Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A Few Questions For Die-Hard Bush Supporters
Toogood Reports ^ | June 5, 2002 | Lee R. Shelton IV

Posted on 06/05/2002 1:20:54 PM PDT by Stand Watch Listen

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 721-740741-760761-780 ... 1,301-1,302 next last
To: Stand Watch Listen
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.

My question to you is why does this bother you and so many people if there are some that find they don't need to criticize this president on an issue or every issue?

Concerning CFR, I don't believe it infringes on my individual rights as a citizen. I'm one of the "skinny cats" that the bill supposedly brought back to the playing field with more of likeminded people. I believe [the big picture of CFR] breaks up the idea of corporations buying candidates.

Concerning Amnesty, I would be deeply dissappointed but if it means that we are able to find these individuals and have criteria for who goes or stays then I'm for it. As it stands now we have illegal aliens that are here whether they are welcomed or not. At least if it be true, that Bush will give them amnesty, they will have to become responsible citizens (on work permits) or deported.

741 posted on 06/05/2002 10:15:40 PM PDT by swheats
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: McGavin999; JeanS; BigWaveBetty; Southack; deport; Texasforever
See patriciaruth's 716

And take a look at BigWaveBetty's rant

742 posted on 06/05/2002 10:16:19 PM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 739 | View Replies]

To: swheats
Bump, girl!
743 posted on 06/05/2002 10:17:17 PM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 741 | View Replies]

To: WRhine
First of all, you must be confusing me with someone else, I am no open borders advocate.

If you have a problem with the post, you have a problem with Ronnie's beliefs, not with anything, or anyone, else.

"Reagan would have NEVER lobbied Congress to pass ANOTHER amnesty for illegals during these times and IMO he would have had our borders sealed off quickly after 9/11 with the overstayed Muslims on an outbound plane in a New York minute."

There you go again, predicting the future, and projecting your beliefs on to Ronnie.

He said what he said, and I have a better argument insofar as my post, and my guess as to what Ronmnie would have done, remains consistent with his words and actions, whereas you are claiming that he would have changed his core sets of values and beliefs, becoming something other than the Ronald Reagan that we all knew.

I don't think so.

744 posted on 06/05/2002 10:17:26 PM PDT by Luis Gonzalez
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 731 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever; NittanyLion; Howlin
The point of this post is to highlight the good possibility that CFR/McCainFeingold will in fact be affirmed by the SCOTUS, and that President Bush had the last, best opportunity to prevent it.

Ostensibly, President Bush signed into law what some believe to be an unconstitutional Campaign Finance Reform bill (McCain Feingold), with a view toward leaving it to the SCOTUS to determine actual constitutionality, as the Judicial branch ought. The conventional wisdom was that in spite of the Democrats having inserted a presumed unconstitutional provision (attempting to force a Bush veto), Bush instead would sign the bill, the SCOTUS would reject it (in whole or in part), Bush would get the political gain of having signed the bill, and the country would be unharmed.

The problem with that view is the current makeup of the Supreme Court may likely affirm the bill as constitutional:

There are at least three or maybe four justices who would likely rule against:

Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy**

Four justices who would likely affrim in favor:

Ginsberg, Souter, Stevens, Breyer

And O'Connor would be the swing vote, as she often is when the court is split.

So there are at least two possibilities of affirming CFR:

a 4-5 split in favor

against - Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy**

for - Ginsberg, Souter, Stevens, Breyer, O'Connor*

or a 3-6 split in favor

against - Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas

for - Ginsberg, Souter, Stevens, Breyer, Kennedy**, O'Connor*

And one possibility of CFR being rejected:

against - Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy**, O'Connor*

for - Ginsberg, Souter, Stevens, Breyer

The SCOTUS ruling on June 25, 2001 illuminates how the justices would be inclined to split Court Upholds Party Spending Limits

"In the court's split ruling today, swing-vote Justice Sandra Day O'Connor* joined Souter and the court's other moderates and liberals, justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and John Paul Stevens. Another swing-voter, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy**, joined Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and fellow conservative justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas in dissent."

Clearly, there may other variations on this theme, but the essential point is that of a very narrow split with odds in favor of affirming the bill, and not the 'slam-dunk' rejection most implicitly assume.

Rich Lowery writing 3/21/02 for The National Review Online here on the President's awareness of CFR's unconstitutional provisions:

So, President Bush thinks the campaign-finance-reform bill he's going to sign "does present some legitimate constitutional questions."

Ramesh Ponnuru writing 3/25/02 for the National Review Online here on the President's prerogative and responsibility to veto unconstitutional bills:

notably...

"Presidents and legislators swear an oath to uphold the former [Constitution]. But a constitutionalist political culture is hard to sustain if the Constitution is held to be the exclusive property of an unelected elite. In that case, lawmakers will not look to the Constitution when doing their jobs-a phenomenon all too evident in the campaign-finance debate. A judicial monopoly on constitutional interpretation poses the additional danger of reducing the Constitution to a mere grant of judicial power."

and...

