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.

[PsyOp]

Hollow words at best, actions speak louder than words. I would also like to add that in times of war, the federal government has always assumed additional powers, only to return them to the people when the war is over. No declaration of war. Where is bin Laden?. Care to extrapolate with any examples of "only to return them to the people when the war is over." We've already been told that this war will go on for a long time. Look's like you've swallowed the hook, line and sinker. What kind of drugs are you on?. Reagan's "compromise" was the largest increase in federal spending every recorded, subsequently increasing the deficit by something on the order of 400%. You need a reality check. ---max

Better drugs than your using judging from your knee-jerk response. You might try lithium for those violent mood swings that keep you from reasoning clearly.

You made my point about Reagan without even realizing. As for Bin Laden I don't need to see his body. I've never seen Hitler's body, but I'm pretty sure we won that war.

As for no declaration of war, I'm not bothered by that in the least under the situation - this way we can go where we need to to get the bastards without have to ram another "declaration" through the Senate everytime we had to go into a new country. Can you imagine what the Dems would do with that opportunity? Of course you didn't.

Here's a little tip on civilized discourse. If you wish to argue a point without looking like an un-educated moron, don't begin the posts with insults, followed by facts you barely understand.

If you use fact the way a drunk uses a lamp post - for support rather than illumination - you will never convince anybody of your position.

I stand ready to havemy mind and opinions changed at any time. But I demand a civilized and polite dialogue that does not begin with presuption of the intelligence of people you've never met. That is the very definition of stupidity.

[Deb]

A 63 year old blonde Samoan.

I only shoot at the Beverly Hills Gun Club (which isn't in Beverly Hills and isn't a club, it just sounds cool) and in the desert.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"You omitted the fact that those people are Illegals."

Not if the law is changed they're not.

What's really telling is that you had no answer for my post.

"Who said "free?"

Did you miss th definition of amnesty I posted?

"Who said "automatic?" "

Then it can't be an amnesty, they have to apply, get a hearing, and qualify.

Amnesty doesn't require all that, amnesty is just a pardon.

"That's beside the point anyway. 245(i) allows certain Illegals to pay a fine and get away with staying in our country, thus rewarding them for entering the country Illegally."

Not if they don't qualify, so it can't be an amnesty, can it?

"But you know it's trouble if the truth is out, so you continue to blow smoke and build straw men."

Then why are you unable to refute a single point I made?

The truth is that this is no amnesty, but rather a change in the mechanics of applying for legal status for a small number of qualifying individuals.

[WRhine]

My point is that the problems in the 1980's only dwarf in lighht of what's going on today. But not to the people in the 80's...and that's when Reagan said it. You just can't grasp that, can you?

I think you just answered your own question. The problems of immigration in the 80s are dwarfed by what's happening today. What Reagan said then has little bearing on our own current crisis. Looked at another way, should we take FDR’s words to heart that we should have a great society of big government when we have seen the results of what that big government brings?

[Joe Hadenuf]

Of course this titanic immigration invasion is worse now. Only an idiot, or someone with an agenda would try and debate it.

Facts please.

Oh tex, get real. This does not even rate a response. LOL!

[Texasforever]

You are dealing with those that deal in fevered conspiracy that the "brown horde' is coming to take their wimmin. They are not men enough to compete with a bunch of illiterate lawn mowers and bus boys. They are shaking like little girls. They at BEST paranoid.

[Texasforever]

Oh tex, get real. This does not even rate a response.

Humor me, for old times sake. LOL!

[Luis Gonzalez]

"After the 9/11 attacks, anyone would have rebuilt the military and take the US out of World Court."

Like Clinton did after all the previous attacks?

That's two moves to the right when you said he had made none. That would make your statement already wrong.

"The tax cut has been a total scam."

It was nearly the exact amount he promised in his campaign. No secrets there.

I don't recall getting any tax breaks from Bill.

That's another instance of your being wrong.

You did say all...didn't you?

[WRhine]

HOW COULD YOU POSSIBLY KNOW?

Or HOW COULD YOU POSSIBLY KNOW that Reagan would be as irresponsible as Bush in pushing amnesties for illegal aliens at a time when our country is at war with an enemy that has as its primary advantage the ability to infiltrate a country it seeks to attack. My opinion is that Reagan is not the jellyfish of a leader that GW is currently showing himself to be. You have a different opinion. The fact is we are both speculating on what Reagan would have done in today's political environment. WHO KNOWS FOR SURE?

