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.
No I got it. You might be right, who knows? I was simply pointing out that if what you call "Bush Bashers" all are Buchanan supporters and Buchanan supports Bush, well, perhaps Bush isn't quite what you thought.
Personally I like Bush alot more than Buchanan. Or I did, but I am beginning to suspect Buchanan would have acted pretty much like Bush if he were elected. I guess thats why Buchanan supports and trusts the president?
The word "equal", like every word, requires some context to be certain of meaning. In the context of the Declaration of Independence the word means more than just equal status before the law.
The Declaration was addressed to King George. It was a direct denial of the "divine right of Kings" which was the principle which allowed King George and his antecedants to hold absolute rule over the King's subjects in Great Britain.
The words following "all men are created equal", are "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, "
This further context shows that "equal status before the law" is only a part of what "equal" means. It also means that everyone has a right to life, without regard to what the law says. It means that everyone has a right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness, without regard to what the law says. And that when government becomes destructive of these ends, they have the right to abolish it.
It is an extension of the "equal" endowment from their Creator which empowers us all in ways which go far beyond just having "equal status before the law".
During John Ashcroft's confirmation hearing he was NOT asked if he supported the Brady Bill, he was asked if he would UPHOLD IT. Your facts are debunked. The FACT is, he is the first Attourney General to ever ask for a clearification of the second Ammendment and added his view that HE believed the 2nd Ammendment applied to ALL citizen's NOT just State Militia's. So take your spin back to the NEW YORK TIMES. You are JUST like Rush Limbaugh, You take the bate of the lefties and run with it
We are told to stay off threads of Keyes or be careful what we say or be banned so as not to upset them but they are not told to stay off Bush threads and I want to know WHY?
Yes, I wonder at some of the go along to get along, but instead of a tide of the above, that it may be a tidal wave.
Let's see what happens if he gets a Republican (not rino) House and Senate, and then judge his peformance.
Here goes anyway. Those liberal senators who claim they knew Souter was pro-abortion are claiming credit after the fact. Souter refused to answer the question publicly. Show me one conservative Senator who knew Souter was pro-abortion and blew the whistle on him.
But this debate is irrelevant. Unlike his father, Bush 43 is a pro-life evangelical, not a convert on the eve of nomination. Bush 43 also saw upclose and personal his father's mistakes, and openly acknowledged those mistakes cost Bush 41 a second term. And your thesis is that Bush 43 just can't wait to make the same mistakes and be another one-termer. Bush 43 ain't smokin' whatever yer smokin'.
He's nominated good conservative judges so far and has given no indication of any change.
This is classic! Can I borrow it?
The definition of lunacy is to keep doing the same thing over and over and then expecting different results.
Anyone who raised any questions about Bush before the 2000 elections was harshly castigated around here. I know, even though I took a stance of wait and see.
I waited and am not very impressed with what I have seen. Our two party system consists of two wings from the same bird of prey and until you folks pull your heads out of the sand and recognize that simple fact nothing will ever get better.
We've been through several election cycles now hearing the same chants from you folks. "we have to get republicans elected", "it takes time for things to change", "vote for any man who puts an R behind his name and things will change"....etc. How long to you expect people to keep on falling for the same BS?
I like democrats. They say exactly what they want to do and then go about doing it. I don't agree with their sleazy tactics or mistaken ideology but at least they say what they are about. Republicans, on the other hand, tell us one thing then go and do something else.
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.