If not Bush, then who?

12-28-2003 | agitate

[Agitate]

I've noticed several threads where people say they will not vote for Bush if he supports certain causes. Some include:

Memogate:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1045476/posts

Broad Amnesty in immigration:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1046165/posts

(Please don't see this as an attack on those threads or any comments in them, it's not.)

While I agree with the conservative position on both of these threads, I don't understand how a person could not vote for Bush even if he does some things that are inexplicable from a conservative point of view.

My belief is nothing could be worse than a democrat in office in 2004. I know that is the lesser of two evils vote, but it is true.

Even if Bush gave amnesty to immigrants to pander to hispanics, which would be disgusting, is that reason enough to allow a democrat a greater chance to get in office? Wouldn't the dems likely do worse?

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

I understand....It's just sour grapes!

That's what they said in Florida after the media announced that Gore had won. Thank God some of the people stayed and voted anyway. If they would have had your attitude, We would still be in UN meetings and taking puplic opinion poles about what to do about wether we should go to war with the Taliban.

[Penner]

I understand....It's just sour grapes!

No, PSYCHO - It's just reality.

[Tim Osman]

I represent the majority on this forum.

You represent the majority, you say? I wasn't aware FR was holding elections, and I sure didn't vote for you, so perhaps you are a self-appointed representative.

But just in case, I better bow down at the altar of Psycho-Freep and shut up! I mean - we wouldn't want any minority opinions on this board, it could be damaging to your fragile psyche!

I (and most people) don't think it to be attacking someone simply to cite their record. Oh mighty Psycho-Freep, should I refrain from doing that? For you are in the MAJORITY and I need your guidance! Or perhaps I said something that was not true? If so, perhaps it would have been better to say "You were wrong, and here is why" rather than your childish pablum.

The FReepers you are supporting are considered by most to be the radical fringe and are not well liked......

I support no FReeper but one, and his name is Tim Osman. However - if it is people like you who are in the majority, as you claim, then I will be content to stick to the fringes.. But one good thing about you, at least you have the courtesy to include your mental state in your FR username!



please have a pleasant day

[Badray]

That's what I figured.

BTW, I'm one of those who don't 'get' your screen name. Please educate me.

[Mr. Mojo]

Since I live in California, it doesn't matter whether or not I vote for Bush because he's gonna lose by at least a million votes here.

You never know with CA. Republican Presidential candidates have actually won CA in 6 of the last 9 elections.

[Tim Osman]

a rugby player.

[dpa5923]

Question back at you: At what point would you say enough is enough and not vote for him? Can he do anything or is there some line that you will not let be crossed?

Althoug I will most likely still vote for Bush, he cannot count on vote 100%.

[MattAMiller]

As I said, this may not be the "ideal solution", but it's pretty much the only realistic one.

The people who manage to mention illegal immigration in every thread they come across don't care much about realistic solutions.

[Badray]

This is the post that you are responding to:

arasina wrote:

"I understand that our president has to "be a politician" in order to reverse so many years of a socialistic trend in our country. What the leftists accomplished with incrementalism and scare tactics can't be defeated overnight."

To which I replied:

With every bit of respect that is due, wake up and smell the coffee. He's not reversing anything. He's accelerating it. He's not giving in to it, he's promoting it.

At which point you jumped in with:

"I have read the posts from your fellow hyper ventilators guild for several years now."

Where is the hyper ventilating? I simply stated facts.

"You always imply Chicken Little logic and extreme doom in all you do."

What Chicken Little logic and doom do you see in my response? Is Bush not the prime mover behind the increase in non-defense government spending? He's not fighting or reversing anything. He can't even say that an opposition Congress 'made' him do it. He's pushing for this legislation and refusing to veto anything.

"Funny though, not one of your predictions, claims, or concerns has come true."

Where am I making any predictions? What claims (that aren't true)?

"President Bush is not our enemy. You, and your ilk however ARE the enemy."

Am I (and my ilk) shredding the Constitution? Or is Bush and his ilk - the bushbots - in his defense?

" All your paranoya (sic) and suspicions, rhetoric etc....does nothing to attract people to your ideas, ideals or philosophy. It simply repels us and convinces us that your group's phoilosophy is irrelevant and your overall influence is insignificant.....So, get over it..."

I state facts and you scream paranoia. I ask questions and you determine that it is suspicious. BTW, Thanks for the promotion. I now have a 'group'. But if we are so irrelevant, that why do you get so worked up over the fact that we might withhold our vote from Bush? Tell me, Psycho, who's the paranoid one?

[Badray]

"You have to look at the nice little poison pills our side slipped into certain bills .Look,I think CFR is a travesty and truly, now, no one in the middle cares.HOWEVER, had W not signed this into law, this whole thing would be whipped into a frenzy,aimed at the middle grounders who still watch Jennings and Leno. A tactical retreat , nothing more, nothing less."

I know that you are trying hard, but you aren't convincing me that this was a colossal blunder and assault on our First Amendment. I don't even think that you've convinced yourself yet. Please don't try so hard. Just acknowledge that we got screwed and Bush is the one who did it. He even promised to veto CFR if it didn't contain certain provisions. He signed it anyway without them. He failed to do his duty to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

[gatorbait]

"but you aren't convincing me "

And,I'm not even trying to do so.

"I don't even think "

We're in agreement ,now. Good night.

[Badray]

"but you aren't convincing me "

"And,I'm not even trying to do so."

Then why did you respond to me with a lame explanation?

"I don't even think "

"We're in agreement ,now. Good night."