[Joe Hadenuf]

Yes tex, I fear for my country when its being invaded by hundreds of thousands, into the millions of criminal illegal aliens from all over the world, and to compound the problem, our govenment allows in millions more on visas with no checks and balances, in war time period no less. So you continue to throw out more garbage like this:

You are dealing with those that deal in fevered conspiracy that the "brown horde' is coming to take their wimmin. They are not men enough to compete with a bunch of illiterate lawn mowers and bus boys. They are shaking like little girls. They at BEST paranoid.

[altair]

And you believe in "uncompassionate conservatism"?

I don't like the term "compassionate conservative". I first heard it in a California 22^nd congressional district race between Tom "The Compassionate Conservative" Bordanaro and Lois Capps. Bordanaro lost, so I've since associated it with being beaten by a liberal Democrat.

Also, I don't think there is "uncompassionate conservatism".

[Luis Gonzalez]

You do whatever you want to do with Reagan's words. He made that speech in the face of an immigration problem that he tought could not get any worse, now, in order to justify your position, you are going revisionist about Reagan.

I have proven, beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt, how Ronald Reagan felt about immigration when faced with the worst immigration problem that the US had ever faced.

All you have to do is prove to me that he would have felt different today.

Here's a hint before you go crazy....you can't, it's impossible.

[Texasforever]

The threat is NOT Mexicans, the threat is the Middle East. Focus on that not your personal dislike of Mexicans.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Or HOW COULD YOU POSSIBLY KNOW that Reagan would be as irresponsible as Bush in pushing amnesties for illegal aliens at a time when our country is at war with an enemy that has as its primary advantage the ability to infiltrate a country it seeks to attack."

Because that's exactly what he did in the middle of the cold war. Or do you not think that the USSR had similar abilities?

[PsyOp]

You sure read an awful lot into things I didn't write, while avoiding a direct answer to what I did.

When It comes to the Second Amendment, I am a strict constructionist. But I also realize from reading a good deal of the documentation of the period (the federalist and ant-federalist papers for starters and most of the writing of the founding fathers. Not to mention the military history of the revolution), that not all things could be forseen.

I am in favor of certain limitations of certain types of weapond, but only through the amendment process. I even support the ownership of fully-automatic shoulder weapons, but would stop there.

I am in favor of concealed carry permits for anyone for anyone with proper training and no convictions for violent crime.

I am against gun registration, waiting period, etc.

Laws do not prevent crimes, law-abiding citizens with the right to carry do. laws are for after the fact.

I'd go on, but its late. Try to be a little less strident, and actually reply to specific points without putting words in peoples mouths, it makes arguing the merits of different points of veiw more enlightening and enjoyable.

good Night.

[ArneFufkin]

On a thread last weekend, President Fox stated that there are 18 million legally resident Mexican citizens in the U.S., and around 3 million "undocumented" illegals.

Now, do YOU think that all this fuss, all this angst, all this fear ... is about the 3 million illegals, or the 18 million legals? Is this a real concern about illegal immigrants ... Saudis, Irish, Russian, Somali, Chinese, Haitian, Mexican ... well, there's not much chat on FR about all the nervous Irish hanging in Boston pubs or Russian thugs strutting around Coney Island.

It's about Mexican encroachment. The "swarm" can't be the 3 million illegal Mexicans ... they are fungible in the bigger group. The "swarm" has to be the 21 million total.

That's always been my visceral objection to these threads. Illegal immigration IS a vital security issue in the U.S. But even if all 3 million illegal interlopers are caught and deported, that's 16% of the total immigration population. Will these people be sanguine then?

That's a compelling question. If the issue is too many immigrant Mexicans in the Southwest, as opposed to too many illegally resident Mexicans, I would propose that there is a disturbing undercurrent in that issue.

My position is clear: there can NEVER be enough Americans of hope, industry, faith and family within our borders. There are never too many Americans of Mexican heritage, never too many good-faith and motivated Americans of Cuban heritage, never too many Americans of Somali or German or Kenyan or Korean or Hmong or Australian heritage. We need to get hold of the process - but our ship of freedom is open for business.

[Texasforever]

Fantastic post.

[Joe Hadenuf]

All you have to do is prove to me that he would have felt different today.

It don't matter how Reagan would feel about it today. Who gives a damn how he would feel. The citizens have had enough of this immigration nightmare. And to prove this, I refer to California Proposition 187. We won the election and the government burned our ballots and declared our election unconstitutional. Why should we care how Reagan would feel? The government don't give a damn how we feel.

[Joe Hadenuf]

Get out of that hot texas sun tex. Its affecting you.