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.

[deport]

That's not the point. I don't worry what others think about Bush ... I worry what Bush thinks about the Constitution and the LAW.

LOL..... Boy you spend a hell of a lot of effort, keyboard time, cut and pasting, calling people move-oners, etc for someone that doesn't worry about what others think about Bush...... LOL.. You want to try again?.... LOL

[Luis Gonzalez]

So then, why did you make the analogy? I didn't make it, you did...remember?

Another furball!!!

[monday]

"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. "

No one can "guarantee" security. The whole concept is a non starter.

How could they sell that so that even people without a brain would buy it?

[Reagan Man]

First off, Bush41 and our allies, had no intention of taking out Saddam Hussein, back in 1991. That's a fact. One year after the fact, or eleven years after the fact, hindsight is still 20/20. Don't try and tell us, you have some great clairvoyant ability, or blessed with ESP. That's a stupid political trick used by liberals.

There is no trial balloon that I know of, which says, President Bush wants to replace Dick Cheney. Although Cheney's health is a real issue today, as it was in 2000 and will be in 2004! Alan Keyes isn't popular in the Bush administartion and has zero influence with the President and his key people.

The rest of your rhetoric, is trashtalk and not worthy of a response.

[Satadru]

Ah! Grasshopper! You sit at the edge of understanding, but your eyes are still wide shut... Find that answer, and find enlightment.

I guess you learned something in school, that is why that was your analysis of my point. I am not surprised that you like Bush. You two are on the same level.

[VA Advogado]

Didn't Larry Klayman sue his own mother?

[Satadru]

I guess we should have just thrown the ones already being used in an incinerator.

Absolutely! They should be laid to rest.

[Satadru]

You should do some research on Univ of Chicago economics before you say something about it. The reason I told you not to post something is because you lose your credibility, or whats left of it, when you make comments like that.

[Sabertooth]

So then, why did you make the analogy? I didn't make it, you did...remember?

Nice try.

Luis, you are apparently confused, so I'll give it to you again...

The analogy I made at 1014 was between an Illegal leaving the country and getting in line for a visa, and a bank robber laundering his money. In both cases, they've covered their tracks to avoid apprehension and prosecution. In neither case did they recieve an Amnesty.

I made this rather clear-cut analogy to illustrate the foolishness of your earlier attempt to pretend an Illegal leaving the country and getting in line for a visa is the existing "mechanism" for Amnesty.

LG: 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.
LINK

Clearly, that's false, as is most of what you post on these threads.

[William Tell]

BeAChooser said: "I don't follow your logic. You don't think they considered Pardongate serious? "

I just took a trip down memory lane and reviewed some recent articles about Julie Hyatt Steele.

I see no reason whatever to believe that Steele lied to Issikof regarding an allegation of sexual assault on the part of the President of the United States.

Despite the nonsense that Steele lied to Issikof because Willey asked her to, Steele was able to beat a perjury rap.

I believe that, despite what you say regarding the "slam-dunk" that Pardongate might be, the Demoncrats will pile lie upon lie, liar upon liar, and will be aided by a sympathetic press.

Stalling, perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence... all the different tools available to the evil are still available.

The Watergate scandal would have succeeded if the judge who sentenced the original burglars had given them light sentences. This would have eliminated the need to raise hush money and the whole thing would have stayed under the radar. Even then, it took almost two years for the work of Woodward and Bernstein to ripen into the criminal case it became. If not for the White House taping system, Nixon would not have resigned.

I have come to believe that widespread conspiracies which involve powerful people and which are aided by a near majority of amoral Americans cannot be successfully prosecuted. I believe that if Bush attempted to continue the investigations of Clinton, that more of what happened would continue to happen. The defenders of Clinton voted for Gore. There are more of them than us.

I challenge you to show me even one Clinton crime which is recognized by a majority of Americans.

[William Tell]

VA Advogado asks: "Didn't Larry Klayman sue his own mother?"

Don't you mean to ask, "Didn't Larry Klayman sue on behalf of his grandmother to see that she was properly cared for?"

[RedBloodedAmerican]

You're wrong. The reply I made where I said they didn't release it to the media was reference to what Reagan Man said about what Bush had wanted to move past. They kept it from the media so the media wouldn't trash Bush over it. Ari Fleischer said so in a speech, Cheney said it....where have you been?

Again, more lies, false accusations and slander, and a general poor understanding of what is written. I think that is a large part of the problem.

[RedBloodedAmerican]

keyboard diarreah

That was a nice way to put it. Kudos for restraint.

[ruoflaw]

Perjury!...I believe that most Americans do believe he is guilty of Perjury...that leaves out the Hollywood crowd that have no morals.

[Reagan Man]

Again, more lies, false accusations and slander, and a general poor understanding of what is written. I think that is a large part of the problem.

What else is new.

[monday]

"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?"

I want to thank you for posting this. It has been very enlightening.

