FreeRepublic: A place for "grass-roots conservatism on the web" or not?

Me

[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.

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."

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.

"If you're 'proud he's your President' why don't you try supporting him instead of bashing him.

He's smarter than you are. He knows what he's doing.

And he hasn't betrayed anyone."

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.

"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.

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."

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."

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.

[Protagoras]

Well, if you can't escape tyranny in the middle of Texas or Alaska, then it is all over. :(

I reckon.

[Dr. Frank fan]

Pretty popular for such an unreasonable thread.

Indeed. There is also "Am I logged on?" and some thread involving the word "cheese" and various "I'm leaving FR forever!" threads, if that type of thing tickles your fancy.

I certainly hope you didn't mean to imply that the popularity of a thread correlates with its logical content.

[EBUCK]

I just want to be left alone by thugs of any (or no) political bent. In fact I insist upon it.

That's pretty much what everyone wants. But more than a few here would be fine if you or I were constantly harrased so long as it didn't effect them personally.

EBUCK

[colorado tanker]

Dear appalled: Please quote the section of the Constitution verbatim that provides for executive branch review of congressional legislation for constitutionality. Signed, ignorant.

P.S. You might actually want to read Marbury v. Madison before you reply.

[Protagoras]

Every President has signed unconstitutional legislation.

Not legislation that states clearly that your protections under the first amendment are to be canceled.

[Sloth]

So why don't we just name them ASP One and ASP two?

Fine, as long as neither are named 'Democrat', because that name is what we have to keep out of office, policies be damned.

[RAT Patrol]

Ya don't see many "classical liberals" around these days. If Bernard Golderg is a good example then I don't mind them either. I disagree with him on many political issues but I respect him as a person more than I do W right now. Does that mean I'd vote for him instead of W? Welll....I want somebody who represents my political views in word AND deed. I'm greedy I guess. W has been doing a really lousy job with the "deed" part. Come to think of it, he could speak up a lot more too. He is too evasive. Too much gamesmanship. Reminds me of the Stainmaker without the morality problems.

The truth is, if all the Bush babes get him there, and I have no better options, I'll still vote for him. Queen Hillary is my biggest nightmare. Or Dasshole, or Gephardt, or or or....

I will never forgive Bush for lying to me. I would have NEVER sent him $500 if he had not said he would veto CFR. But I can see the big picture too. I'll still call him names. He's earned it. But I'll do what I have to to keep the evil ones out.

[harrowup]

... read Marbury v. Madison before you reply.

Andy Griffith and Ron Howard and Aunt B were in the Peoples Republic of Madison? I am shocked.

[summer]

This is just a minor observation, and not a comment intended to provoke anyone. I would like to tell you how I see GW's actions, speaking as an independent / swing voter.

Most of my life I have heard two things: (1) everyone in the GOP hates anything to do with public education, and (2) everyone in the GOP is owned by big business.

I did not vote for any GOP candidate while listening to this.

I realize the above are generalizations, but I am simply saying this is the mantra repeated over and over by the opposition to the GOP.

In light of how close the election was in Nov 2000, I think GW has to consider many angles that may not be on the minds of some people here.

IMO, By GW signing the education bill and this CFR bill, he makes it more difficult for the opposition to make the above accusations, because most voters do not have a grasp of all the nuances of these issues. They only hear: a GOP president may NOT hate public education, and a GOP president may be willing to reform CF.

Consequently, I actually think it is possible -- possible -- for GW to have picked up votes from those voters outside the GOP, as a result of the above two actions.

Again, this is not intended to provoke anyone, or to pass judgment in any way on GW or any person here.

I am merely saying something from the view where I see things, and I realize that view may not be the view of the majority of voters, or the majority of this forum, or of GW's political party, but, I am just putting it on the table. That's all. Have a good day.

[EBUCK]

And, contrary to what you may have heard, the bill does not prohibit organizations from broadcasting ads about specific candidates prior to an election. However, the bill requires that ads be funded with regulated "hard dollars" which are subject to contribution limits, rather than unregulated "soft money" within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary. Senator Mitch McConnell, and others, have promised to challenge this legislation in court on constitutional grounds. The legislation provides for expedited review by the Supreme Court, which will ultimately, decide these questions.

You sound just like my rep, Oregon 4th dist. Rep. Peter Defazio-D. Not that that's always bad but I just wanted you to know where else that information is coming from.

I guess that we are going to have to agree to disagree. Cause my P-Od-O-Meter is at 9 over this. At least we do agree that this a bad piece of legislation that should be struck down by the SCOTUS. And while I still believe that both houses and the office of pres are (or at least should be) bound to stay within the limits of the current Constitution....well, I just going to leave it at that.

Cheers,

EBUCK

[RAT Patrol]

Thanks summer. It's valuable he hear a different perspective.

[Protagoras]

That's pretty much what everyone wants.

I have lots of experience that proves otherwise. On this forum you will find people who are bound and determined to use force, theirs or governments, to make you conform to thier conception of the way things ought to be. In fact, I would opine that you could find the barest minority who do not. Even some claiming the contrary.

