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 cannotor will notutter 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.
Considering the events of 9/11, and considering the bipartisan support for the bill, I probably wouldn't have been upset if Clinton had been the President to sign it.
Would you have criticized a Democrat president for signing a $26 billion education-spending bill?
I'm not pleased about a perpetuation of federal control of education, but had it been a Democrat, it would have a $26 billion or more blank check. At least Bush is trying to reform education, and put some standards into education--something a Democrat would never do.
Did you feel betrayed when Bush signed Campaign Finance Reform into law?
No. He held his nose as he did so, and I believe it is the role of the judiciary to judge the constitutionality of legislation, not the President.
What do you think about Bush's position on granting amnesty to hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants?
It hasn't happened yet, so it's not a done deal. And Ronald Reagan did likewise.
Would you have tolerated a Democrat proposal for federally funded faith-based initiatives?
No, I would not have tolerated a Democrat proposal for faith-based initiatives because it would be too intrusive into the practice of religion. I believe that faith-based organizations should be able to compete for a piece of federal social service grants, rather than let secular humanist organizations have a monopoly on that money. As long as the federal government is in the business of supporting social programs, faith-based programs should be allowed to participate in those programs.
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"?
I would have supported that Democrat. But this is fantasy: no Democrat would ever say such a thing.
What do you think about the president's granting of Permanent Most Favored Nation status to China?
I'm inclinded to oppose it. But this issue doesn't make or break my support for Bush.
What's the difference between Bush and the Democrats on the issue of farm subsidies?
Probably not much. It was a politically expedient position on Bush' part, and steals an issue from the Democrats in an election year. Gosh! The President playing politics. Horrors!
How would you react if a Democrat president sent a $2.13 trillion budget to Congress?
Let's talk about the individual line items of that budget rather than the gross amount. For all I know, the nation needs a $2.13 trillion budget. What would you suggest? A budget of $125,000?
Would you have stood for a Democrat saying "No!" to arming airline pilots?
Again, I disgree with Bush on this, but it isn't a support-buster, in my opinion.
What would your reaction have been if a Democrat had pushed for the federalization of airport security?
This was reached by compromise. Republicans opposed it; Dems supported it. A compromise was reached. Don't lose sleep over it.
Are you willing to stand by and let the Bush administration cater to the environmentalists on the global warming issue?
Didn't Bush brush aside the EPA report on global warming yesterday? What's your problem with his position?
What do you think about Bush's call for a Patient's Bill of Rights?
Again, this is a volatile issue, or was. The public clammered for it. Bush's concept of "Patients' Rights" and the Democrats' are significantly different. Bush opposes frivolous lawsuits against HMOs. The lawsuits provision is the cornerstone of the Democrats' concept of patients' rights. I support Bush on this. If Gore had been President, there would have been a sell-out to the trial lawyers long before this.
What one thing has Bush done that sets him apart from the Democrats?
He's a decent person. I thank God every day that following eight years of Clinton/Gore, George W. Bush is President.
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?
We saw an effort to limit the growth in the federal budget when Bush proposed his first one: a limit on growth to 4%. It's been less than a year since the first Bush budget went into effect. If he controls the growth of government, I'm happy. The fact that he doesn't have a line-item veto like most governors do means he's not able to be as effective in cutting programs as he or we might like. But, realistically, when was the last time the budget actually decreased?
Considering the events of 9/11, and considering the bipartisan support for the bill, I probably wouldn't have been upset if Clinton had been the President to sign it.
Would you have criticized a Democrat president for signing a $26 billion education-spending bill?
I'm not pleased about a perpetuation of federal control of education, but had it been a Democrat, it would have a $26 billion or more blank check. At least Bush is trying to reform education, and put some standards into education--something a Democrat would never do.
Did you feel betrayed when Bush signed Campaign Finance Reform into law?
No. He held his nose as he did so, and I believe it is the role of the judiciary to judge the constitutionality of legislation, not the President.
What do you think about Bush's position on granting amnesty to hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants?
It hasn't happened yet, so it's not a done deal. And Ronald Reagan did likewise.
Would you have tolerated a Democrat proposal for federally funded faith-based initiatives?
No, I would not have tolerated a Democrat proposal for faith-based initiatives because it would be too intrusive into the practice of religion. I believe that faith-based organizations should be able to compete for a piece of federal social service grants, rather than let secular humanist organizations have a monopoly on that money. As long as the federal government is in the business of supporting social programs, faith-based programs should be allowed to participate in those programs.
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"?
I would have supported that Democrat. But this is fantasy: no Democrat would ever say such a thing.
What do you think about the president's granting of Permanent Most Favored Nation status to China?
I'm inclinded to oppose it. But this issue doesn't make or break my support for Bush.
What's the difference between Bush and the Democrats on the issue of farm subsidies?
Probably not much. It was a politically expedient position on Bush' part, and steals an issue from the Democrats in an election year. Gosh! The President playing politics. Horrors!
How would you react if a Democrat president sent a $2.13 trillion budget to Congress?
Let's talk about the individual line items of that budget rather than the gross amount. For all I know, the nation needs a $2.13 trillion budget. What would you suggest? A budget of $125,000?
Would you have stood for a Democrat saying "No!" to arming airline pilots?
Again, I disgree with Bush on this, but it isn't a support-buster, in my opinion.
What would your reaction have been if a Democrat had pushed for the federalization of airport security?
This was reached by compromise. Republicans opposed it; Dems supported it. A compromise was reached. Don't lose sleep over it.
Are you willing to stand by and let the Bush administration cater to the environmentalists on the global warming issue?
Didn't Bush brush aside the EPA report on global warming yesterday? What's your problem with his position?
What do you think about Bush's call for a Patient's Bill of Rights?
Again, this is a volatile issue, or was. The public clammered for it. Bush's concept of "Patients' Rights" and the Democrats' are significantly different. Bush opposes frivolous lawsuits against HMOs. The lawsuits provision is the cornerstone of the Democrats' concept of patients' rights. I support Bush on this. If Gore had been President, there would have been a sell-out to the trial lawyers long before this.
What one thing has Bush done that sets him apart from the Democrats?
He's a decent person. I thank God every day that following eight years of Clinton/Gore, George W. Bush is President.
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?
We saw an effort to limit the growth in the federal budget when Bush proposed his first one: a limit on growth to 4%. It's been less than a year since the first Bush budget went into effect. If he controls the growth of government, I'm happy. The fact that he doesn't have a line-item veto like most governors do means he's not able to be as effective in cutting programs as he or we might like. But, realistically, when was the last time the budget actually decreased?
good post, btw
I'm sure he'll be along to answer your question shortly. He's a member of this forum, I believe.
And we ask our reps to not kill young interns and bury them in a park or drive them off bridges and leave them to drown in the car.
Oh, poo, that's horse crap, even Ray Charles can see this, for Christ sakes. For example, this titanic invasion of millions of illegal aliens has been going on for 20 years or so. When the Presidents DAD was in office!!! What has been done Poo? We now have the President giving speeches in Spanish and all you neocons think its cool. He has even tried to push legalizing illegal aliens in light of this massive invasion. In a war time yet?
Or for fat California chicks from dysfunctional families.
It's not "all" we ask of our President, it's the first thing we expect of him. And if he can't meet this first standard, then any discussion about items 2 through 100 on the list is largely irrelevant.
Now there's a nice fair statement to make you feel all warm and fuzzy and really want to participate, isn't it?
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.