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.
But, here goes again. Maybe someone will answer:
Another question for the Bushcheerleaderbots:
What would your reaction be if a Solicitor General under a Democrat Administration rewrote the Constitution to say that the 2nd Amendment guarantee of the right to keep and bare arms was "subject to reasonable restrictions designed to prevent possession by unfit persons or to restrict the possession of types of firearms that are particularly suited to criminal misuse"?
I'd like to get the head-honcho's opinion on this. I'm sure he has something to say about it.
If we give up FR, we'd better think about what we'll use to replace it. But if the Bush-basher-bots force the issue...I think we'll make do with something.
BTW, JimRob, how much does Robinson-DeFehr plan to charge for a copy of Focus Forum?
My reaction is pretty much the same with the exception being I'm not gonna throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Build on strengths, work to eliminate weaknesses.
Make it known that you object, but don't feed the opposition.
We have the ablility to influence the Bush administration by way of threatening our support and pointing to real conservative leadership.. Name one member of a democrat administration that we could influence.
prisoner6 - sorry, gotta go to bed.
There are Broken-Glass Conservatives, and then there are Broken-Record Conservatives.
I would limit that denile only for those who have commited violent crimes that resulted serious injury to another. For non-violent crimes, denile for the length of probabation. Get busted a second time though, and its gone.
First, though, we need to overhaul our justice and prison system top to bottom.
prisoner6
I don't agree with 100% of what Bush has done, and I wish he'd do things that he hasn't taken on (yet). But I don't lose any sleep over these things. If I agree with Bush more times than not, I'm satisfied. It beats having whatever the alternative might be.
And speaking of alternatives, who do the Bushbasherbots offer up as an alternative? Pat Buchanan?
Just a thought.
This boggles my mind. If the Dems had the Oval Office, regardless of who it was, we'd STILL be negotiating the size of the "peace talk" table!
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.