Have a nice day!
Notice that Jim & John have chosen now as the time to fragment FR into multiple forums, to Balkanize FR into special interest areas, effectively cutting out the huge number of very diverse eyes which, in a single forum, would have looked at and commented on almost every thread...
First the fragmented threads made it likely that most people wouldn't read entire threads -- only activists would start at the beginning and work their way forward. This reduced the overall audience and participation in what HAD BEEN the normal exchange of ideas and views around here.
Second the fragmented forums FURTHER reduce the diversity and number of people checking out the overall flow of threads...
Free Republic IS NOT what it was a year ago. Perhaps it will grow into something equally fun and dynamic. Perhaps it has been improved to death.
Either way, it is unfortunate (!?) that when the ideas and views of the widest range of conservatives would be most interesting on the activities of our "republican" president, that the double deconstruction (first threads, then the forum itself) of Free Republic makes it very unlikely that we will have that kind of scrutiny here. Too bad.
(And, for tin foil types, it will be fun to speculate about the timing of the "new" FR coinciding with the general, wide-spread recognition that Bush isn't anything like what we'd hoped he'd be...)
Mark W.
The intemperate rhetoric has been on both sides.
My anger at where I pecieve the Administration is bound on Illegal Immigrants is based as much on my perceptions of where they are going, as well as what they have done by political manuevors. While I expect my anger to be justified, only the proof of final actions and results will make it turn to outright opposition.
There are those that are impatient to get to such a point.
Finally, as you point out this site is for "grass roots" conservatism and as such should have free ranging discussion. But it is also for promotion of conservatism in the long run and JR appears to be asking us occasionally not to make it a repository of overblown anti-republican rhetoric as a converted, Constitution Defending, Republican Party is still a possibility to many here and elsewhere. As such, I think the Bush-is-a-traitor crowd is just as off base as the Bush-babbies. Either side can make there positions without the hyperbole and perhaps communicate rather than just offend.
Thanks for the well composed vanity.
But because a Repub did it, suddenly its OK to wipe your feet on the Constitution and break your oath to God! President Bush has made a grave error and he has been doing that alot lately. I may not have a dog in the hunt come election time, maybe I'll vote to stay home instead.
While signing unconstitutional bills, you alienate your conservative base as is evidenced here by the number of people posting angry messages about how our president is no conservative.
The only strategy involved is doing whatever it takes to be re-elected. CFR is only one of the more blatant examples where both the r's and d's in power ignore the Constitution. For some reason, CFR has registered on the radar of party sycophants.
The fact that the r/d leadership realize that they are rewarded with the votes and excuses of the true believers for their shredding of the Constitution guarantees it will continue to happen.
regards
J.R.
I am hoping he will respond to his base, and limit this leftward movement, and return to Constitutional integrity; either by reversing his stance, of promoting his own initiative for reform of "CFR reform" to eliminate unconstitutional aspects of that legislation. This would happen after November 2002, when Republicans control both houses of Congress once again. I am hoping for this and much more.
But, if he chooses to ignore his base, he will have ignored a most important lesson from the past. He will have violated a cardinal rule of politics, and will lose the next election... whether I support him or not.
However, I will not join the "It's the end of the world" crowd who threaten to defect to the Libertarians or the America First Party or the Know-Nothings when Bush fails whatever the ideological purity test is fashionable this week. He's an elected official. He will never be ideologically pure. Reagan wasn't.
I find it irritating that Bush isn't as perfect as I am, but I'm going to live with the irritation because I firmly believe that every protest vote in the last election served to undermine the eventual victory Bush won. It's undermining his presidency today -- just take a look at what the Democrats are doing to his judicial nominations. And if Al Gore were in charge of the country right now, I'm sure we'd all be discussing just how many square miles of the United States would be enough to appease Osama. I don't want to run that risk in '04, either.
GWB took a solemn oath to protect the constitution and he knowingly, deliberatly and willinging violated that oath when he signed the CFR into law.
Please tell me how I can trust this man in the future, his oath means nothing, so how can I tell when he is lying or not.
Thanks, Jim
226 posted on 2/7/02 4:01 PM Pacific by Jim Robinson
Perhaps its more than one issue too.
Remember when Bush gave the ultimatium, "You are either with us or with the terrorists?" Did he mean all terrorists except the Palistinian type? Are these good terrorists? because Bush cannot seem to make up his mind whos side he is on, alternately condemning first the Palistinians, then the Israelis?
Is protecting a few thousand steel jobs worth paying 30% more for steel in the US, and seeing manufacturing jobs which use steel move out of the US to places like Mexico? Does Bush believe in free trade or not? I thought he did when I voted for him?
How does giving the most corrupt sector of government, the Dept. of Education, the largest budget increase ever help it to become more efficient and honest?
Do we want Government regulators looking over the shoulder of religious charities even more than they already do? This would have been the effect of Bush's "Faith Based Initiative".
I had hopes that I was contributing and voting for a conservative who would limit the size and power of the Federal Government. With the size of the Federal Budget Increase it is clear that GW Bush is simply another tax and spend politician. Even the tax cut, while symbolic, is so small and so delayed as to be just that, symbolic.
However, I find myself increasingly dissappointed in W's kowtowing to the democrats on EVERY Domestic issue. I was always leary of the "Compassionate" B.S. and now I am convinced that label stands for "Go along to get along."
Compassionate Conservative= I stand for NOTHING.
God Bless the Commonwealth, W, our country and most importantly- The Military!
Thanks, Jim
226 posted on 2/7/02 4:01 PM Pacific by Jim Robinson
------------------------------------
[Whoops, I forgot the footnote]
Fresno, -- calling Fresno, -- We have a problem Fresno, -----
While it's good to discuss our differences and vent our frustrations, I for one am not going to freak out and condemn GW for life just because he signed this one bill. Face it, the law will be amended, you and I know it, and he knows it. I am a realist in that I am happy to be out from under 8 years of the Sperminator and equally happy not to be led into the Muslim wars by 'Earth in the Balance'. Cut Bush some slack. Have another beer and some barbecue. You'll have plenty of time to decide if you want to tar and feather him before 2004.
Amazing.
A student of the Constitution and government might have noticed that first-past-the-post elections have resulted in a two party system. In a country this size the chances that you will have a President who agrees with you 100% on all issues is about as high as the New York Times endorsing George Bush for President. Grow up, you aren't going to win them all.
Bush called this issue on political rather than ideological grounds to take away an issue the Dems wanted to use to take over the House this fall. Shocking. I would advise you not to go near a legislative hall or sausage packing plant. Both processes are too messy for your delicate sensibilities.
Goldwater stood on his ideology in 1964 no matter how unpopular, even opposing the Civil Rights Act on Constitutional grounds. Reagan in contrast knew when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em. Both were great conservatives. Who accomplished more for the conservative cause?
Bash Bush when you think he's wrong. This is America after all. But if you drop Bush at election time in favor of some no-chance but ideologically pure third party candidate, you may just get to enjoy a President Hillary administration.
Ahem..."Smaller government"?? THAT is one of the supposed tenets of Conservatism, and that of Free Republic.
Sorry to all Bush-O-philes -- on this basis domestically, Dubya has been the complete antithesis.