Who says George W. Bush has done "nothing" for conservatives?

WhiteHouse.gov; various news sources ^ | 1/27/04

[George W. Bush]

LOL .. remember .. we have John Ascroft in our back pocket

I fully support the efforts of those FReepers who are determined to be the new majority at DU this year.

Oopsie, maybe I shouldn't have typed that on an open forum...

[The Old Hoosier]

Oh, no. For me it's Bush or no-one. But the President depresses conservatives at his own peril.

[woodyinscc]

If so, what is your argument for wanting Ossama to be dead?

Again your naivete is apparent.!

Arafat would be a victim, even in the eyes of most of the U.N. The death of OBL would send a message to all who would be terrorist's. Besides I think he is already dead.

[afraidfortherepublic]

Imagine how horrible it would be to have Kerry, Dean, or Edwards making the Supreme Court nominations...

It would take 50 years for America to recover.

If we do recover. I think this election is so important to the future of our country. I can't imagine what it would be like for another Dem in the WH, ruling by Executive Order and appointing liberals with agendas to all of the courts. I look at the field running on the Dem ticket and I shudder. It is not certain that this great country would survive another Clinton. After all Rome fell to the Barbarians after 400, or so, years. The Dems could finish us off in another 4.

[Capt. Jake]

Well put. Notwithstanding the obvious fact that W. is far more conservative than G.H.W., you still have folks willing to risk another 1992 because they worship at the alter of the perfect, ignoring the good and the possible. Do any of them really contend we as a country were better off with 8 years of the Clintons rather than a second Bush term?

[The Old Hoosier]

You have been seduced by the power of the one ring.

Big government is not the solution to any of our social ills, including widespread divorce. Although it is tempting when you are in control, big government CANNOT be used to advance the cause of good.

The ring must be destroyed, for the good of all.

[prairiebreeze]

Fortunately I'm able to disagree with some of the Presidents policies or proposals and still recognize that he's the hands-down best choice for America. It's a matter of remembering the 90% AGREEMENT rate I have with him.

Prairie

[FirstPrinciple]

And what is the difference between OBL and Arafat? Arafat has killed more. Instead of patronizing me, maybe you can work on your moral double standard.

[b9]

this ends our discussion about it.

Only according to you.

The name you claim
will only defame
yourself.

[kitkat]

***If the President doesn't campaign for you or if he directs the party to shut off election money, then your career in Congress is over.***

You're mistaken. The President can't just shut out a member of Congress without making sure there is a Republic replacement for him who is certain to win in the next election. And nobody can do that. The President needs Republicans in both houses to help pass his bills.

***He is asking Congress to play goalie for him so he could have an easy ride through 2004.***

Give me the name of any president who hasn't wanted his people to help him get re-elected.

[prairiebreeze]

Coming a big unglued here aren't you pal?

Prairie

[Kaslin]

Considering that the Bush administration has been in office just three short years — and that they had the devastating 9/11/01 attacks and anthrax attacks occur just 7 1/2 months after the inauguration (thanks to the foreign policy negligence of Bill Clinton) — I think the Bush record is nothing short of wonderful.

President Bush has done more for the country in the 3 years then Billy Jeff did in 8 years

[cksharks]

Facts get in the way of idiots and democommies.Which are you????????

[bluejean]

You GO girl. I agree 100 percent. Turning into carrion birds on Bush isn't going to accomplish jack sh*t. The Dems are already going at it non-stop. Who ever agrees with someone else 100 percent?? Heck, I don't even agree with MYSELF 100 percent of the time. NO one is going to do EVERYTHING exactly the way EACH ONE of us wants him/her to do it. We all play armchair quarterbacks, we all are chock full of suggestions and opinions. But if we divide up against our president, and let the Dems have the remains, we WILL have a socialist/dictator wanna-be demoncrat in the White House, and you can kiss a whole lot of things you take for granted good bye. It's time to unite. The dems are like rabid dogs, and if we let them take over, we'll have no one to blame but ourselves.

[prairiebreeze]

Any bills that finally develop on the immigration issue will be after a lengthy process in Congress. The President starts with proposing quite a lot, knowing that the actual bill presented to him will very likely be watered down and a lot different.

The same with budget proposals.

Prairie

[Bikers4Bush]

Do date one of the few reasonable responses I've seen.

I disagree that anyone considering staying home or going third patry is supporting the rats. All we keep hearing about is how Bush will probably have a win as large as Reagan so in light of all these claims why is it considered sush heresy to disagree with certain policies and be vocal about it?

[Mo1]

Oh well .. what's done is done

[EllaMinnow]

Here's the link to the Wesley Clark infiltration thread. Enjoy.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1057196/posts

[FirstPrinciple]

The President can't just shut out a member of Congress without making sure there is a Republic replacement for him who is certain to win in the next election.

Explains why the White House is shutting down a conservative in PA and supporting a bona-fide RINO, Arlen Specter. Watch it. Every single Republican who is voting against Bush's big govt proposals will have a price to pay.

Give me the name of any president who hasn't wanted his people to help him get re-elected.

Oh, I thought Bush was a deliberative President who doesn't make political decisions on important issues. It is his duty to veto measures which he thinks are unconstitutional and against his ethical judgements to enforce. When he willingly signs every dumb legislation to come out of Congress, he is a willing accomplice. Otherwise, he wouldn't make them into laws. What he is saying to Congress is that he is too weak to say no because someone somewhere may not like it and that will affect his chances in 2004.

[afraidfortherepublic]

...forgot to mention the dramatic increase in domestic spending

Did your high school happen to teach US government? Congress controls all spending, and until we have a majority that prevents a veto over-ride the President can do nothing about it.