Posted on 03/28/2002 8:04:49 AM PST by sheltonmac
Rather than crash the pro-Bush orgy threads, I thought I would honor the requests of the "we must support the president at all costs" crowd and let them bask in their Republican utopia in ignorant bliss. Consider this a thread that seeks actual debate and discussion concerning the "accomplishments" of our current president. Feel free to voice your support or opposition to the president's policies. After all, dissension, even among conservatives, can be healthy.
This thread is in response to the blatant display of sheer ignorance on the part of some FReepers. There have been several threads initiated lately that have included some rather disturbing posts. Without naming names, I would like to share some of those with you:
"I guess when you want to get MEANINGFUL CFR you avoid the obvious veto bait and keep the issue out of the dem's hands, so that hopefully you can get a Senate elected and some JUDGES appointed.This person supports the president so much that he or she is willing to overlook the clear unconstitutionality of the Incumbent Protection Act. The president ignored his oath of office and deliberately signed an unconstitutional piece of legislation as part of some well-concealed strategy? Please.I guess when you are running a WAR you don't have time for this stuff that is nothing more than petty political junk. Instead, you get the bill where the SC can decide it."
"If you're 'proud he's your President' why don't you try supporting him instead of bashing him.Translation: President Bush is smarter than his critics. We should trust him without so much as a whimper of criticism regarding any unconstitutional legislation he may force down our throats. He hasn't betrayed anyone but the American people, so back off.He's smarter than you are. He knows what he's doing.
And he hasn't betrayed anyone."
"There are many of us who have chosen to STILL support the President even though we may disagree with some of the things he's done. Where is the reality in expecting the President to agree with you on absolutely everything he does? It's nowhere. Because that reality does not exist no matter how hard we try to convince ourselves that it does.Perhaps the "one issue" that dismays so many people is the fact that the president we are expected to support has violated the very solemn oath he swore to keep, that being his promise to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. Say what you want about Clinton. Play the "What if Gore were elected" game if you want. That was then, this is now. We have a president in office who essentially told America, "This law may be unconstitutional but I'm signing it anyway."But consider this. Think back two years ago... and now think of what the alternative could have been. Cripe, even Rosie O'Donnell admits she didn't like GWB, but even she supports him now. I am simply amazed that it takes one issue, one issue, to dismay so many people."
Has anyone read the statement on FreeRepublic's main page? It reads as follows:
Free Republic is an online gathering place for independent, grass-roots conservatism on the web. We're working to roll back decades of governmental largesse, to root out political fraud and corruption, and to champion causes which further conservatism in America.I always thought standing for smaller government meant just that, whether that means criticizing a Democrat or Republican administration. We need to ask ourselves one question: are we for smaller government and more freedom? If the answer is "Yes," then act accordingly. Let's not fall into the trap that says we must support the liberal policies of a president at all costs simply because he's not as liberal as a Democrat.
Oh, that's easy. Should CFR be vetoed, the press would complain and King George might not be re-elected. And the risk that King George might not keep his job far outweighs the risk of irreparable harm to the 1st Amendment.
Get it?
Neither has the 2nd but people still feel the need to defend it in it's entirety.
I agree that banning advocacy group ads in the 60 days before election should be held to violate the First Amendment. But I've never tried to buy one of those ads and most likely never will.
I have spent money on some of the issue ads. With the NRA specifically. And just because you have never spent money on these ads means that I shouldn't be able to?
The fact is the First Amendment has been violated for 30 years by the $1,000 donation limit, which this bill doubles. That's where my money goes - to candidates. MY First Amendment speech has been increased, not restricted. People should quit hyperventilating over this.
Just because the 1st has been violated for years is no reason to kick it around some more. See 2nd ammendment fight again for hypocrisy here.
Here is the bottom line. If I don't support a candidate with money I am no longer allowed to speak out in the 60/30 time frame. That is it. End of story. If I don't want to support the RINO or RAT in my district I have no voice in the election process. That is not right. And Bush knows it. He knows it and signed anyway.
I don't understand how you can defend your position honestly when you actually agree that the bill is unConstitutional (in bold above)
EBUCK
Incidentally, the pleading, begging way you presented that sounds an awful lot like Jim Taggart of Atlas Shrugged fame. Just an observation.
Hmmmmm principle over Party. Like the practice that elected Maria Cantwell ?
Congratulations.
I wholeheartedly concur with what you are saying. I don't know about the history of these forums or the kinds of differences between conservatives that have arisen herein, but I do know that criticizing our President is certainly nothing to be ashamed of and, furthermore, is our moral and constitutional responsibility, when the necessary.
