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.
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.
And take a look at BigWaveBetty's rant
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.
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:
Just trying to add a couple more facts to the debate.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."
PERFECT point!!!!!!
redrock
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:^)
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.
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.
This much seems pretty clear.
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.