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.
So you bark out insulting names and then decry when someone responds to you in kind. Childish, indeed.
Oh, I get it. You condemn namecalling, only after you've had the last word and made the last dig!
Just curious do you have some data on exit polling demograpics regarding the voting pattern of the 2000 Presidential election? If so could you provide a link?
"We hold these Truths to be self evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness - That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the Governed..."
-- Thomas Jefferson, The Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776
Do you disagree with Tom, or are you just splitting semantic hairs?
Regards
J.R.
Don't worry. He didn't get their vote in 2000. The reason they get so shrill is that they played the "let's slow-roll-the-GOP" game one time too many, the GOP found enough votes to win without them, and they now officially have no leverage.
I agree. These are the same people who complained early in 2000 that Bush was being "anointed" the GOP nominee (before he had to duke-it out in a real primary fight with McCain). These are probably the same people who maintain their registration in the Reform Party. They gravitate to FR because anywhere else in the wide world of American politics, they're irrelevant.
Our president is better than clinton or algore, the things you mentioned that george has done are great.
But.......
Not good enough, the pork spending, the totalitarian "patriot act", cfr, tarrifs, the socialist education bill, things that will never go away.......
This is NOT what Americans deserves, we deserve far better.
Ron Paul in 2004
Wow. You hold the President of the United States to incredibly high standards, don't you?
/sarcasm
No. He held his nose as he did so, and I believe it is the role of the judiciary to judge the constitutionality of legislation, not the President.<<
Okay, so as long as the President "holds his nose," he can sign away the whole U.S. Constitution and hope he is overturned by SCOTUS. Brilliant. Simply brilliant.
The gop has been losing ground since 96, they've been moving left and losing votes.
They've already lost the house and senate, IMO
Speaking of admiring the name "Republican," these are the same folks who show up to bash Lincoln for his "trampling of states rights." And, in regard to being mean and nasty, consider the contrast of the most successful conservative politician and President of the 20th Century. Ronald Reagan won, in large part, because he put a smile on the face of conservatism (he was also a pragmatist when he needed to be). The complainers we see daily on FR who stridently define "conservative" and then eviscerate anyone who doesn't live up to their definition will never know anything of the success of a Ronald Reagan.
I take pride standing in the tradition Lincoln, Reagan, and George W. Bush.
Hey! You reminded me of something.
a Toogoodreports.com's writer submitted this article, but his term "neutered chimp" should raise an eyebrow. Or two.
Ever seen this site before? (Link will open in new window.)
Pay attention to the title.
Coincidence? You decide.
Ditto.
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.