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.

[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.