I used to think that Bush was triangulating too. Just signing whatever came across his desk as a matter of political expediency.

After reading Bush supporters responses to the questions asked at the end of your post however, it has become pretty clear that the issues the author raises are of little or no concern to them.

To them trust is the issue. They "feel" they can trust Bush, so they are willing to trust the Gov't too so long as Bush is in charge. He has made his agenda their own.

A huge budget? its ok, Bush wouldn't have signed it unless it was necessary. Increased police powers? again, Bush says they are necessary, and they trust him, so no problem.

Those of us with concerns are the ones who misjudged Bush. He has never made a secret that he was not a "conservative" but a "compassionate conservative". If we thought otherwise then we have only ourselves to blame.

I think it was wishful thinking on my part at least. Time to wake up and see our President for who he really is. Much better than Gore, but not the man I had hoped for.

[BeAChooser]

Mover-oner?

Did I call you that now banned term on this thread? I don't believe so. For those who don't know, my understanding is that the term has been banned because someone(s) found it personally insulting and hit the abuse button ... even though it was absolutely descriptive of the philosophy they subscribe to with regards to the crimes committed by the democRATS the last 9 years. PC comes to FreeRepublic, I guess.

Your feeble attempts at slamming all of us with your annoying keyboard diarreah only makes people sick of you, and your petty, tin-foil theories.

Gee. Should I take this as a personal insult? And you say I'm annoying? What SPECIFIC part of my commentary on this thread do you find annoying? It is hard to debate someone whose response is so vague. And you call what I say "tin-foil". Am I to assume then that you are going to be the first to say outright that no crimes were committed by the democRATS the last 9 years? Or are you the claiming the Bush administration has or is investigating those crimes? If so, please provide your supporting data.

Like it or not, and what everyone on the face of this earth other than you knows (and that includes Klayman), is that it's never going to happen.

What's not going to happen? You mean Bush isn't going to FAITHFULLY EXECUTE the laws as the Constitution says he is supposed to do? Surely a Bush supporter isn't suggesting that Bush and his administration would KNOWINGLY and DELIBERATELY disregard the Constitution and let serious crimes go uninvestigated and unprosecuted ... just for their own POLITICAL gain.

The political fallout of spending the greatest part of any president's term in attempting to prosecute his predecesor would be too costly, and would in the end, simply be viewed as a witch hunt.

Geeeeee. I guess you were suggesting that. But why are you focusing only on CLINTON? Why do those of you who want Bush to ignore crimes as serious as election tampering, conspiracy to blackmail Republicans and Congress, selling US secrets and access to restricted technology for campaign contributions, bribery (as in selling vetos), murder and mass murder to go uninvestigated and unpunished focus solely on Clinton? What about the MANY others in the democRAT party who also helped commit those serious crimes? Are we just to forget that many of them are still in government, the media and the democRAT party doing mischief and committing more crimes? Why focus on Clinton? Those others would have to be investigated and tried long before we ever got around to indicting a Clinton, if that were possible at all.

I think you know this, and I think that your job is to maintain Clinton in the spotlight.

But I'm not the one keeping Clinton in the spotlight. You are. You people ALWAYS mention him, and ONLY him, when the issue of crimes committed by democRATS is raised. Why is that? Are you blind to the dozens if not hundreds of other democRAT criminals? And if you are so concerned about keeping Clinton out of the spotlight, why did so many of you applauded when Bush asked him to officially represent this country in a foreign land (not far from where he got those millions of illegal dollars which were the subject of the Riady plea bargain)? As a result, all we saw on the nightly news was Clinton's face and voice ... regaining, perhaps, some of the "stature" he had lost.

There's nothing that would please Clinton more than to be able to be on national TV, day in and day out, pontificating about his innocence

Oh I don't imagine he'd be pleased to see dozens of his closest friends and supporters facing juries and being shown to have committed serious crimes. I don't imagine he'd be pleased to see one or two of them turn states evidence and implicate him, as might well happen. And is this really a valid excuse for ignoring credible allegations of crimes like murder?

(no one will ever pin anything on him, we had our chance and we let him slip away),

Only your opinion. But certainly true if nothing is every investigated. Or are you claiming that the matters I'm concerned about were properly investigated? Come on Luis Gonzalez, answer that question.

Waste another four years on Bill? You go ahead son, and good luck to you. Me? I want to forget that we had a president from 1993 to 2001.

and congratulate Bush for violating his oath and the Constitution. Right.

[BeAChooser]

Well, then get a CLUE and stop discussing me.

Tell that to your friends. As long as they state untruths and involve you, you are going to get pinged when I respond. If you have a complaint, it is with them. I know you don't like the fact that the internet has a memory and you posted things in the past that make much of what you claim to be suspect, but that's life. And if you wish to chime in on threads having to do with subjects I hold dear, you may get posted to by me. This is a public forum, I believe. If you want to hold private conversations with friends of like mind go to a chat room.