Suffice it to say you and I are in the small group. Regards

[Malcolm]

If you consider yourself too conservative for the GOP, then you're on the fringe, no doubt whatsoever about that. I'm very conservative, but do not have a big problem with the GOP, not one such that I bellyache about it 24/7. It's not a perfect party, but there are no workable alternatives. The ones mentioned frequently on this site are Libertarians, which a knowledgeable Christian like myself cannot vote for in good conscience, since they support abortion, and legalized drugs would be a disaster, not the "Nirvana" that's shoved forward by the LP. Plus, the LP's ridiculous notion that there is no difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. Tell that to Judge Pickering who was voted on in committee. I don't know about you Libertarians, but I could definitely tell the difference there. Might have been a different outcome to that if the Libertarians would not have fielded a candidate in Washington State in the 2000 US Senate race.

And how about all the so-called "true conservatives" on this site that complain that the GOP is not conservative enough? As opposed to what? I sympathize with those comments, but to vote 3rd party (I voted for PJB until he left the Republican Party; on further reflection, I can't say that I would repeat that if I had the chance to do it all over again), is totally counter-productive, as it also is to sit out elections. I will not follow those who advocate that. IMHO, being a conservative includes being responsible, and voting 3rd party, or sitting out an election is totally at variance with that. In almost all cases, 3rd parties never win, so voting for them, and having foreknowledge of that fact, is an act of irresponsibility.

Some of you on here simply do not grasp all the facts in the current day US political system. The US is so liberal, that I am amazed that we can even get the present moderately conservative GOP elected to a majority, much less the muscular, hard-core conservative one that some of you dream about. Unless there is a gigantic shift of some sort, the conservative influence in gov't will continue to wane, and with all the Mexican immigration, this will accelerate even more rapidly. The only way that the conservative cause will triumph, because it's constantly under assault by the leftist media and their allies, is for it to be proven, and that will only be done if an elected government provides that proof. You have to elect that gov't in order to be able to overwhelm the leftist media, and it's not going to be elected while the small number of conservatives we now have are splitting their votes, sitting out elections, making shrill arguments that don't hold water but DO discourage and deceive the weak among us to just not bother to vote at all. Why should they, based on the arguments of the anti-GOP conservatives? Plus, by "dividing and conquering," the anti-GOP fringe split away more and more conservative voters from the GOP, making it even less conservative than it already is. Then the Dems win the majority of elections, and NO conservative majority is elected. (Do you REALLY prefer that a Democrat President and both houses govern us, like the first two years of the Clinton Presidency?)

But it's wasted breath here on Freep. All the "squeaky wheel" "conservatives" get on here, make their cute little anti-GOP posts, cause numbers of otherwise GOP voters to stray and then the Dems rule the roost, which the fringe declares is a "victory of principle." LOL! Yeah, WHAT principle is that? That your efforts got the Dems elected, or miracle of miracles, the LP elected, who would morph into a more liberal, non-conservative party in order to hang onto power.

You fringe dudes kick up a lot of dust, but you don't make any sense whatsoever. Any plan that does not concentrate on getting the GOP into power, and in substantial enough numbers to really run the show, is worse then that just mentioned. We ought to get the GOP into power, and keep up as much pressure on it as possible to keep knocking it back into a conservative direction again, and again, and again, as much as we can accomplish in that regard.

That will pay more conservative dividends that any anti-GOP plan posted here ever could. There is no better alternative. But then, it's far more fun to be destructive than to be productive; far more fun to complain and b---- than to be patient and focus on realistic and workable goals; far more fun to be self-righteous and declare yourself a "true conservative" while ripping those that also are, but are not your identical twin; far more fun to be intolerant and call it "principle" while millions of children are aborted each year, because you helped split the conservative vote, for some reason only understood by those who comprise the "fringe." And all of you ARE correct; since there is a 1/100 ratio of Republicans to "Fringe" who post here, I stand corrected; this surely is NOT a GOP site, or even one that is remotely sympathetic to it. It is Fringe Headquarters, whose motto is, "heck, we may eventually cause the US to be a one-party (Democrat) state, but golly, we sure do have principle!" You got something, that's for d--- sure.....

[summer]

Re your post #452 - Thank you for your polite response, because truly, this is not a debate I wish to enter. I am just trying to say there are in fact many voters not nearly as involved as FR voters, and those voters, too, have taken note of recent events, in their own way, I am certain. And, I do believe it will help GW come Nov 2004. That is my own personal opinion, not a poll result or anything like that. And that's not to say GW doesn't need to listen to his base. Thanks again.

[EBUCK]

I have lots of experience that proves otherwise<

"We'll leave you alone, once you conform to our standards". "Until then you are ours to do with as we see fit".

EBUCK

[colorado tanker]

Yes, Marbury is a beautiful little town where there are absolutely no campaign finance laws. In fact, Sheriff Andy doesn't even need to campaign because nobody wants Barney as Sheriff.

[monday]

"I certainly hope you didn't mean to imply that the popularity of a thread correlates with its logical content. "

LOL.... ok, I give up why are you here exactly? To inform us all that we are stupid for being here? hehe.. Ok, thanks, your job is done! Don't know what we would do without your superior wisdom to guide us:)

[tpaine]

Please quote the section of the Constitution verbatim that provides for executive branch review of congressional legislation for constitutionality. Signed, ignorant.

Dear iggy, - I don't do verbatims.
Read Article I, Section 7, last paragraph, - and, -- the oath of office.
Then, combine, -- and use a bit of reason.