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.
While Southack did post GWBs positives (or at least some of them), the BFBs ignore the negatives. That's kind of like the ostrich sticking his head in the sand. Of course, when your heads in the sand, your butts in the air. 'Nuff said.
These few words are as powerful as a megaton nuclear warhead. Outstanding! Priorities do mean something, don't they?
Let me guess: In your mind, nothing.
Is this your site? Do you make the rules?
****
**********
The murders are among us because of the risky scheme that Dubya substituted for real immigration policy...
I agree with you 100%, OldVike.
But I honestly think we've seen the type of "conservative" agenda this President espouses, and it's not what I, and a lot of others, voted for.
On the other hand, the mere thought of Hillary or Gore sitting in the Oval Office will compel me to vote for W again the next time around.
Hopefully, maybe some of the Conservatives in Congress can gain a little headway. I'd look for the Conservatives to start making a lot of noise after 2006, especially.
History is replete with tragic lessons of blind loyalty to elected officials. The author of this post lays out a convincing argument that should be used as a learning tool, IMHO.
For the past three days, the FR neocons have sliced and diced Limbaugh, Hannity, et al, three ways to Sunday, for merely holding Dubya's feet to the fire. Had the Libertarians, Independents or Constitutional Party members done the same to El Rushbo, they'd have been summarily banned.
Dual standards and blind loyalty to elected politicians suck.
Regards,
-JT
Now I agree with Pat. Reagan - perfect no, the greatest yes.
I agree.
I think that is one of the reasons GHW Bush had such a difficult start is because Reagan was such a great President that people really wanted a 3rd Reagan term.
No overabundance of gray matter crowding your skull, is there...
Of course it isn't that simple, and the kitty knows that his posts have no bite with intelligent people. What's simple to do is to cut through the propaganda smoke-screen, and see them for what they are: inflammatory, baseless, rethoric for the consumption of soccer moms, and the impressionable.
One thing about those qualifications that astound me, that most people can't see this chance at legalization for what it truly is.
Conservatives oppose gun registration because of the inherent danger it poses, it creates a data base which could be used to grab our guns. We want our guns unregistered so that the Feds don't know where they are.
Here we have illegal immigrants in the country, that everyone seems to want rounded up and deported, but since they are here illegaly, we don't know where they are.
So, get them to register by applying for a hearing under 245(i), then we know where they are, don't we?
Yeah! Go Pat! All the way to the lowest rung of Dante's Inferno. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200.
Anytime you have a so-called conservative in whom an openly Marxist, communist supporter's endorsement is not rejected, you have a problem.
Who was the this Marxist communist supporter of Pat Buchanan? Well, I won't give the name, but her initials are LENORA FULLANI. Read all about it.
I agree, the problems are far greater that just the White House. The rnc leadership, and the millions that they control are supporting poor candidates which results in poor congressmen, senators, presidents, and therefore poor judges.
We then are presented with a no-win situation. A great case in point is the retirement of Jesse Helms in NC. All the support from the rnc will go to dole, regardless of who might challenge her. She is a nice woman and has done many wonderful things in her carreer, but she is two giant steps to the left.
Only if the conservatives rise up and speak with one voice aganist the moderate/left will the situation change.
Conservatives must demand an agenda that creates smaller government, greatly reduced spending and taxes, a rejection of globalism, and putting the decision-making control back into the hands of the citizens at the community level.
This is not the agenda of the republican party at this time.
That's the insulting part of all you all's arguments. What the hell makes you an arbiter of my thoughts?
You and I don't agree on something when it comes to matters of policy for the administration. I happen to think that most of your positions are insane, and that you don't have a grasp on reality when it comes to poitics.
But at least, I recognize your right to believe whatever you want to believe, and I don't stand here and insinuate that you are some sort of a moron for holding fast to your beliefs. But you do us.
It isn't blind loyalty. We just don't agree.
Very well articulated!!
This has to be the most IDIOTIC statement I've ever read.
Let me get this straight. You are saying that it is George W. Bush's fault that the murderers are among us? Were the hijackers of the planes here before of after G. W. was inaugurated?
Just HOW is this to be blamed on Bush?
Explain yourself.
Lay it out.
Preservation of the first ten amendments to the Constitution doesn't strike you as important?
_______________________
Texasforever: 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 other 1st amendment violation as has already been established under previous CFR laws.
There does remain the possibility that SCOTUS will reject the idea that the bill is severable. That appears to be a murky area, and one that is very difficult to predict. Heck, SCOTUS could refuse to hear the case altogether, although I admit that's an unlikely scenario.
There is another possibility few people are considering. Perhaps this is a bit ghoulish, but what if one of the conservative members died? The makeup of the court is not set in stone.
_______________________
Texasforever: 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?
Probably not. That said, how sure of this are you? I would say there's a 90% chance the ban will be tossed by SCOTUS. Now let's take this a step further: do this enough and you're bound to get burned by that pesky 10% at some point. When constitutional guarantees are at stake, those "10%" instances will erode rights quickly - especially when your timeframe is decades/centuries.
My stance is, it's for this reason the Founders envisioned a system where proposed legislation had to pass three (really, five) separate bodies before becoming law: committee, the House, Senate, White House, SCOTUS. If the first four abdicate their responsibility we've lost one of the mechanisms the Founders provided for eliminating bad law.
_______________________
Luis Gonzalez: The big difference here being the fact that the current SCOTUS has already identified political donations as speech, and protected under the First.
True, but as I stated above, the current SCOTUS could change at any time. They could refuse to even ehar the case, for all we know. Everybody thinks they can predict what the SCOTUS will do, but I maintain they're a notoriously unpredictable group.
_______________________
Howlin: 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.
Starwind posted a well-constructed, thoughtful post. The best you could do is make personal attacks? And you wonder why folks dismiss your comments out of hand. Unbelievable.
Go back and re read the article. Although I doubt you'll see it, the author took deliberate effort to show that he didn't dislike Bush as a person, but disagreed with his politics. You stated that the author showed hatred and that is not true.
The things that Bush has done that are right are not, for the most part, remarkable, but we've grown wo accustomed to clinton that anything that isn't debauched is treated as a spectacular success. Cutting funding to foreign family planning, while a moral victory, doesn't stop abortions overseas and has virtually no impact on US citizens. It wasn't really a bold stroke, merely correcting a bad policy.
What this thread is revealing is that it is very hard to get civil discussion regarding Bush's position (moderate or conservative) and criticism of his policies.
We used to shake our heads in frustration over the clinton supporters who stood by their president through thick or thin. I don't recall ANYONE on FR praising them for their loyalty. Now we have people doing the same thing and putting on blinders and making excuses for half to two thirds of the president's policies while maintaining that he stands for Conservative policy AND getting personally nasty with those who disagree.
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.