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.

[tpaine]

If you ever want to win back your freedom, you must defeat the Democrats first. It would be a great day when the Democrats are defeated and the battle for liberty is narrowed to Republican vs Constitutionalist.

I disagree. FR has taught me that the real battle is for the constitution. It matters little if 'republicans' win control if neo-socialist RINOs control the party.

But, for the time being, the Constitutionalists are not even on the battlefield. They have no army to speak of. The political war in America is between the Democrats and Republicans.

Yep, and the socialists are winning because real constitutional conservatives are shut out of the republican party. We [conservatives] have to find a way to give these socialist sheepie their security, while we get back our constitutional freedoms.

That ain't gonna happen within the framework of the present day republican party. Don't kid yourself.

[conserve-it]

By the way, when would be a propitious time to "snatch" it??

[Jim Robinson]

Hah! Round and round she goes. The talk battle never ends. You do it your way and I'll do it mine. Jim out.

[Eustace]

And Free speech has been corraled on Free Republic. It appears the bigger you are the more controls you face.

But it's the best thing we have going.

VIVA FREE REPUBLIC!!!

[Polonius]

You're spot-on right. But it's not time to jump the boat yet. If conservatives don't criticize Bush harshly, we can't affect his policies. But if we say, "we're outta here" too quickly, we end up with nothing.

I agree. The best course of action is to support conservative Republicans in primaries and get more like-minded legislators in Congress. With a Republican Congress, it will be much easier to put the screws to Bush and demand that he move on things like social security reform.

[conserve-it]

"Hah! Round and round she goes. The talk battle never ends. You do it your way and I'll do it mine. Jim out."
AW C'MON....YOU DON'T HANG AROUND ENOUGH.

[EBUCK]

Any time. Remember Canadian Bacon? Looks easy don't it. The only trouble would be when we start importing and stocking NW micro-brews in place of labatts and such. Otherwise anytime would be fine.

EBUCK

[conserve-it]

Put it in escrow, heaven knows we may need it, the way things are looking now. The micro brewery sounds palatable....good cash flow too!!

[hobbes1]

Hardly. Comparing an erroneous decision, EXPANDING the constitution, to narrowing it, is poor analysis.

[tpaine]

Hey, you're too lazy to punch up & read the constitution? -- Tough.

-- The language is there [ Art. I Sec. 7 ] & the prez's DUTY is to approve or disapprove 'Every Order, Resolution or Vote'. -- Presumably, taking into account his oath to protect & defend.

BIG assumption apparently. - 493 posted by tpaine

No amount of name calling and mudslinging will substitute for the language that just isn't there.

--- And your insistence that it 'just isn't there' is a denial of reality.

The Constitution just doesn't assign the duty of review for constitutionality that SCOTUS took for itself in Marbury v. Madison. You can reason, infer, deduce and interpret all you want, that's fair ground, but don't claim express language is there when its not.

Read the constitution. -- The prez has veto power, and MUST honor his oath.

Implying that the President has violated his oath of office is an extremely serious charge that is quite frankly frivolous. From where I sit President Bush has been preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution and the United States with honor and distinction.

From where I sit he has seriously compromised his obligation to use his veto power as his oath of office demands. -- That is not a frivolous comment.

[EBUCK]

Yah, (best homer simpson voice) mmmmmmmm...micro-brewwwww.....HeHe.

think that the Canadian economy is actually supported by Beer and Whiskey. We could definately fund a small limited gubment nation that way.

EBUCK

[hobbes1]

Yes, for 30 minutes. And then been battered in theprint press for 30 Months.

Look, he is betting on 2 of three. A veto, does not kill the bill, Declarative unconstitutionality does. failing that, he is looking at WINNING in 02, and passing Judges and laws that are conservative.I know, your monniker denotes diminished mental capacities (j/k!) but try to think THROUGH the issue.

[tpaine]

Thanks for your input, JR. -- It's a lot better than the whine & cheese routine we had going.

[clintonh8r]

Exactly. Here's a news flash for the complainers. It's too late to do anything about CFR, so all this talk is just so much wind. Here's a novel idea:

If you disagree with the president, don't vote for him in 2004. If you support him and think he's done a generally good job, then vote for him. If the election were tomorrow I would vote for him, even though I've been disappointed in him on several issues including CFR. But I'm not about to throw him over the side.

[RAT Patrol]

I agree with you, but at the same time I think Bush was a traitor. I am not going to avoid saying so either. However, I will not abandon my brave Congressional Republican's who did stand up for me. If that means tolerating Bush for awhile, so be it. I will not be silent when he messes up, however. Hopefully, he will get some conservative judges on the bench as penance. He's going to have to do a lot better than he did with Pickering.

Let me add that he permanently damaged his reputation with me. I know longer give him the benefit of the doubt. Suspicion has been born.

[colorado tanker]

Still can't find the quote for that non-existent language, eh?

Let me get this straight. The Constitution requires a President to veto legislation that Congress has found constitutional and that SCOTUS has not reviewed, if he thinks it should be held unconstitutional, and if he doesn't veto the bill he has violated his oath of office. Let me guess; you don't have a citation to a SCOTUS case for that doozy either.

[RAT Patrol]

. But I'm not about to throw him over the side.

I would love to throw him over the side. I'm just not going to throw the baby out with the bath water, as "they" say. I can be as calculating as he was. We can all play a little chess with our loyalties. Fight fire with fire.