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.
Big tents are for fat chicks.
GOD I HATE that verbal affectation: "And I should care about this why???" SLAP!
My mistake for engaging you here. I have a real boundries problem.
Try #526.
"If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for", I say, "you take it and fight for the rest later", and that's what I told these radical conservatives who never got used to it.--Ronald Reagan
The big difference is that Reagan would get, through tough bargaining with the democrats, 75%-80% of what he wanted. Bush on the other hand seems content to give the democrats most everything they want...with a few exceptions here and there. Yeah, I know, we got a war going on but I don't remember Bush playing hard ball with the likes of Tom Dashole before 9/11 either. It's all this go along to get along stuff so as not to offend the socialists that want to destroy America as we know it. Perhaps where I fault Bush the most is his reluctance to go directly to the people like Reagan did to help get their support for a more conservative agenda. With Bush it’s the same photo op cr*p we had for 8 years with Clinton.
Just a couple weeks ago, somebody had the audacity to call me a "neocon".
Can you imagine that!!!
Go Pat Go!!!
Given your handle, though, you likely know all this better than I. Hopefully you'll be gentle in your corrections of my mistakes.
The founders themselves recognized the constitution as a "living document" that is the reason for the amendment process. They did NOT stamp FINAL DRAFT on the constitution they wrote and then ratified. You still cannot give me what is meant by "constitutional". You just throw it out like a "when did you stop beating your wife" challenge and the accuse others that disagree as being NOT “constitutionally” minded. It is specious and frankly unworthy of serious debate.
Had Bush vetoed a bill that promised to "reform" elections, it would have been called a political assasination by Bush, and used by the Libs, and McCain (not a lot of difference there)as a weapon to beat him over the head come election time.
The SCOTUS throwing the bill, or portions of it, out as unconstitutional will leave McCain stained forever as tye author of unconstitutional legislation, and silenced.
They are playing for keeps, and we have to play that way as well.
The problem with most people in this forum, is their complete lack of understanding of politics, and the art of negotiations. Good, bad, or indifferent, politics have to be played, because the other side plays that game, and you can't show up to a gun fight carrying a knife and expect to win.
Ba-bye.
I think you are right. I also think he doesn't want to. He is pushing the agenda he wants. Apparently he is right to do so too. I admit I am disappointed, but as his supporters will attest, he is doing exactly what they expected of him.
For awhile there I thought he was playing politics, in order to win moderate voters, but I have come to realize that the positions he supports are his true positions. I think people like me who are more conservative were fooling ourselves into thinking he was something he isn't.
Yes he could be more conservative if he wanted too , but the truth is he doesn't:(
I vote the same way. Until the day that enough Republicans join us for Conservatives to win, it's a lonely and painful existence - especially in Illinois.
How soon people forget...
Sounds like they serve immitation Cuervo mixed with corn liqour there.
We have the luxury of looking back at Reagan and feeling good about his 75%-80%, but there were a lot of dissenting voices back then as well.
This whole deal has just been weird at all the name calling and pitting people against each other! There is a definite agenda at work!
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.