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.
Cutting off Federal funding to any new stem cell research is "all talk"?
Cutting off foreign aid earmarked for abortions is "all talk"?
George Bush never had sex with an intern, lied about it under oath, tried to covered it up, then started bombing Iraq to divert attention with from it, or bomb Asprin factories in Sudan.
OK. Now which flavor of “old fashioned conservative are you
A free market Conservative ala Steve Forbes
An America First isolationist consevative ala PJB
A social Conservative ala Alan Keyes
A libertarian Conservative ala Barry Goldwater
A Paleo-conservative ala John Birch and Lew Rockwell
A Neo-Conservative ala John McCain
The term Conservative covers a lot of ground and you have not defined “old Fashioned conservative” too well.
How is that any different than you comparing the times and political conditions of the 1980s with what we have today? If Thomas Jefferson said, "we need to liberalize our immigration laws" would that be relevant to the political realities of 2002? Oh and I'm glad I misunderstood your position on open borders. I guess I read all your pro-amnesty posts wrong on the immigration threads.
Nay! Remember, Bush is a conservative, you're a reactionary fringe extremist, with tendancies for absolutism. Nothing makes your type happy. Not now, not ever!
So what does that make you, a zombie?
And this thread is Night of the Living Dead?
Ah, yeah. Right. I hope you have better luck with your predictions in the Triple Crown.
BTW, I ain't buying that stuff about "Lurked since '98" on your profile page. There's nobody in the world that could hold out that long.
Your problem is that anyone who injects sense into an anti-immigrant thread is immediately deemed an open borders, unlimited immigration advocate.
My posts have always been directed at pointing out the lies that you all have been spouting aboyut 245(i), such as the "hundreds of thousands" one posted on this thread, or the one about it being a blanket amnesty, when in reality it is a chance to obtain a hearing with the INS, with no guarantees of being accepted.
I don't see Ronnie placing any limitations on his ideals, that has to be you projecting once again.
PS. don't like PJB or MaCain
There is only ONE portion of the bill being challenged. That is the issue ad ban. Of course the rest will be affirmed because there is no other1st amendment violation as has already been established under previous CFR laws.
Plus he never bought thongs for his daughter .. and his pets are still alive
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.