Regarding CFR specifically, I certainly understand that politics is often "the art of compromise" and that no one gets everything he or she wants. President Bush, particularly with a hostile-controlled Senate, is limited in the size and scope of measures he can enact. However, signing the CFR was a breach of his oath of office. The constitutionality of legislation, naturally, is the exclusive purview of the Supreme Court. Particularly in view of the last half century or more, if we cannot expect the Supreme Court to adhere to a strict interpretation of the Constitution, how are we to expect our national executives and legislatures to do so?
Signing CFR was a bad move. I fail to understand the constant move of Republican leadership towards the left. Ostensibly, this is for political gains (which are never realized). From a practical standpoint, these manuevers only succeed in alienating the conservative base which is the foundation of Republican electoral success. Anyone remember the left-moving "conservatives" who lost the '98 election because their supporters stayed home? (A' la Alfonse D'Amato?)
Moving towards the center neither secures votes from liberals nor secures votes from moderates and it only succeeds in angering conservatives, from which our President owes all his electoral victories.
Perhaps it is Bush's inexperience in Washington these past seven years, or maybe it's his wealth of experience in Texas politics that makes him expect the tariff issue, CFR, increased education bureaucracy, etc. to win popular support from the enemy camp.
Who knows? All I know is that it doesn't work.
If conservatives in the Republican Party hope to court women, hispanics, blacks, Jews, blue collar workers, etc. then they must do it by adhering to their own - conservative - beliefs. How can we expect people to distinguish between conservatives and those we claim to oppose when we endorse their policies. EVEN if it's for the sake of political expendiency.
In the long run, these poorly contrived tactics and political power games fail the President as well as his supporters.
After the President's initial success with the tax cut, we really haven't seen any major conservative initiatives signed into law by the President, have we? And those tax cuts are (a) smaller than most conservatives wanted, (b) smaller than the President asked for, (c) back-loaded so they will only take effect towards the end of the decade, and (d) time-limited so that after 2011, the tax code returns to its pre-2001 form.
Could it be that Bush is only a "great" president when we compare him to his predecessor? Could it be that Bush is only a "conservative" when we compare him to his father? Or are they more alike than they realize?
Bush signing CFR really makes me wonder. You can't argue that this was smart politically because the smart thing to do, if you want to remove the issue, is to tackle Campaign Finance (and through in Electoral) Reform from a conservative point of view. Why not come up with a counter-proposal? One that protects our rights to participate in the political process, to be heard - both vocally and through our wallets? Why not initiate legislation designed to bring the kinds of conservative reforms campaign finance needs? That would remove the issue from the Democrats and McCain (who isn't nearly the threat to the President's 2004 run that some of you apparently feel he is.) No...Bush didn't even try to derail the legislation, as is often done, by adding things to it that would make it too unreasonable, as a whole, to pass. Congress does that all the time to kill a bill that otherwise would go through.
Don't get me wrong...I support our President - as our President. But I don't blindly endorse him, nor do I bite my tongue when I feel he needs to be reprimanded, held back and reminded who got him elected and what he's there to do.
The further into the Bush administration we get, the more I begin to wonder. Is "Dubya" a true conservative who moves left to court votes? Or is he something worse and he only moves towards conservatives when he thinks he needs our support?
"If you set your goals low enough, you are bound to achieve them"---Walter Payton
Labeling everyone that criticizes the President as a Bush-basher is the tactic of a weak mind.
You respond to a poster who rightly suggests that this legislation outlaws speech, by suggesting that it only "curtails" speech.
How does it "curtail" that speech?
BY MAKING IT AGAINST THE LAW!!
You can pretend that this law is somehow less offensive by using words like "curtail" instead of "outlaw", but you do so at risk to your credibility.
The use of the term 'basher' to attack anyone with criticism.
Remember "Clinton Bashers"?
Proposed: When someone calls a critic a 'basher', then that someone is an obvious apologist who believes that criticism is a thing to be frowned upon.
HeHe. The bulls eye has been struk.
EBUCK
Most favored nation status, or PNTR, was signed by Clinton in 2000.
Excerpt:
"...Clinton signed into law on Tuesday a historic bill granting permanent normal trade relations to China and dispatched his top trade negotiator for urgent talks with Chinese officials in hopes of settling disputes that could hurt Beijing's entry to WTO"
First two words edited by me in order to continue my practice of not referring to Clinton in conjunction with the "P" word.
As for the rest of your list, I don't necessarily consider everything on it as bad. I disagreed with the steel tariffs, but it remains to be seen whether the president was right or whether I was.
Hmm, if the Founders had thought like that, we'd still be drinking tea and have a King.
Very well put. This country was founded on the principles of INDIVIDUAL FREEDOMS. But few seem to remember that or understand it anymore, unfortunately.
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.