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.
No. I was accurate. I worry what Bush will think reading posts like yours and your friends which advocate ignoring serious crimes for political gain.
Every word of it, including "the", "if", and "of".
I challenge you to show me even one Clinton-era crime which was properly investigated and prosecuted?
You won't get a majority of Americans to recognize Clinton crime if you don't do that first.
Monica Lewinski and BJgate.
Then you are a proven liar because as anyone can see you quoted me and challenged what I wrote. If you had a difference with Reagan Man then you should have posted him. And what is wrong? Suddenly you don't seem to want the Admin Moderator and Jim Robinson to read what you post.
No one can "guarantee" security. The whole concept is a non starter.Since when do politicians have to back up rhetoric with results? You must be confusing your own worldview with reality. Remember that more people actually voted for Gore than Bush in 2000. Gore plus Nader even worse. How can you assume that anyone out there has a brain?
How could they sell that so that even people without a brain would buy it?
Tonight on at RadioFR! June 6, 2002
9:00 p.m. - 11:00 p.m. EDT / 6:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. PST...
YO!
ANNA AND MERCURIA
DO THE "REYNOLDS (W)RAP"
(Well, you knew it had to happen sometime...!)
WITH SPECIAL GUEST
DAVID PALMQUIST
"THE KING OF CONSPIRACY"
Are you referring to post 1152? Read the list again.
Then I take it you are accepting RedBloodedAmerican's obviously bogus excuse for his contribution to the discussion between you and me in that thread? If so, then you only discredit yourself. And shall I respond to you in the future by addressing all post to someone else and quoting what THEY said, not you? Sure ... perfectly logical ... just as logical as the philosophy of ignoring serious crimes committed by democRATS because it is politically expedient. What will be next? Ignoring crimes by Republicans because that TOO would be politically expedient?
Ignoring posts by liars, slanderers and false accusers. Ciao.
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.I think the jury is still out on that. Assuming the spat of general warnings from a few weeks ago were inspired by the administration. That at least suggests that Bush takes the issue seriously, but maybe the public does not. I only know that a lot of New Yorkers these days like to know what is going on, while others still prefer to remain ignorant.
After all the Democrats are not seeking the truth...they are seeking the advantage.So true.
LOL...ok good point. I tend to give people more credit than they deserve sometimes. A bad habit I know. I depend on people like you to help me break it:^)
Are you brain dead? I said don't post to me or about me anymore.
Nobody talks about me except you.
Entered the U.S. without being inspected by an INS official.
Stayed in the U.S. longer than allowed by INS.
Entered the U.S. as a worker on an aircraft or ship (crewman).
Entered the U.S. as a "Transit Without Visa."
Failed to continuously maintain a lawful status since your entry into the US.
Worked in the U.S. without INS permission.
Entered as an "S" nonimmigrant (relates to witnesses about criminal or terrorism matters).
Are seeking a work-related visa and are out of status at the time of filing the application to adjust status (Form I-485).
Worked in the U.S. while being an "unauthorized alien."
Saberkitty, I still believe that most of the people who will have been granted waivers for the status situations you listed above are those whose situation RESULTED from the INS's backlog in paperwork. Their official okay by the INS for them to remain in the country didn't come through in a timely fashion, and their status lapsed from legal to illegal.
I may well have to call my Congressman to check this out if you continue to insist I have it wrong, but that is my honest understanding of this policy, which has been in effect for some time, and is simply being renewed.
I heard in the debates when Bush mispronounced Scalia's name several times, but I got what he was trying to say. But, he also said that he will not sign CFR, cut down on federal spending, and will put principles over politics. Bush has lost my trust and I simply wouldn't believe anything he says anymore. I will not be surprised if he nominates another Souter.
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.