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.
You voted for Bush. You pulled the lever. Rockin'!!!! Do you expect Bush to come to your house and wash your car in gratitude?
You are right, there is a disagreement on what a conservative president should be. Supporters are happy with what Bush has accomplished. You have a right to be happy. Things are going well for you.
Others of us are disappointed, but we have only ourselves to blame. Don't be so sensitive. As many have pointed out, Bush supporters out number Bush detractors by a wide margin. You don't need us.
The truth is that I had reservations about Dubya, then I voted for him (took your advice) and now when I have an issue with something he says or does instantly I am the bad guy.
But I was the good guy in November.
Now, suddenly I can't critique the President? I am one of PHI Mom's "17% Conservatives who voted for Gore" ROFL!
Fair weather friends the Bushies turned out to be. It's like walk in lockstep or shut up.
It's absurd. I voted for the guy, I have a right to criticize. You may not like hearing it, but that's the way it is.
And now I see people wanting to take their marbles and go home because people who never were really big on dubya anyway point out a few flaws here on a Conservative political forum.
That makes allot of sense.
Well, I must admit: I'm certainly not disappointed in Bush.
He's exactly what I thought he'd be!
Go Pat Go!!!
;^)
Who do you want to replace Bush?
He is the president of ALL the people, and, much as you'd like him not to, he has to take everybody's wants into consideration.
I suggest next time you guys get a better candidate and get them elected if you're unhappy with the way "this one" is going.
You voted for Bush. You pulled the lever. Rockin'!!!! Do you expect Bush to come to your house and wash your car in gratitude?
You post things like the above and imply I am immature?
Doesn't suprise me after the arrogance I saw demonstrated in your #394.
(Now, stop being obtuse and address the point. Agree, dissagree or say something relevant, will you please?)
It's a farce, Howlin. These clowns aren't betrayed, disenchanted or scammed. This is a charade. There's nothing honorable or authentic about this discourse.
What had Bush done or said to address any of the points I brought up? Nothing. Republicans strike me as Democrats with a different "wish list".
Allow me:
THIS WEEK, 1/23/00
George Will: With regard to campaign finance, your opponent Senator McCain has made much of his pledge to ban soft money. You say that would be bad for the Republican Party. I want to see if you agree with those who say it would be bad for the First Amendment?
I know you're not a lawyer, you say that with some pride, but do you think a president - and we've got a lot of non-lawyer presidents - has a duty to make an independent judgment of what is and is not constitutional, and veto bills that, in his judgment, he thinks are unconstitutional?
Governor Bush: I do.
Will: In which case, would you veto the McCain-Feingold bill, or the Shays-Meehan bill?
Governor Bush: That's an interesting question. I - I - yes I would. And the reason why is two[fold]. For one, I think it does restrict free speech for individuals. As I understand how the bill was written - I think there's been two versions of it - but as I understand the first version restricted individuals and/or groups from being able to express their opinion.
Thanks..
I see what Mr. Fufkin has is catching.
The fact is, I have exposed you for the FRAUD you are and everyone here, including the FReepers who don't support President Bush. You are a FRAUD
Nonsense. Enforcing that treaty via bureaucratic regulations would have seriously harmed our economy.
Of course if Bush had signed onto Kyoto, you can bet this issue would not be "trivial" to anyone.
The reason they call it "trivial" now is obviously because they don't want to give Bush credit for anything and want to minimize his accomplishments.
Their agenda has forced them to take these intellectually dishonest positions.
Funding our national missile defense system is "trivial" in your world?!
Same response as above.
Anybody in their right mind knows these are extremely significant issues.
And Bush has done the right thing.
Just because Bush isn't doing what YOU think he should be doing, you're mad. Well, fine. But please stop acting like it's ONLY you.
As McGavin999 said, we're sick and tired of having to defend Bush to the contortions and outright lies that are posted on this forum day in and day out.
George Bush was the candidate for the GOP last time; you could have stayed home. Probably you should have.
In either case, it does not make for intelligent discourse.
I agree.
Thank You.
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.