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.

[William Tell]

Texasforever said: 'So far you are of the opinion that these "agencies" are unconstitutional.'

I recall seeing many phrases which were of the form, "Congress shall have the power...".

I don't recall one granting the power to regulate firearms, so I believe that the BATF is unConstitutional ( and evil ).

[Satadru]

Article 1 Section 8 Clause 12.

[Texasforever]

The way states enumerate powers is through a Constitutional amendment. I see no amendment to the Constitution that lets the federal government pillage taxes to be spent on education, welfare, abortion, or farming. Hence, these federal agencies are unconstitutional. If you still don't get it, you have to wait until Bush's educational program comes to your town.

Sure it does. Look at the 16th amendment, the 14th amendment and the Supremacy clause. The 14th amendment made all state constitutions subornate to the Fed. A bad idea but still constitutional. The 16th amendment made possible the funding of the Federal government through income taxes with NO restriction on how that money is spent. Not a good thing but still constitutional. The Farm Bill is actually a commodities bill and it is used to cushion upstream commodities markets against crop losses. Not a good idea but fully within the constitutional powers of the federal government.

[Satadru]

In fact I see a lot of "Congress shall not..." Specifically, the First Amendment clearly says, "Congress shall make no law .... or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." This makes CFR, which Bush gleefully signed, unconstitutional as well.

[Zachary1985]

Although there is little doubt in my mind about GW being better than algore, I believe there is legitimate concern with some of the things that the administration has supported thus far. It makes zero sense. The man is running 80% approval ratings, and he is worried about Democrats in congress, whom only 47% of Americans approve of. On the issues Bush has to remember, if he vetoes something that stands against our Conservative principles, even if it's popular, the American people will largely forget that it ever happened.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Impeachment is not prosecution. It is fact-finding. The prosecution is supposed to be done in the Senate."

|

Inaugural Address | Quick Facts | The Presidents | EA Contents |

BILL CLINTON
Biography

Clinton, William Jefferson (1946- ), 42d president of the United States. Clinton's two terms in office were marked by efforts to create or expand domestic social programs, by attempts to resolve several major crises overseas, and by various scandals of both a political and personal nature that resulted in Clinton's becoming the first president since Andrew Johnson to be impeached and tried.

You think Groliers got it wrong?

Give me your parents phone number, they need to retain a good lawyer, and sue your college for fraud.

[Texasforever]

I don't recall one granting the power to regulate firearms, so I believe that the BATF is unConstitutional ( and evil ).

The BATF covers more than just firearms and are in reality a tax enforcement agency. They have always had law enforcement powers granted by Congress. As to the 2nd amendment the word infringe is just now coming into focus because until the latest pronouncement from the administration that the RTKBA is an individual right, the debate has centered on the "militia only" argument.

[Satadru]

I am sorry, I missed this one in the Constitution.

The Farm Bill is actually a commodities bill and it is used to cushion upstream commodities markets against crop losses. Not a good idea but fully within the constitutional powers of the federal government.

Also, the 14th amendment does no such things. It simply guarantees that the Bill of Rights apply to everyone. Honestly, if you believe that farm bills, and other such nonsense is actually in the Constitution, you will be agreeing with Souter-Breyer-Ginsburg, and not with Scalia-Thomas-Rehnquist.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"I am convinced you are a liberal."

I am glad that you do. You have been spectacularly wrong all this evening, and now you're in an out-of-control nose dive.

[Satadru]

You are such an imbecile and a complete dork. I told you to read 5 pages from the Federalist papers and you went to consult your encyclopedia in your computer. Impeachment is done in the House. Senate does the trying. That is why Senators have to take an oath and the Chief Justice presides. Of course Clinton was impeached and tried, but it happened in two different bracnches. Well, it didn't really happen in the Senate, because it was more appropriately a mistrial. No evidence was introduced and no witnesses were called. My point was impeachment is not a trial, it is a fact-finding. The actual trial is held in the Senate. I cannot believe they let you procreate.

[Texasforever]

Also, the 14th amendment does no such things. It simply guarantees that the Bill of Rights apply to everyone. Honestly, if you believe that farm bills, and other such nonsense is actually in the Constitution, you will be agreeing with Souter-Breyer-Ginsburg, and not with Scalia-Thomas-Rehnquist.

Then I assume you have cloese at hand some of Scalia-Thomas-Rehnquist statements on farm bills? The 14th amendment did more to centralize power in DC than any single action in our history. It provided the rational to strike down state laws across the board the prime example being Roe v wade and all of the modern civil rights legislation and federal laws on the books.

[nopardons]

ROTFLMAOPIMP!

Keep posting ; the lurkers do, indeed , know who to belive. It certainly isn't the likes of you,dear!

[Starwind]

to be impeached and tried.

You think Groliers got it wrong?

Well, yeah actually they seem to have it wrong. Impeachment is the accusation, the charge brought by the House. The trial is to be conducted by the Senate, which never happened.

Right?

[Texasforever]

I am sorry, I missed this one in the Constitution.

Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

[Satadru]

The 14th Amendment is a poor defense of Roe, just like any other defense of Roe. The 14th amendment simply says that the Bill of Rights applies to all citizens. Roe was flawed because it artifically created right to abortion in the Bill of Rights, which now gets the 14th amendment protection. The distinction is subtle.

I think it is pretty clear what Scalia-Thomas-Rehnquist thinks about federalism. As such, if anyone challenges some aspects of the farm bill and the SC hears it, then I am sure how they will rule. However, courts never hear appropriation bills, or not that I am aware of.

[Satadru]

I am glad someone else knows it. In fact, he originally said, "Clinton was prosecuted, that's what impeachment means." In fact, that is exactly wrong. Impeachment is fact-finding. Then you pass on the articles of impeachment to the Senate where a trial is held, witnesses are called, etc. You are right, it never happened. It was not an impartial jury. I think Hatch was right in calling it a mistrial.

[Texasforever]

You are such an imbecile and a complete dork. I told you to read 5 pages from the Federalist papers

Quite a command of language you have there. Are you 12 years old? As to the Federalist Papers, while interesting as historical documents they have nothing at all to do with the Constitution. They are just a series of founders that clarified their constitutional philosophies and often the wide difference between each of them. The Constitution is a simple consensus document that before the ink was dry has been subject to unceasing debate as to it's scope and meaning. Even the BOR is not sacrosanct. Any of the 10 can be revised, reworded OR done away with by amendment.

[Satadru]

See, thats my point. The commerce clause and the necessary and proper clause are the two most abuse sections of the Constitution. If that is your argument, then Roe is completely justified. It enhanced inter-state commerce.

[Satadru]

I am glad that you are showing what you really think. I am glad to know that Bush's ardent fans are anti-federalism just like Bush. If you think everything under the sun is permissible because of the commerce clause, I am sorry but you are a liberal. I think there is a consensus among consevatives about that.

[Luis Gonzalez]

I'm speechless.

Your #1220 has got to be one of the greatest posts that I have ever read on this site.

It's lucid, crystal clear, unimpeachable...bravo my friend, bravo!