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.

[rebelsoldier]

The problem with stupid people blinded by party labels or cults of personality is that in their idiocy by defending, excusing, and apologizing for a SELF-INFLICTED and utterly UNNECESSARY list of concessions, appeasements, surrenders, cave-ins, and betrayals; they simultaneously destroy their own credibility as conservatives along with any hopes of advancing the conservative agenda. In fact, with the list of handovers to the left and Democrats, the conservative agenda has been set so far back that it may never be recoverable for the rest of the century if ever. If Bush, Rove, etc had recorded SOME limited selected concessions in order to achieve the greater goal of advancing the conservative agenda and bringing amenable liberals and Democrats over to OUR side, that would be understandable.

However, this is not at all whatsoever what has been done. Taking a hit or two for the team is political reality, but when we slaughter the team for nothing, then we have utter failure and complete capitulation. When "defeating" one's enemies equals becoming them to do so, that's called political suicide. By party hacks insisting on such hopelessly low standards for success, the conservative cause and its support base becomes thoroughly demoralized and apathetic and results in a self-fulfilling prophecy of doom. It has become clear that the conservative cause was never the objective of this administration. Unless ideology is involved, and conservative ideology at that, I could care less who wins or loses elections.

[afuturegovernor]

I always hope the president of the United States executes his office well. I always hope that the president does the right thing and mades the right decisions. I make no apology for hoping the president does the right thing.

I guess you think that is a vice; I disagree.

As for you choice for president, Ron Paul and Bob Smith have both ran for president before. Paul in 1996 and Smith in 2000. Neither got more than 2% of the vote. Neither could be considered serious presidential candidates to win.

I find your choices of Paul and Smith to be odd. Nearly 25 points seperates their ACU voting records. Both are clearly birds of the different feather and disagree on a great number of issues (see voting record).

That brings me back to my first question: is their anybody who would be a serious presidential candidate that you would support?