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.
I can do a 360-degree slam dunk. Can you?Show off...And yes, I can hit a golf ball 300 yards down the fairway. I'll admit that it slices off to the right quite often...[g]I can hit a golf ball 340-yards down the fairway consistently. Can you?
With all due respect, this is a rather silly introduction.
Do you really expect people to identify themselves in such unreasonable terms, as Bush worshippers who have no standards on any issue rather than supporting Bush?
You're kidding right?
The guy I was playing with said that people who played like I did should swear more.
I heard him do it with my own ears. You may call me a liar if you wish. For some reason, you are quick to assign evil motives to those who dare disagree with you.
But let's stop right there. Either:
1) Bush disagreed with CFR and signed it (which reinforces my point), OR
2) Bush agrees with CFR.
It's a no-win situation. Do you see that?
If the shoe doesn't fit... Oh, I get it. You condemn namecalling, only after you've had the last word and made the last dig!
Just tit for tat, but I'd prefer not to play that game. I can, but it doens't make either of us better people.
I'd prefer that if we want to go at each other's throats, we disagree on an issue or application of one instead of not-so-witty one word, one line insults.
If you are as aligned those issues that you cited, we probably disgree on the depth of dissappointment with Bush's decisions. I never had him pegged for anything other than a moderate so I'm not as dissappointed with him as those who were convinced that he was a Conservative or at least conservative.
Jefferson and I believe these rights come from the Creator. You chose to dissect Jefferson, the DOI and it's relation to the Constitution like some cheap lawyer. Semantic hair splitting is too kind....you debate like a shyster.
By the way, boasting about your self described "born again" status seems......well, unseemly. What does the Bible say about pride?
Regards
J.R.
But when your done blaming who ever you choose, remember this, If the Supreme Court says it constitutional you've lost your argument unless you can challenge it and overturn it yourself. The other thing to remember is... The Public wanted to put a stop to the unregulated soft money and until we become a dictatorship, THE PUBLIC DECIDES
Bills are unsigned legislation. The President's oath of office obligates him not to sign if the bill is unConstitutional. Since every defendant has the right of appeal to the Supreme Court, the President is justified in prosecuting cases in accordance with the laws and with the expectation that appeals will be filed.
There needs to be a way for someone like Ashcroft to prosecute gun laws based on the language of the law, but with a footnote indicating that the law is thought unconstitutional.
Since higher courts choose which cases to hear and which not, they could choose to hear a case prior to trial when the Attorney General has indicated doubts about the Constitutionality.
Although heartened by the government's filing in Emerson upholding the individual right to keep and bear arms, I believe that the higher court should be encouraged to review Emerson because other District Courts have made ridiculous rulings regarding the Second Amendment.
If the Supreme Court agrees with Ashcroft, then most of 20,000 gun laws are null and void. If the Supreme Court disagrees, then the stage is set for the Second American Revolution. Emerson will be needed for Militia service during the Second American Revolution, so he will need his right to keep and bear arms restored, since he has been found not guilty of any crime in state court.
I have previously stated that I have withdrawn my consent to be governed due to the infringements of my right to keep and bear arms. I will continue to withhold my consent until Emerson has his rights back. And all of the other people who have been jailed for keeping and bearing arms. It is unfortunate that nothing will bring back Weaver's family or the children of Waco.
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.