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.

[colorado tanker]

I agree that Bush campaigned against the provisions in the CFR bill. I agreed with Bush then and I think this is a bad bill. The real problem here is not a constitutional crisis, but that Bush signed a bill he said he wouldn't sign and which I didn't want him to sign.

The fact is had the Pubbies not lost so many Senate seats and had Jeffords not jumped, the bill would never have hit Bush's desk.

So why'd he sign it? Because Enron made Bush and Republicans vulnerable to the charge that he would veto CFR to keep the soft money millions flowing from the oil patch. CFR does not resonate with ordinary voters but Enron does. So the political calculus changed from last year and Bush signed the bill to keep the House from going Dem and give the Pubbies a chance at retaking the Senate. Bush figures taking such a serious political hit on CFR isn't worth it if the SCOTUS is likely to throw out the bad part anyway.

If you want to blame somebody, blame Lay, Skilling and Fastow for their greed in deciding to take a boring gas company and convert it into a commodity speculation scheme that went bad, which they covered up with securities fraud. And for which, perversely, Arthur Andersen will be destroyed while Enron lives on in Chapter 11. Blame the law of unintended consequences.

[colorado tanker]

Thanks for the post. I agree. The S.G. will defend a law if a defense can "reasonably be made" even if he has personal reservations about that law - and none of that violates anybody's oath.

[Draakan]

Hey Ya'll! Check out this website for all the Bush Bashin!

www.tylwythteg.com/enemies/slick1.html

[Texasforever]

This could lead to a very interesting case. You could have 3 former Solicitors General arguing 3 different cases. From McCain who has retained Seth Waxman to argue the entire bill is constitutional to Ken Starr also a former SG arguing that the entire bill is unconstitutional to Ted Olson only defending those parts of the bill he has determined are constitutional.

[BluesDuke]

The argument that will go with it, will be, we should be conducting the peoples business, not chasing this crap. Several senators led by Lott, have already advanced this argument, about Energy and Spending bills not being passed while CFR was Done.

As if Trent Lost should be taken all that seriously anymore!

P.S. I, too, believe the President shirked his duty to the Constitution by failing to veto CFR. (It does not suggest any preference for an imperial or even monarchical Presidency to say that the implicit mandate in their oaths of office binds Congress against writing unconstitutional legislation or, failing thus, the President against signing unconstitutional legislation into law.)

John McVain can now (I've said this before on other threads but it is worth repeating and emphasising) play Pepsi to Mr. Bush's Coca-Cola and crow, The other guy just blinked!

[tpaine]

They can never answer the question of a president enforcing laws signed by previous administrations. If their definition of the "oath" is as they define it, a president that enforces the Brady Bill, the voting rights act and a host of bills that Republican Presidents have never failed to enforce but are on record as saying they are unconstitutional, then by their own definition they are also "traitors" including Ronal Reagan.

Texas hype. - Jackson was unchallenged in his refusal to obey a USSC order on removing the cherokee. -- And if Bush Sr. would have flat out refused to enforce Brady on constitutional grounds, -- he could have been a winner. -- Like father, like son. -- This Bush has lost his chance too.

[colorado tanker]

OK, so now you're arguing the absolutist position on the First Amendment. Any restriction on campaign contributions is unconsitutional. So, Congress violated their oaths by passing the first restriction 30 years ago. SCOTUS violated their oaths by upholding the constitutionality of most of the restrictions. Presidents Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush have all violated their oaths either by signing or enforcing the unconstitutional restrictions.

And as for me, I don't understand the Constitution, I grovel at Bush's feet, I'm no better than the "Pervert's" defenders, I don't love the Constitution as you do and I'm not one of those who "actually love their country." And I guess you would say, since I also took the oath, that I've now violated my oath.

BTW, since you are on expert at who does and does not love this country, I assume that you too wore the uniform and took the oath.

Well, my, my, my. Your political party isn't very big, is it? And it looks like ain't gonna be many folks makin' it to your heaven once you sort out all the oath violators, etc.

P.S. Don't worry about whether strict constructionists will be appointed to the bench - once you've turned Bush out of the White House and given the Dems a solid Senate majority, it won't be an issue.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Like beauty, I guess it depends on who's doing the looking."

There's no beauty here, just ugly.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Good post.

[Texasforever]

Texas hype. - Jackson was unchallenged in his refusal to obey a USSC order on removing the cherokee. -- And if Bush Sr. would have flat out refused to enforce Brady on constitutional grounds, -- he could have been a winner. -- Like father, like son. -- This Bush has lost his chance too

Tpaine once again you snatch darkness from the jaws of clarity. I will try once again real slow just for you. Should All presidents, NOT JUST BUSH, have been impeached for ENFORCING not (IGNORING as your lame attempt to change the subject attempted), laws they consider unconstitutional.

[colorado tanker]

I think my money goes on Ted Olson. Anybody who could "steal an election" (this is sarcasm folks) ought to be able to win a little old issue like CFR.

[colorado tanker]

Gee, thanks. I don't know what to say. I've been sweating in this asbestos jumpsuit for hours with all the flaming going on.

[Texasforever]

P.S. Don't worry about whether strict constructionists will be appointed to the bench - once you've turned Bush out of the White House and given the Dems a solid Senate majority, it won't be an issue.

Yep, if they liked the Warren court they are really gonna like Ginsberg court.

[Rowdee]

Oh, dear....are your lil' ol feelin's hurt?

Try reading the Constitution and reading the Federalist Papers at the same time....it makes it quite clear that what these sumabeaches are doing now, and have been doing for ages, is unconstitutional.....the Founders provided a method for to change the Constitution--and all these bastards are too spineless to stand up and use it!!!!

Hell yes, they were all unconstitutional!!! And had the citizens of this country followed the admonishments of the Founding Fathers that eternal viligance is the price of freedom, the form of government is a republic if we can keep it, giving up an ounce of freedom for an ounce of security indicates the undeservedness of having either.....I daresay we wouldn't be in the socialist state we are in....and yes, we are in a socialist state.

[colorado tanker]

The Ginsberg Court." AARRRRGGGGHHHHH!!!! Is it too late to join the Penitentes for Good Friday?

[Rowdee]

What party are you referring to? I belong to NO party....I do not put party over country as you and so many others do. I vote for the person I believe most closely adheres to the Constitution, who isn't known to lie, has constant principles, etc., and closely resembles my thoughts on policies or issues.

[tpaine]

How weird, --- at #601, you admit that bush did exactly as we have charged. - Thank you, --- end of 'discussion'.

I served '55/'58 with the 503/502 infantry regiments, 11th Airborne Div.

[Texasforever]

Try reading the Constitution and reading the Federalist Papers at the same time

It seems to me that Colorado has not only read it, but understands it. I realize that getting your constitutional knowledge from a Denny's place mat makes you think you are in line for honorary Founder but Colorado has wiped the floor with all comers with fact, reason, logic and a civility that you do not deserve.

[colorado tanker]

My lil' ol' feelings hurt? Not at all. My guy's in the White House and he's makin' all the right moves to stay there a good long time. My guys have a majority of the Supremes. My guys control the House. And my guys are gettin' ready to take back the Senate.

And your guy don't need to book no tickets for Washington in this lifetime.