A Few Questions For Die-Hard Bush Supporters

Toogood Reports ^ | June 5, 2002 | Lee R. Shelton IV

[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.

[AmericaUnited]

Once the felon is released from his sentence, all rights are fully his to exercise,even the RKBA.

I didn't know ex-felons could vote.

[rintense]

Well I shall go and re-read that. Probably won't change my mind (I still don't like it...)

[Jhoffa_]

How old are you?

Nice Dodge.

Where did you get it?

[ArneFufkin]

So how many posts did it take before the first troll broke through Stand Watch and Listen's audience and respondant parameters? The locusts must eat.

[Spiff]

Your question is nonsensical. The Solicitor General doesn't "re-write" the Constitution when he files an opinion with the Supreme Court on a case. Ted Olson's comments on the scope or intent of the 2nd Amendment expressed the Bush Administration's position on this legal question. If a Demo Administration choose to express differently, it still wouldn't be "re-writing" the Constitution.

If a Democrat Administration did this you would be saying more than they were "re-writing" the Constitution. Words like trashing, destroying, warping, disfiguring would be words you would probably use. Did I mean he was literally "re-writing" the Constitution? You and I both know that I didn't, but far be it from you to miss an opportunity to twist what I said and avoid the point of the question.

So, answer the question and stop your spinning.

[ArneFufkin]

You sound like you're 5 years old. "I voted for him and this is how I'm repaid?" Is Bush being mean to you? Grow up.

[McGavin999]

I don't think anybody minds the discussions disagreeing with policies and positions. What we're upset with is the people who continue to claim things even after they've been given documentation that proves their point wrong.

You are NOT one of those people Jhoffa.

When the bills are posted showing that the "misunderstanding" is wrong, they continue to state their positions even in the face of the proof. FreeRepublic has never been like that. Conservatives, of all stripes, respect the truth. This is either arguing for the sake of arguing, or it's pursuing an agenda and a deliberate attempt to spread rumors and lies.

In either case, it does not make for intelligent discourse.

[GUIDO]

If you dare, read post #4. oh and one of my favorites is post #6. All in all I haven't agreed with some of the things he has signed, CFR for one. But also I am and will always be glad the he is the President during this 9-11 chaos and not algore.

[AmericaUnited]

Ok, what about an ex-felon's 2nd amendment rights ? Are they restored?

[Spiff]

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..

Thank you for a sensical answer. Now, why is it that the Bushcheerleaderbots refuse to even admit that the Bush Administration's stated position on the 2nd Amendment deserves criticism? If it was a Democrat Administration they would be angry beyond measure and wouldn't hesitate to make their displeasure known. But, because it is Bush they don't even care - they don't even want to know about it - the shove their heads in the sand and hope that it will blow over.

[Howlin]

What exactly is fair about being called:

Unprincipled.

A BushBot.

A socialist.

A liar.

Not a "real" conservative.

Not a "true" conservative.

Not a "constitutionalist."

A sheep.

From the day I logged on here in 1998, I have been told repeatedly by you PRINCIPLED CONSERVATIVES that I am NOT good enough, don't know enough, march in lockstep, whatever you can name.

And now YOU are whining because YOU say I promised you something? Nobody twisted your arm to get you to vote for him; we ALL worked together, which is NOT happening now. You're more intent on pulling him down than the damn Democrats are.

If you are not happy with your vote for George W. Bush, do NOT vote for him again.

But do one thing for me: STOP pretending that any candidate that would live up to your expectations/agenda/demans would EVER WIN.

If you're disappointed in Bush, it's because YOU thought he'd be more than any human could possibly be.

[GUIDO]

THANK YOU, you did your homework just in time for the bashing hour. hehehe

[Southack]

"For the most part, the conservative issues you listed that Bush enacted is a pathetic laundry list of trivial, arcane policy decisions that, on balance, are relatively unimportant."

Withdrawing the U.S. out of the U.S. - CCCP ABM treaty is "trivial" in your mind?!

Hogwash.

Appointing Ashcroft and writing the Supreme Court to tell them that the official U.S. position is that the Second Amendment protects Individual, not collective, rights to keep and bear arms is "trivial" to you?!

Rubbish. Even Ronald Reagan wasn't so bold as to reverse 70+ years of "collective rights" government policy on the Second Amendment.

Withdrawing from the International Criminal Court, which placed itself ABOVE our own Supreme Court is "trivial" to your mind?!

Ridiculous.

Signing Executive Orders which prevented government agencies from acting as though the Kyoto Treaty on Global Warming had been ratified is "trivial" to you?!

Nonsense. Enforcing that treaty via bureaucratic regulations would have seriously harmed our economy.

Funding our national missile defense system is "trivial" in your world?!

Rubbish.

[Jhoffa_]

You sound like you're 5 years old. "I voted for him and this is how I'm repaid?" Is Bush being mean to you? Grow up.

You need to read more carefully.

Now go back to post #411 & #418 and try again.

(BTW, as an aside.. I hope you didn't strain your arm in post 394.)

[aged]

i am so far behind on this post, but with a few minutes to let common sense kick in, i think there are a few other people involved in running this country. what the hel\ about working with a senate that stops him everytime he turns around. can you say dashel? how about having to waste time having to have silly uncalled for meetings at whim of anyone. whats wrong with our country is what is right in front of our eyes, the people!!!!!!!!!! we won't get off our but7s long enough to do whatever we can. like stopping bleeding hearts, by making it known that most of us don't think like they do. by finding some way to make breaking the law a crime no matter who you are. and pettion to get bills that we want passed. without pork.

[AmericaUnited]

The same perpetual whiners complained about similar garbage at the end of Reagan's second term.

[Howlin]

I never did like him.. Ever..

Then you shouldn't have voted for him. I did NOT like the other candidates so I did NOT vote for them.

In fact, I cannot believe you voted for somebody you didn't like! That's stunning.

[Jorge]

Did you feel betrayed when Bush signed Campaign Finance Reform into law?

Given the overwhelming support for CFR by both the Senate and the House I realized that it was politically impossible for Bush to stand against it alone.

If I felt betrayed it was by the House and Senate for putting Bush in such a position.

It is the Court's job to decide the constitutionality of some aspects of CFR, and Bush left it up to them to do their job.