
The less the clintons are in the press the more we should all be happy!
This isn't just about the Clintons and if you honestly want Clinton out of the media eye, don't make him an ambassador to this country as recently Bush did.
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.
Or perhaps Filegate, and the many convictions of her underlings that would result from an investigation, would be the nail in the coffin for her chances at the Whitehouse.
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!
What about the 8 months before the war? And how many resources does it take to INVESTIGATE? And if we aren't fighting to protect our system of government, our system of laws and the election process, what are we fighting for? You could very easily destroy every terrorist and they'd still accomplish their real goal by democRATS AND the GOP destroying these institutions and processes for them.
The rest of the effect was probably the realization that Clinton's personal power to interfere with such reports had seriously declined.
Even I was surprised by the traction that this story received.
The reason that it will be difficult to see more such stories is that the Demoncrats are on the ropes and will expend much of their capital to prevent a drubbing in November.
Fox news has grown enough that they are probably concerned that they cannot keep up the pace without encouraging even more "fair and balanced" reporting which includes ridiculous liberal viewpoints.
Just this morning I spoke with a co-worker whose husband gets angry each morning as he reads the local newspaper. I begged her to get him to stop providing over $500 dollars per year in value (subscription plus advertising revenue) to an organization dedicated to destroying everything which right-thinking Americans value.
I will report on how she does with him later. I encourage everyone to drop their local liberal rag now. Only this will create the free press which is necessary for full accountability.
As for Bush, I have pointed out that MORE people voter for Gore than for Bush. It would be a mistake to over-estimate what can be done quickly with such a thin margin of support.
That very well could be.
I remember you saying something about them somewhere.
And this thread is getting too long to go back and check.
There have been a few of these "bushbot" vs. "Rushbot" meltdown threads the past couple days.
They've been pretty bizarre from my perspective,
Other than the obvious disruptors, it's pretty dang difficult to tell who's who!
My concerns are of a Constitutional nature. I don't see that any of your posts directed to me could have gone over my head. Which one do you imagine this to be?
One of the things that needs to be done is overhaul the laws and possibly get an amendment that clearly defines what can and connot be labeled a felony. Sometimes it seems that our government (mostly the Dems) are trying to make everything a crime and then have all those crimes turned into a felony offence.
A Society that throws children out of school for play cops n' robbers, or cowboys and 'native americans', and prosecuted them for making "finger" guns while playing, has got no clue when it comes to reasonable jurisprudence.
That's one of the reasons it drives me nuts when perfectionists threaten to bolt the party at the smallest sign that a Republicn president that half the country thinks is illegitimate in the first place makes a compromise with a democrate who will otherwise prevent anything from getting done.
Daschle or Hillary ever read the post on this thread, they would walk away smiling and giving each other "high-fives."
I have very strong Libertarian views on a lot of things, but not nearly enough to join that half-baked party. And certainly not if it means flushing my vote down the toilet so a Dem can get elected. I'd rather stay in the Republican party and influence it from within than than scream uselessly at them from the sidelines of irrellevance.
I just think we may have a few more disruptors than we used to have! But that started with the Florida fiasco when so many newbies signed up. During the primaries we were at each other from the various camps but that seems like a walk in the park to what I have witnessed recently. We had some good flame wars back then but this has been downright nasty recently and from posters that I don't recognize at times!
This is a point well taken! Many who "get on my case" here at FR don't realize that I'm sabre rattling when I say I'm going to bolt "the party". I do admit that I am a perfectionist ... so that's where my bitching originates. Politics is not a good place for me, simply because I come out of the corner swinging and shooting. I'm in a hurry to fix this Republic ... and it is very sick.
Your lies and accusations are a bore.
You are a disgrace to FR and in my opinion, nothing more than a liberal disruptor that should be banned, we have seen your type on here before. If you are not a liberal disruptor, then you have gone off the deep end and should quit while you are behind.
Pings to other than you are to bring your continuing harassing comments to myself and others on FR to their attention.
Also have to remember that thanks to clinton/gore, there was not a real transition. Then clinton's GSA guy wouldn't release funds even after the SCOTUS Ruling for the transition until after the Electoral College had voted. Everything possible was done to torpedo a smooth start of this Administration by the clintonites! Always was in the back of my mind if they didn't do this all on purpose to make sure that the Bush Administration had no time for anything clinton!
Point well taken! Many who "get on my case" and assume I'm a "Bush Basher" don't realize that I'm a die-hard sabre-rattler. I am a perfectionist and I'm in a hurry to fix this Republic; and it is one sick Republic. Politics is no place for me since I come out with guns blazing. There are some serious faults that need correcting. Why can't we voice concerns without the 'bots going balistic?
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.