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.

[rdb3]

I don't alter my opinions to fit any preconceptions of whomever might be reading them.

Good! Want a lollipop or something?

Your stated positions leave me with the impression that your [sic] complacent with status-quo politics.

Whatever "perception" you have is your problem, not mine. And I won't make it mine, either.

Other than a feeble denial, you've offered nothing in the way of an alternative perspective to refute it.

Beam me up, Scottie! I have no idea what this intellectual midget is even talking about!

Same old politics of destruction, nothing constructive.

Bill Clinton, is that you? Since when you become a FReeper? You sly dog, you.

[Satadru]

The only thing thats laughable are your endless attempts at intelligence. First you throw up a total distortion about President Bushes possible SC nominees. Then after I point out, your misstatements and distortions and make the required corrections, you then find fault with the truth once again. All your constant whining and carping, has nothing to do with logic and rationale. Your rhetoric is always punctuated with the thoughts of an arrogant social misfit and your understanding of American politics is woefully inadequate for discussion/debate purposes. You're a one dimensional player.

This is hilarious!!! It is so substantive of your character. I didn't expect anything better from someone who feeds on what is being fed by the Bush White House. You had nothing better to say when I pointed out your puny knowledge regarding what centered around the Souter nomination. When you develop some basic courtesies, call up Joe Biden's office. He loves to talk about the Souter nomination, and he will tell you everything you don't know. As far as my qualifications are concerned, we will discuss it when you get to my level. Until then, go play with your red and green balls with President Bush. And, who are you calling woefully inqdequate? I see that you mastered your wife's complaints against you. Lol! Go sit in the corner and dream about Bush.

[Satadru]

I agree. As I said, it is my fault that I didn't fully analyze Bush's record in TX. I always had my misgivings about what compassionate conservatism is about, but now I know. If he uses the same line in 2004, I would laugh my heart out and then go and vote for a third party. I cant wait until Bush loses in 2004.

[Satadru]

We never signed any treaty to get into the World Court. The Senate has never ratified such a treaty. We only talked about it, thats all.

[Willie Green]

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!

I gave up on trying to keep track of newbies long ago.
I just treat 'em all alike and post my replies in whatever fashion suits my mood of the moment.
Eventually I may come to recognize some of them as "old timers" that I can begin to understand in more depth, but that has become more difficult to do with the increase in forum participants.

[ruoflaw]

Ping!

[Willie Green]

Whatever "perception" you have is your problem, not mine. And I won't make it mine, either.

All that's necessary is taking a stance that has some kind of substance to it.

But that's OK, it's become obvious that you're not up to the challenge.

[sixmil]

I hope I am not repeating anything here since I do not have time to read 1000+ posts (someone touched a nerve!). It seems to me that the current administration has about even odds of winning a narrow congressional majority in both houses this election since mid-term reversal will somewhat balance out a popular war-time president. However, if the Dem'o'wits or a 3rd party come in and guarantee our security (something the current admin is not willing to do) things could very definetely swing against Bush and Co. They might also play on the secrecy and information hiding that many perceive to be a bit excessive.

[GingisK]

Re: your #1066

You win the highly coveted "Battle of Hastings Award".

;-D

[afuturegovernor]

I say nothing of the sort. In addition, what else about Clinton do you need to know? He was scum of the earth. Congress has had years of hearings on Clinton's wrong doings. Why on earth would Bush want to re-investigate. That would only make him look like a bully. At some point you have to give it up. Remember when Al Gore wouldn't stop mentioning that he won the popular vote. At some point you have to give it up.

What was all that police state nonsense your were talking about?

You never answered my question, if you were king of the GOP who would be its candidate for president? (Being you didn't like its last choice.)

[Satadru]

I suppose you are terribly confused about the right. Not committing into the World Court is not a sign of conservatism. Now, getting out of the UN would have been one, but that is out of the question given present leadership. You seem to be saying that if a Republican does not follow the liberal Democrat line, he is automatically a conservative. The same goes for the military. Just because President Bush wants to increase military spending, that does not mean it is a conservative move. Many Democrats are in favor of that. If he actually withdrew our military from places that do not concern us, like Bosnia, then it probably would have been a move to the right. However, you may have to eat your words if somehow the Senate ratifies the treaty to join the World Court, and Bush continues on his streak of notvetoinganything. From now on, it is a single word.

I will continue to believe that the tax break did not amount to anything. I am an economics grad student at the Univ of Chicago, and every professor I have spoken to laughs about this tax cut. It is so back-loaded and incremental that it will not create the infusion of capital that we need to get back to the level we were. Plus, for high income individuals, the tax base increases to offset the rate reduction, and most will wind up paying the same amount. Bush was never serious about the tax cut. That is why he signed an aweful bill written by Bill Thomas, who should be tarred and feathered.

