Tsk! Tsk! Is this the one? Shame on you!
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.
Not to my specific recollection, however it is possible. Any chance you've got samples?
Actually I perfer the terms Statist, Authoritarian, gun grabber, and goron. Also nice are any words that end in "--ker".
Did I pass or fail the test?
You think this is a fair statement?
To fellow Conservatives who voted for Dubya and wrung their hands all throughout the Florida fiasco. You think this is a fair assessment?
Works for me. I always stressed that there was a difference between Republicans and Conservatives. That difference being principle. Besides, if Jeffords can wear a "R" behind his name then I guess anyone is welcome.
The democrats say the same thing every time we tell the truth or dare to criticize them or one of their half wit policies.
Probably just a coincidence.
But I know you won't, because disruptors like you run like hell when the facts are presented. John Ashcroft was heavily supported by the NRA and still is. I am a life long member of the NRA and a Gun collector with several classIII permits and John Ashcroft is the best thing to come down the pike in a long while for the 2nd Ammendment
The President has the power to sign or not sign legislation which is sent to him. If the legislation is Constitutional as the President sees it, then he may choose to sign, creating a law, or he may choose not to sign, and no law is created.
If the legislation is unConstitutional, then the President is obligated by his oath of office to not sign it. Whether he is a lawyer or not is irrelevant. His oath obligates him to preserve the Constitution. The intention of the oath is to make clear that he must judge the legislation. He has resources to hire many lawyers to make his decision.
When an Attorney General, who is picked by the President, is faced with prosecuting an existing law, the President's oath and the Attorney General's oath require them to exercise judgement because the duty includes preserving the Constitution. Because we have a system of appeals which can take any case to the Supreme Court, the President and the Attorney General are free to prosecute with the expectation that the Supreme Court will throw out the law.
Courts routinely allow "amicus" briefs from "friends of the court" so that opinions which do not align with the prosecution or the defense may be heard. The President and Attorney General have this or a similar mechanism to make their own opinions heard. This mechanism should be sufficient to address any doubts which the President and Attorney General have. When the Supreme Court has decided, then the President risks impeachment if he does not agree.
The only unworkable part of this system is that the unConstitutional aspects of our government have grown so large that it takes a number of years for a case to reach the top court. During this time, a defendant can rot in prison or some other injustice can go unaddressed. This is because so many Presidents before have signed unConstitutional bills.
The "death spiral" created by unConstitutional laws too numerous to address by the Supreme Court is where we stand today. That is why Bush has an obligation not to sign additional unConstitutional measures.
Granted. But this was not my point. I'm familiar with the historic context within which he wrote the Declaration.
At any rate, my points still stand. It depends on what you mean by "equal." Since we truly aren't equal from birth as in having the same faculties and abilities, and "all men" most certainly were not treated equally at that time, the best we can hope for is equality before the law.
That's it.
Why would I do that? I certainly haven't hit the abuse button on anyone.
LOL...kidding right? Don't tease Poohbah;^)
Bush is not conservative, and if this is what the RNC now calls a conservative, why don't we just save a lot of money and put the RNC and DNC in the same building. Heck, according to the media, Giddy Dolt is a conservative. We're in deep doo-doo if that's true
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.