Brave. Make a cutesy remark and put quotes around it to distort what I said, then run. (_x_)

[MattAMiller]

I want Dubya to understand that real Conservatives are not happy with his moderate stance.

I guess I'm not a real conservative then. I don't have any tremendous problem with anything Bush has done. Prescription drug coverage doesn't make me happy, but something like it was inevitable. Bush was right to make it as painless as possible.

The immigration obsessives have somehow pegged Bush as being in favor of blanket amnesty, but I don't see any signs of that. And I wouldn't necessarily oppose some sort of amnesty if real reforms in how we police immigration were made.

[RJCogburn]

This President is dismantling, at great odds, the framework FDR built.

>That's great news!! I missed it.

>Oh, can you give me some examples equal to the farm bill, the ed bill......

Try this notion;to gain ground, on occasion,you have to retreat.

That's your example?

You are correct, you wasted your time...and mine.

[RJCogburn]

A very fair statement of your point of view. Thanks.

[CWOJackson]

There is a thread in the smokey backroom that has a title which reminds me of this debate:

"Man Chops Off Own Testicle in Dispute With Wife"

[gatorbait]

You are correct, you wasted your time...and mine.


You're half right, you're a waste of time;notto mention oxygen.I know you're looking forward to a Dean or Hillary! prsidency so you can sit and whine even louder.

[gatorbait]

Brave. Make a cutesy remark and put quotes around it to distort what I said, then run. (_x_)


You strike me as a boy of scruples.or a jackass. Either way,you seem to share the death before victory disease so common amongst you third party fantasist. I cannot help but believe you and your ilk would prefer a Dean or Hillary! presidency so you could wrap yourselves in a self pitying righteousness and howl at all of us about your purity.
The only thing bad about you is your synapse connections.

[Common Tator]

Well that is not hard to understand. Tom Daschle is not controlled by todays public opinion. He is driven by the public opinion that elected him years ago. If Thune breats him in 2004, the alignment of the senate and the senator from Sount Dakota will have changed, but not Tom Daschle.

The supreme court in the 1930s was not effected by the public opinion that elected FDR. The people that FDR appointed to replace those jurists when they left the court were effected by the opinion that eleted FDR. FDR was a popular president and the people he appointed reflected his views.

H.V.Kaltenborn. Fulton Lewis Jr. and other media stars of the 1930's and on were not effected by the public opinion that elected FDR. That constantly used the news to trash both FDR and HST. But the young reporters just starting their careers in the 30s 40s and 50s were effected by the success of FDR and HST. Thirty years later they were calling the shots and the media became as liberal as they were.

Today all the major jouralists are liberal. They are not effected by the success of Dubya any more than H.V. was influcenced by FDR. But the 22 to 28 year old reporters just starting out are.

The media like the supreme court is a lagging indicator of public opinion. The media like the court changes over time but the views of the individual people in the media do not change. It takes new blood to change the media as it does the courts.

Back to the court example, Ruth Bader Ginsburg is never going to be conservative.. but the person who replaces her on the court is very likely to be a lot more conservative than Ruth.

It is a confusing concept.. but true. The media changes with public views. The individual people in the media do not change... they get replaced.

The elected officials help change the media. During the years when the house and senate were always in Democrat hands, they tended to feed the important stories to liberal reporters. Now that the right has the house and senate they tend to feed the important stories to conservative reporters.

Over time it occurs to the media bosses that if they don't want their reporters to break a few of the big congressional stories, they will have to hire some conservative reporters. When those conservative reporters start getting 65 percent of the bylines, and stand-uppers they will have changed the media.

THe most glaring example is the father son jouralists names Mike and Chris Wallace. Mike climbed to the top during the liberal media era. Chris just jumped from ABC to FOX becuase he can see the handwriting on the wall. When Mike has retired, and Chris has become a major star at Fox, the media will have changed, but the political orientation of Mike Wallace will not have changed.

But it takes decades to change the media. It took the Democrats 30 years to change the media from right to left. It will take years to move it back.

[FrankR]

Doesn't it go something like this..."Government of the people, for the people, and by the people..."?

There are too many who THINK it says:

"Government of the PERSON, for the PERSON, and by the PERSON".

Well, I may have gotten the "of", "by" and "fors" in the wrong order, but the point is - as pointed out in earlier posts, the government (and the President) has about 250 million people to satisfy...well that is a daunting task for anyone...America being the nation that celebrates "diversity", pleasing all of the people is virtually impossible. No President has pleased ALL of the people.

What we are hearing throughout the liberal and journalistic world is the dying throes of the democRATic party. They see their power fizzling away with the bubbles in their champagne left over from clinton's last inaugral party, and it's bugging them. They're walking in circles, chattering to themselves and sounding like chain saws...alternately revving up, and then sputtering.

You can rest assured that the liberal press [oxymoron alert] is going to point out each and every thing that Bush says, does...and what they perceive, thinks over the coming months. They will make an entire article out of every noun and verb uttered by the President. They will try to incite every minority group they can think up, turn the internationalists against the isolationists, Jews against Christians, and rock fans against classical fans...and last but not least...start a turf war between SUV owners and Ugo drivers.

When you come right down to it, that's about all the press really does these days...try to pit group-A against group-B...and presto, INSTANT NEWS. "Man bites dog" is no longer good enough for the journalistic juggernauts...no, they want blood, and if they don't see any, they antagonize until they DO see some.

One of America's happiest days will be the day that Dan Rather retires. His nightly sneer and promotion of his liberal agenda is quite sickening. I forbid him to be seen on my television...in fact, except for recording my wife's soap opera everyday, my TV never sees the three major networks at all...nothing there resembling entertainment.

Rant off