"If President Bush signs the bill, he will have no such defense. In the month of his inauguration, he said that he regarded key provisions of the bill as unconstitutional and would therefore veto it. Those provisions are still there."

Just trying to add a couple more facts to the debate.
745 posted on 06/05/2002 10:17:37 PM PDT by Starwind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 536 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
Whao! Karen Williams and Janice Brown are on his short list. I am not surprised at all. Maybe Cass Sunstein will get on the list at some point as well. I am glad to see Posner on the list. I would like to see Easterbrook and Richard Epstein up there as well, but maybe that is expecting too much from Bush.
746 posted on 06/05/2002 10:19:19 PM PDT by Satadru
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 601 | View Replies]

To: Stand Watch Listen
"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."

PERFECT point!!!!!!

redrock

747 posted on 06/05/2002 10:19:49 PM PDT by redrock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rdb3
Thanks for the ping. I agree with your post and you're real good on this thread. Keep it up!
748 posted on 06/05/2002 10:20:05 PM PDT by mafree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 275 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
"And you believe in "uncompassionate conservatism"?"

No, just a regular old fashioned conservative. I never thought of conservatives as uncompassionate to begin with.

I guess President Bush did though, since he felt the need to redefine himself. I thought at first it was just a slick marketing label, but turns out it really is different than old fashioned conservatism.

Wheather that is good or bad is in the eye of the beholder I guess, since he certainly has lots of supporters:^)

749 posted on 06/05/2002 10:20:34 PM PDT by monday
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 736 | View Replies]

To: Starwind
Tell me, a court that has ruled that virtual child pornography, Christ in a bottle of urine and burning the flag is protected speech is going to let the issue ad ban stand?
750 posted on 06/05/2002 10:20:48 PM PDT by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 745 | View Replies]

To: patriciaruth
Thanks for your comments in #716!
751 posted on 06/05/2002 10:20:50 PM PDT by PhiKapMom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 716 | View Replies]

To: Borg Repellant
I agree with Keyes on most issues and would support him in a race against any Democrat. His style is a bit over board for my personal tastes.

As far him not being president, it's plain hard for anyone to be elected having only held an ambassadorship. Not since James Buchanan was elected in 1856, has someone whose only political experience was as an ambassador been elected president of the United States. Remember how much heat George Bush took for being "unexperience" by the media - and Bush was a governor of Texas.

Not since President Eisenhower was re-elected in 1956 has a man been elected president without first holding elected office. Unless someone else saves Western Civilization from a certain evil (Nazism in Ike's case) I don't see it happening again.

752 posted on 06/05/2002 10:21:03 PM PDT by afuturegovernor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 730 | View Replies]

To: patriciaruth
Delurking to bump this one.
Wonderful PR, thanks for putting this on the "dose". This thread is too long to go thru the whole thing!
O2
753 posted on 06/05/2002 10:22:20 PM PDT by omegatoo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 716 | View Replies]

To: Starwind
The big difference here being the fact that the current SCOTUS has already identified political donations as speech, and protected under the First.
754 posted on 06/05/2002 10:22:23 PM PDT by Luis Gonzalez
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 745 | View Replies]

To: rdb3
Go rdb3 bump.
755 posted on 06/05/2002 10:22:39 PM PDT by mafree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 291 | View Replies]

To: Southack
You are reaching. Tax cuts don't get phased in for a decade for the people who are being screwed the most. The bureaucrat who is obstructing armed pilots serves at the pleasure of Bush, who could pick up the phone and change policy in a heartbeat.

Daniel Patrick Moynihad observed that conservatives lost the war, so now they are taking liberal positions and calling them conservative. Ok, so not an exact quote, but close.

The Bushbots are just like the Clintonoids, who defended their president at any cost.

Conservatism is dead. GWB the first dug the grave, Dumbya aka George W Algore is shoveling the dirt in.

756 posted on 06/05/2002 10:22:53 PM PDT by Jesse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
That should be the international symbol for "Government Union Worker".
757 posted on 06/05/2002 10:23:35 PM PDT by ArneFufkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 711 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Jim, I miss the good old days when we were all bent out of shape over the real CFR - Council of Foreign Relations.
758 posted on 06/05/2002 10:26:25 PM PDT by ArneFufkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 726 | View Replies]

To: monday
In short Bush supporters seem to have a pretty much blind trust in the gov't as long as Bush is heading it.

This much seems pretty clear.

759 posted on 06/05/2002 10:26:34 PM PDT by Joe Hadenuf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: rdb3
You're making this thread fun. Keep rollin'!
760 posted on 06/05/2002 10:26:43 PM PDT by mafree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 381 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 721-740741-760761-780 ... 1,301-1,302 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson