A Few Questions For Die-Hard Bush Supporters

Toogood Reports ^ | June 5, 2002 | Lee R. Shelton IV

[Darth Sidious]

Never on both counts if we do something stupid that lets the Dems take control of the White House or increase their votes in the Senate and the Congress.

So you're willing for all of us to sacrifice fundamental liberties... just to keep one half of a kleptocracy out of power??

I don't know what's sadder: that someone would suggest that, or my knowing that several people on this forum and across America would agree with you.

[Southack]

"A moral government isn't possible government is by nature a neccasary evil."

You've never witnessed the horrors of government-less anarchy in the wilds of Africa, then...

[Darth Sidious]

Agreed. I don't mind admitting that I'll toast a "war on government" if someone wants to bring one on :-)

[Satadru]

The biggest problem with Bush is that he has Clinton administration holdovers in his own administration, who are obstructing his agenda. He needs to fire them, but cannot because he wants to be loved by everybody. BTW, what law signed by GWB allows pilots to carry arms? The fact that Norman Mineta opposes it, simply means that Bush opposes it because Bush chose Mineta for that job. If you are going to give Bush credit for picking Ashcroft, you have to hold him responsible for picking Mineta, and not being competent enough to fire him when needed.

[garv]

It would be comforting to think that you are right about getting conservative judges confirmed, but then I read things like this from Robert Novak's June 1 column.

CALIFORNIA GOP FRATRICIDE

Pinprick attacks by California Republican regulars on Gerald Parsky, President Bush's designated agent in the state, are growing into a full-scale onslaught. The main target is the Parsky-created bipartisan commission for clearing California's federal judicial nominations. Republican State Chairman Shawn Steel, who sees his position emasculated by venture capitalist Parsky, wrote an attack on the commission in the Los Angeles Times May 26. That publicized what the state's conservative Republicans have been complaining about for months: Parsky has granted effective veto power over Bush's judges to California's Democratic Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer

. Steel's views have been reflected in unsigned e-mails distributed through political circles under the title of "Parsky Watch." An e-mail sent May 20 cites the liberal People for the American Way praising Parsky's system and quotes a Feinstein aide saying, "We've been working very well with the Parsky commission."

So, why should conservatives assume we will get conservative nominees?

[weikel]

I did say neccasary I thought.

[prisoner6]

Oh SWL, even though you should know from our exchanges I stand with you in most views, the more I read this thread the more I think conservatives just live to eat their own. hehehehehe!

Whether W is standing with us or not isn't the problem. What is the problem is that democRAT/socialists are dividing us. They are using our differences with the administration and amongst ourselves to set the stage for the mid terms, 2004 and beyond.

Good Lord sometimes I can't believe how stupid we are and how politically smart >THEY< are.

prisoner6

[Satadru]

Let me get into a double wager with you. First, let me unequivocally wage a million dollars with you that we are not going to take the Senate this fall. Secondly, even if we do, let me wage another million that we will have no conservative momentum in legislations. Let me wage another million that GWB will continue to embarass conservatives for voting for him.

[Southack]

"BTW, what law signed by GWB allows pilots to carry arms? The fact that Norman Mineta opposes it, simply means that Bush opposes it because Bush chose Mineta for that job."

Bush signed that law (which also federalized all airport security workers), so I give him credit for signing a bill with a pro-gun provision in it.

Bush also isn't micro-managing his staff (ala Gray Davis in California), so I don't expect every one of his appointees' decisions to perfectly align with his views 100% of the time. So Mineta is anti-gun. Who woulda thunk it. Go blame Mineta for his own views...

[ChadGore]

Bush gave me, a rock ribbed republican, the following debate tack to use to defeal a lib.

Q: "That Bush guy is nothing but a blah blah yadda wuba blah.. incohearant liberal drivel.. wubba wubba blah yadda wubba."

A: HEY ! knock it off! You liberals have NOTHING to whine about with Bush.

[PhiKapMom]

That's why we need to Take Back the Senate -- with a Senate Majority, GW can ram it down the throats of the two CA Senators if he chooses. clinton certainly went against the wishes of Republican Senators in states where he put in his liberal judges. The key is to TAKE BACK the SENATE and control the Judiciary Committee. Right now it will do no good to appoint someone like Chris Cox because it will never make it out of Leaky Leahy's Judicial Committee!

[prisoner6]

A better question would be, "What war"? We're so screwed up we don't know war from diddlly squat! War on Poverty, War on Drugs, War on Crime.....The word has been bastardized just like everything else when government touches it.

What an EXCELLENT POINT!

prisoner6

[woofie]

Im in New Mexico and dont do a lot of sailing but I know that if you want to move into a headwind you tack right then left, then right, and so forth ....If you head right or left only you'll find are going backwards.

[Satadru]

We will not get conservative nominees. In fact, what we will see are am-Bushes of conservative nominees. Why didn't Bush stick his neck out for Pickering? Why didn't he threaten vetoes and other things if Pickering was not nominated? Instead, he chose to dine and wine with the Democrats after Pickering was turned down. He will try to appease his base by picking conservatives, but then he will appease his RINO-self by am-Bushing them.

[Spiff]

He missed one:

What would your reaction have been if a Democrat, in a speech to the German Bundestag, made the socialistic statement: "Wealthy nations have a duty of conscience to share our wealth."?

[colorado tanker]

The sad thing is that as conservatives work themselves into a lather, convincing each other that Bush isn't really a conservative, the Democrats know Bush is a conservative, they loath him for it, and are working tirelessly to win the mid-terms in 2002 and the Presidency in 2004. Even if you can't tell the difference between Bush and Gore and a Republican and Democratic Congress, the Democrats CAN.

[Mo1]

Saying that Gore would have been worse is meaningless - we have no idea what Gore would have done or been able to do

HUH???? ... You have got to be kidding

[finnman69]

The sad thing is that as conservatives work themselves into a lather, convincing each other that Bush isn't really a conservative, the Democrats know Bush is a conservative, they loath him for it, and are working tirelessly to win the mid-terms in 2002 and the Presidency in 2004. Even if you can't tell the difference between Bush and Gore and a Republican and Democratic Congress, the Democrats CAN.

You better believe the RATS can see AND sell the difference to their voters, especially with the Bush bashers wearing blinders.