Zell Miller and John Breaux support him in that!
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.
Fair enough. I always got him confused with Richard Simmons anyway.
George W.Bush is no Ronald Reagan. There is only one Reagan. But Bushes conservative approach to internal party politics and governing, is very Reaganesque. I wouldn't call Bush43 a light weight though. He lived through the Reagan years, with Big George as VP and then spent four years at his fathers side, along with a guy named Lew Atwater. A true political genius. Bush and his good friend, Karl Rove, are real good at the political gamesmanship needed to compete, with the libdems, inside the Beltway.
Check out the link at RE# 629. A great Reagan quote is at the other end.
If GWB were to ever walk on water, there are many on FR who would gripe because he got his shoes wet.
Take a man and a woman, stand them five feet apart.
Now walk as far as you can possibly walk away from them and still see them.
You can tell that there are two people standing there, but you can't tell which ios which.
Maybe it's where you're standing that is the problem here.
Well Ok, let's just say from a Conservative's point of view, Bush has not exactly gotten off to a great start. In the meantime it seems that his feet needs to be held quite close to the fire.
Bill Kristol: Effeminite television personality with curly mop and boyish looks
Richard Simmons: Same as above, with fat chicks
And your choice for president is? Do you have a better choice? It sounds like your pulling against Bush and hoping he fails. You didn't support Bush in the beginning and don't support him now. I don't always agree with the President, but I'm always pulling for him.
I am not. I am saying that no one should have to pay a third of their income to the Federal Gov't. In fact no one should have to pay more than 15% to the Federal Govt.
Am I to assume by your statement that as long as its the other guy that has to pay 33%, its ok? You know that is how socialists operate too. Its called wealth re-distribution.
Then, he had to reset his priorities.
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.