Posted on 06/18/2002 9:57:13 AM PDT by jimkress
Edited on 07/12/2004 3:54:48 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Conservative lawmakers and activists disappointed with President Bush's first 18 months in office are calling into question his tactics and strategy in advancing the conservative agenda.
"The president for the most part has been our guy," said House Majority Leader Dick Armey, Texas Republican and a prominent conservative on Capitol Hill. "A few times we disagree."
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
Okay, I'm being melodramatic and exaggerating-for-effect. However, Bush's incredible leftwards lurch has bothered me greatly, and makes it much harder to support him.
However, one thing I reject outright is the concept that I OWE him my vote. If Bush fails to perform, he has not EARNED my vote, no matter who is running against him.
I try not to vote AGAINST people, but FOR them. The only exception I have made to this rule was in 2000, I voted AGAINST Gore. I will be returning to my usual practice of only voting FOR people this coming election.
As sickening as the thought is, Evan Bayh would never have done all the FDR stuff that Bush has. I am not exaggerating.
This is true. Had a Democrat been in the White House, a lot of the proposals coming out of there would never have gotten this far. Could a Clinton have gotten away with the Section 245i Amnesty, or the USA Patriot Act? The Congressional Republicans would have blocked it. Bush's liberal programs are getting a free pass.
It sickens me to think of Tom Daschle with a huge Senate majority telling GWB when he finally discovers some partisan/conservative gonads being told "Do you feel lucky? Make my day, Punk!" And it is all avoidable if GWB was to just jettison Card/Rove. These guys didn't get him elected. We did.
Nay, it stinketh like D swine.
Sam Nunn was a DEMOCRAT.
I have that effect on people. :o)
False choice. I choose neither. Abolish the welfare state and abandon this Bush plan. Promoting home ownership is not a legitimate function of government.
Au contraire my fellow Freeper. The truth of the matter is that the Constitution not only allows buy also provides the mechanism with which to do it. The mechanism is called ELECTIONS.
The newly elected President can reverse any and all executive orders of the prior President(s) and the Congress (both houses) can replace any existing legislation by with new. Those matters can be accomplished in the blink of an eye (matter of weeks if not days).
The problem that exists is that even though the Constitution provided the means it didnt and cant provide the will, either in the voters or the elected officials.
Sort of reminds me of a saying I first heard many years ago and that Im certain that most everyone has also. It was true then and it certainly is true now, where there is a will, there is a way. :-)
Hold off on what? Commenting on his actions? No, I don't think so.
I will however agree to hold off making a voting decision as regards Messr. Bush until sometime in 2004. I think I can accomodate that.
Actually, it's "Where there's a will, there are lawyers."
And that's the problem.
We have DELIBERATIVE bodies. If you really could get every warm body in Congress to do your bidding instantly, then you wouldn't NEED a Congress in the first place.
The United States has had lots of people die in war in its 200 years that would be really proud of you. People in China still are dieing to be given the right to cast a real vote. Consider how lucky we all are.
...which manifests itself through greed and sloth.
The socialistic part is the [Government] helping people own private property.
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.