About the amnesty stuff, I think it is pretty self-evident that we are trying to legalize something that is presently against the law in order to pander to the Mexican population, who will probably wind up voting Democratic anyways. Even if they vote Republican, it will amount to what Clinton-Gore-Reno has been doing for 8 years. If you are illegal now, you should be deported, because it is illegal for you to be here. It is as simple as that. Especially since 911, we need to rethink our priorities for admitting people from backdoor against the security concerns of the nation. Mexicans know it very well, when they seal off their border with Guatemala. I was watching Vicente Fox's interview on TV, and he was so adamant about these criminals that it was sickening. How many times have you heard Bush say during the campaign, "When I put my arms on the Constitution,...." Well, it is about time to fulfill that pledge. People who are here illegally are criminals. He should enforce his Constitutional duties by deporting them. Even on a pragmatic ground, most Mexicans here are net welfare receipients. The more of them we have, the more it is a drain on our economy. However, I am willing to reach a compromise to give them amnesty, but bar them from welfare and free schooling for their kids. If they can make it by themselves, go ahead. If not, go home. But, there is no point in talking about it. Seems like Sen Byrd has quashed this issue in the Senate. For the first time in my life, I have to give thanks to him.

[afuturegovernor]

I cant wait until Bush loses in 2004.

Doesn't that post say it all.

You hate George Bush, you always have hated George Bush's guts. You don't like him and you WANT him to fail. You do everything you can to tarnish him on this website. You were never part of his base of supporters.

I always pull for our president (or at least 'my president'). I don't always argee with him, but I always pull for him. I always hope he does the right thing. And in 2004, I'll proudly cast my vote for him and against Hillary Clinton or John F. Kerry.

[Satadru]

You hate George Bush, you always have hated George Bush's guts.

Oh come on, for me to hate something it has to exist, right?

I always pull for our president (or at least 'my president').

You mean you voted for Clinton, and you are bad-mouthing me? I suppose you would also vote for FDR, LBJ, JFK, et. al. I will cast my votes against all the denizens you mentioned in your post, and will be voting third party.

[afuturegovernor]

There you go again, wanting Bush to fail. Claiming your verison of conservativism is the only true one. And setting the unrealistic goals of what Bush must do to be conservative.

What other candidate for president would have gotten the US out of the United Nations? None. Yet that is one of the standards of conservativism.

I don't think you are practicing conservatism, but rather, exetreme reactionary politics.

[Stand Watch Listen]

someone touched a nerve!

lol...that's putting it mildly. I get flamed for even posting this commentary. The self-proclaimed bitch of FR, Deb, calls me a jerk for even posting this.

I posted it in the light of debate, discussion and clarification of some stated facts, figures and Administration actions.

The author has some valid observations, and many replies are articulate in their response and opinions.

FR was a learning experience. Now it seems it's a 'my way or the highway' mentality. Heaven forbid if any questions the emperor's new clothes. The FR mission statement sets forth that we need to rid ourselves of government corruption from both sides of the aisle. To restore the constitutionality within our Govenrnment.

I'm all for the quashing of the Democrats and their radical left agendas. Then the two party system can be Republica conservatives versus the moderate/left-of-center Republicans. But do we ignore the 'pork' the abuses of the present day Congress?

IMHO, the 2002 Congressional campaigns are going to be very tight. The President needs to expends some political capital in the coming Fall elections. For instance, I do not perceive any great backing of his judicail nominations. Dealing with a hostile House AND Senate, President Reagan set forth his positions, his convictions to the American populace and accomplished many of campaign objectives. President Bush, with his Inaugural Address, his State-of-the Union speeches, his heartfelt and strong speeches regarding the September 11 atrocity has shown his capability. Now he needs to expand on it.

Triagulation worked for Clinton, but is it necessary for President Bush? It seems to weaken the perception of his convictions. Many will state that he has taken the issues from the Democrats, but do we really want to?

The Democrats are still searching for an issue to hinder President Bush. To cripple his Adminstration. As you have mentioned "They might also play on the secrecy and information hiding... but that issue has not stuck.

After all the Democrats are not seeking the truth...they are seeking the advantage.

[afuturegovernor]

You mean you voted for Clinton

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Do you even care to read my post? I never even mention Clinton at all. Were did I mention him?

I DARE you to FIND IT!!!!!

[afuturegovernor]

I suppose you would also vote for FDR, LBJ, JFK, et. al.

No, what on earth are you talking about? I never say anything of the sort. Your extreme barbarian style reactionary politics strikes again.

You seem to be the type that like to circle the wagons and fire inward.

[Satadru]

I am not expecting Bush to do any of that. Where did you see me say it? I know Bush wouldn't do that even when I voted for him, to fend off a worse evil. I am not asking Bush to be conservative. I am just asking him to fulfill his campaign promises, like not voting for CFR, or busting the federal budget, or not subsidizing stem-cell research. He was against all these things when he came to beg for votes. He will be back in 04, except now I know better.I am not convinced he is any better than any other Democrat when it comes to keeping his words. He may not be worse than a Democrat, but the statistical difference between them is insignificant.

[Luis Gonzalez]

And all this in eighteen months, in the aftermath of an unprecedented attack on the US mainland, and with a evenly split Senate.

Get back to me when your opinion is no longer molded by University professors, and you've had a few years away from the hot beds of socialism that currently pass themselves off as institutes of higher learning.

[afuturegovernor]

You hate George Bush, you always have hated George Bush's guts.

Oh come on, for me to hate something it has to exist

I noticed that you did not deny my remark. Very telling.