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.
I know the Senate was since it passed with 60 votes!
Should we..?
Let's take a look at the list of GOP legislative "accomplishments", from back when they had a majority in BOTH houses of congress.... shall we?
"Emergency spending" on a $500,000 merry-go-round.
"Emergency spending" on a $1.5 million dollar "soul music" museum.
"Know your customer" legislation requiring banks to report cash transactions to the feds.
work-around National ID Cards
Expanded (no warrant) wiretap authority for FBI
A national database for “employed people”
Asset seizure for Americans who establish foreign citizenship
The power to declare ANY group as “terrorist” without possibility of appeal (and subsequent monitoring of said groups)
Authorization of “secret trials” for “terrorists”
A national medical database with federal access
100 pages of new “health care crimes” and authorization of asset seizure for said crimes
Funding for the war in Kosovo without Constitutional authority
Continued funding for troops in Bosnia without Constitutional authority
Renewed funding for the NEA
Renewed funding for the NEH
Legislation harassing tobacco companies
Tobacco subsidies
Sugar subsidies
Ethanol subsidies
Agriculture subsidies
The largest Pork legislation in the history of the republic (highways)
IRS reform voted down
IMF bailout with taxpayer money
Russian bailout with taxpayer money
Forgiveness of debt of Billions in third world loans
Expanded federal involvement in education
Sham investigation of China money
Sham investigation of Waco
Restriction of Executive orders voted down
Mandatory restrictions on firearms transactions
Banning of high-capacity magazines
I think JR agrees with the originator of this thread. I think he is dang mad at Bush and doesn't mind saying so. He feels betrayed. I think he also doesn't want to desert the only thing we've got going, and that is Bush. So I think he would say "proceed with caution" on supporting Bush. (I am guessing, well see)
If we are silent when he betrays us then it will be just that much easier for him to do it again. I have changed my mind about Bush's chararcter. I trusted him before. He lost that, deservedly. But I will do what I have to do and look at the big picture. If a better option comes along you can bet I'll take it. I am on the lookout. Until then.... I'll keep yelling, but I also remember who the BIGGER enemy is..
Let me ask you who was more conservative Reagan, or GW's daddy? Who won re-election in a land slide? "Principals" are not only good to have because they are "morally" right. They can also help win elections.
Who would you rather vote for, someone of "principal", or someone who takes a poll every time he's asked to make a decision. Dems may be able to operate by polling but conservatives are generally disgusted by such men.
I am afraid GW learned nothing from his fathers defeat and is doomed to repeat it.
Did you read my 473, or have you gone off the deep end now that you think I'm a libertarian?
In further to what you addressed regarding signing the bill and even constitutionality....not long ago I read a copy of the letter that President Madison used to send a bill back to the legislature. He based his veto on it being unconstitutional. If I recall correctly, the bill had to do with infrastructure--roads or canals.
Let's see, post #377... post #377.... [four clicks and five page-downs later]...
To: Sandy
Rationalization in the defense of winning liberty is no vice.
377 posted on 3/28/02 12:20 PM Pacific by Jim Robinson [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 373 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
Uh, are you sure you were referencing the right post number? Maybe you could run your little rebuttal by me again.
My point (which I'll restate for your benefit) was that a few quotes of Bush-defenders do not build a good case, or even imply in any way, that FR Is No Longer A Good Place For Grass-Roots Conservatism. One thing is barely even related do the other.
Do you disagree with this? If so, why? And if so, what does post #377 have to do with anything?
Get over it & move on.
I was over it from the get-go and I'll move on you can rest assured (thanks for the concern), but now I admit I'm a little puzzled and scratching my head over just what you thought you were communicating to me by your post to me.
Post #476.
BIG assumption apparently.
EBUCK
Usses guys are empty, huh? I'll give that the consideration it deserves.
It does lighten my heart to see the President and Congress held responsible to apply their understanding of the Constitution in their consideration of legislation. Though the Courts have earned the right to have the final say, it brings disrepute on the other Branches when they abrogate their own responsibility.
Yet Bush, and this Congress, is not the first to do so.
The most recent example, like the CFR, was the Balanced Budget Act- which was probably supported by most of us here despite it's evident unconstitutionality. The parts of the CFR allowing for it's quick review by Pro Bono lawyers was taken from the original language of that bill.
I too thought the 30 and 60 day limits were egregiously unconstituional enough that he should have sent the bill back with a demand just to remove that portion.
Obviosly, only political concerns made him decide to just sign it.
It is a good thing the Founders put so many checks and protections in the Constitution- we've sure shown we need every one of them.
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.