A Few Questions For Die-Hard Bush Supporters

Toogood Reports ^ | June 5, 2002 | Lee R. Shelton IV

[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.

[swheats]

There you go, I'm sure there's more. Oh yea, the tossing out of our military votes for frivolous reasons. I bet if we keep going, Gore really lost the popular vote.

[WRhine]

Joe, in a way I envy the Bushbots. It must be great to not have to think about whether a policy decision is right or wrong. Whatever Bush does is the correct answer and the only thing left is to spin for the guy. These folks take no back seat to the Clintonites that had a story for everything Slick Willie did.

[Joe Hadenuf]

Has anybody ever told you that you are just a barrell of fun? and your cheery disposition is what we all wished we had?.

Yes, my neighbors tell me I am the nicest guy in the area. You wouldn't like it here. We don't suger coat the real issues facing this nation or walk around with a tinkerbell attitude, while cheerleading career politicians.

[Texasforever]

MINOR immigration problems

Please list the source of the "minor" assertion. In the 80's we had illegals pouring over the southern border from Mexico and all of Central America". We had Vietnamese washing up on our shores by the boat loads. You have yet to define "minor" in relation to today. Mexico in the 80's makes Mexico today look like a model of prosperity and the border was just as open and they took full advantage of it. You are the one that needs a damn history lesson. You have NO objective facts to back up your own subjective and fabricated arguments. You should know by now that you get eaten alive around here if you blow smoke up a freeper’s butt. It may work where you come from but not here.

[MJY1288]

"in a way I envy the Bushbots"

Folks! You heard it here first

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Special rules under section 245(i) may allow you to apply to adjust status without leaving the United States."

Main Entry: am.nes.ty
Pronunciation: 'am-n&-stE
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek amnEstia forgetfulness, from amnEstos forgotten, from a- + mnasthai to remember -- more at MIND
Date: 1580
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
: the act of an authority (as a government) by which pardon is granted to a large group of individuals
- amnesty transitive verb

Let's clear this up one more time, shall we?

Please point to the section of the bill that does anything other than allow someone to apply for a hearing? Or where section 245(i) guarantees that anyone will even get a hearing.

Not much as pardons go, don't you think?

The wording of 245(i) simply changes the law momentarily to allow some people to apply for a hearing without going home first.

Now, we can argue about that all night, but I'm not buying into the spin you create, it isn't a matter of people just walking up to an INS office and getting an automatic free pass.

[My2Cents]

Original post 261, deleted by the moderator for some reason -- probably for petty personal reasons -- here reposted:

I don't even LOOK at those threads [the anti-Lincoln threads]. I've seen some of the comments. It's enough to make a person sick.

My2Cents, striking a blow for free speech on "Free" Republic!

[Mo1]

There you go, I'm sure there's more

Then there was the 105% turnout of voters in Philly .. can you say Unions

Chicago I'm sure was a fun place for voting also ..

If I recall there were a few states with pretty close calls that were never challenged

You're right .. I'm sure there is more .. but for now .. I'm off to bed

It's been fun ...

[Luis Gonzalez]

To Ronnie, when he said what he said, the immigration problems where huge. I'll ask you again, how would he have the proper perspective to consider his immigration problems not as bad as the ones in the future?

[nopardons]

No way . The napkin gets tossed to Joe.

[MJY1288]

"Yes, my neighbors tell me I am the nicest guy in the area. You wouldn't like it here. We don't suger coat the real issues facing this nation or walk around with a tinkerbell attitude, while cheerleading career politicians."

You bet I wouldn't, The last thing I want to do is hang around a bunch of Reform Party Orphans who spend their entire life whining about everything,

THANKS, but NO Thanks.

I would rather but in line at the dentist

[Luis Gonzalez]

"When Reagan signed that blanket amnesty it held a number of conditions. One condition was that it would be a ONE TIME. NEVER AGAIN DEAL."

BTW, could you point to the part in the constitution that gave Ronnie the right to put that limitation on future presidents and members of Congress?

[Texasforever]

He can't because thare was NO such condition.

[nopardons]

Actually, being what you so smarmily call a " BushBot ", doesn't mean that one agrees with what the president does and says 100 % of the time. It isn't as easy as you erroniously assume.

What really must be easy, is to be a BasherBot ; you don't have to think at all. No matter what the president does or says, it's wrong. You don't even have to think why ; you just trot out the same lame reasons, no matter what it may be, and the insult anyone who dares to show WHY it is a good thing.

[MJY1288]

Goodnight

[WRhine]

You should know by now that you get eaten alive around here if you blow smoke up a freeper’s butt. It may work where you come from but not here.

You must be talking about yourself Tex. With your non-stop shilling for Bush NO MATTER WHAT THE ISSUE IS you discredited yourself long ago as an independent voice of reason on FR. And if you think that the immigration problem of the 1980s is anywhere near the crisis it is today you ought to see a shrink. Do you understand what the word "accumulation" means? Like when a problem first evidences itself and at first it is easy to overlook because the absolute numbers were not of a critical mass yet later in time the numbers accumulate towards a critical mass creating a full-bore crisis? Don't play dumb Tex. You are always in the Spin mode.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"So, clearly, a liberal majority is quite willing under what they consider to be reasonable circumstances, to restrict a freedom to spend money on political campaigns."

"We hold that a party's coordinated expenditures, unlike expenditures truly independent, may be restricted to minimize circumvention of contribution limits,"

SCOTUS is talking about "Party" spending, not individual spending, nor are they talking about PAC's or citizen's groups.

Tne Party has no rights, only individuals have rights.

[WRhine]

BTW, could you point to the part in the constitution that gave Ronnie the right to put that limitation on future presidents and members of Congress?

You are acting silly now.

[swheats]

Good night Mo. Sleep well.

[Satadru]

Your proposition is laughable. Just because I like to think rationally and logically it doesn't make me an extremist. It only makes my opponents ridiculous. Even if pragmatists claim that we should make advances in small steps, I like to think logically that those steps should be made in the "right" direction. So far, Bush has been taking all the steps in the "wrong," ie left, direction. My problem is with political animals, who would do and say anything during the elections, and make an about turn once elected. I should have scrutinized Bush more carefully, and look at his Texas record where he actually imploded the size of the govt. I hope I will have better luck next time.

I am just curious. Is it because of my appreciation of Easterbrook, Posner and Epstein, do I get such accolades from you?